Journal of Chemical Ecology

, Volume 30, Issue 6, pp 1117–1142 | Cite as

Monoterpenes and Epicuticular Waxes Help Female Autumn Gum Moth Differentiate Between Waxy and Glossy Eucalyptus and Leaves of Different Ages

  • Martin J. Steinbauer
  • Florian P. Schiestl
  • Noel W. Davies


The autumn gum moth, Mnesampela privata, is a native Australian species whose preferred host, Eucalyptus globulus (Myrtaceae), is an aromatic evergreen tree that has long-lived waxy leaves during the juvenile phase of growth. We compared the behavioral and antennal responses of female moths to whole leaves (new and old) and samples of foliar chemicals (from new and old leaves) from a typical E. globulus subsp. pseudoglobulus with responses to a glossy, half-sibling E. g. subsp. pseudoglobulus putative hybrid (the result of natural cross-pollination). We also studied larval survival and development on leaves from the same trees. In laboratory binary-choice assays, female M. privata laid more eggs on waxy leaves than on glossy leaves thereby confirming the nonpreference for the glossy tree that was observed in the field. Analyses of the monoterpenes and waxes of both trees revealed that they had comparable suites of monoterpenes and total oil contents but different suites of epicuticular waxes. Headspace extracts differed in the intensity of component monoterpenes. Gas chromatographic analyses with electroantennographic detection showed different patterns of monoterpene detection. Leaves of the glossy tree had a less diverse array of epicuticular waxes than those of the waxy tree. Electroantennographic screening of responses to wax extracts from leaves (new and old) from either tree revealed positive dose-dependent responses of female antennae to waxes from new leaves only. Binary-choice assays also revealed a strong preference by ovipositing females for new, compared to old, leaves whether they were from the waxy or the glossy tree. However, new leaves from either tree could be manipulated (by physical abrasion of epicuticular waxes) so that females would lay almost no eggs on them. Larval survival did not differ between groups reared on leaves from both trees (new and old). Over 70% of all larvae survived to pupation. However, larvae reared on leaves from the glossy tree took longer to pupate than those reared on leaves from the waxy tree. Also, larvae reared on new leaves from either tree did not perform as well as those reared on old leaves. Monoterpene and wax cues are suggested as helping female M. privata locate preferred hosts in native forests.

Age-related leaf traits GC-EAD EAG oviposition larval performance autumn gum moth Mnesampela privata Eucalyptus globulus monoterpenes waxes 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aide, T. M. and LondoÑo, E. C. 1989. The effects of rapid leaf expansion on the growth and survivorship of a lepidopteran herbivore. Oikos 55:66–70.Google Scholar
  2. Alonso, C. 1997. Choosing a place to grow. Importance of within-plant abiotic microenvironment for Yponomeuta mahalebella. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 83:171–180.Google Scholar
  3. Atkin, D. S. J. and Hamilton, R. J. 1982. The changes with age in the epicuticular wax of Sorghum bicolor. J. Nat. Prod. 45:697–703.Google Scholar
  4. Baker, E. A. 1974. The influence of environment on leaf wax development in Brassica oleracea var. gemmifera. New Phytol. 73:955–966.Google Scholar
  5. Baker, E. A., Bukovac, M. J., and Flore, J. A. 1979. Ontogenetic variations in the composition of peach leaf wax. Phytochemistry 18:781–784.Google Scholar
  6. Baker, E. A. and Hunt, G. M. 1981. Developmental changes in leaf epicuticular waxes in relation to foliar penetration. New Phytol. 88:731–747.Google Scholar
  7. Baker, E. A. and Procopiou, J. 1980. Effect of soil moisture status on leaf surface wax yield of some drought-resistant species. J. Hort. Sci. 55:85–87.Google Scholar
  8. Benrey, B. and Denno, R. F. 1997. The slow-growth-high-mortality hypothesis: A test using the cabbage butterfly. Ecology 78:987–999.Google Scholar
  9. Boland, D. J., Brophy, J. J., and House, A. P. N. (eds.) 1991. Eucalyptus Leaf Oils: Use, Chemistry, Distillation and Marketing. Inkata Press, Melbourne.Google Scholar
  10. Boyle, R. R., Pass, G. J., McLean, S., Brandon, S., and Davies, N. W. 2002. Application of SPME to the quantitative analysis of 1,8-cineole in blood and expired air in a Eucalyptus herbivore, the brushtail possum Trichosurus vulpecular. J. Chrom. B (Biomed. Appl.) 780:397–406.Google Scholar
  11. Coley, R. D. and Barone, J. A. 1996. Herbivory and plant defenses in tropical forests. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 27:305–335.Google Scholar
  12. Cox, D. R. 1972. Regression models and life-tables. J. Roy. Stat. Soc. B 34:187–220.Google Scholar
  13. Cunningham, S. A., Summerhayes, B., and Westoby, M. 1999. Evolutionary divergences in leaf structure and chemistry, comparing rainfall and soil nutrient gradients. Ecol. Mono. 69:569–588.Google Scholar
  14. Danks, H. V. 2002. Modification of adverse conditions by insects. Oikos 99:10–24.Google Scholar
  15. Edwards, P.B. 1982. Do waxes on juvenile Eucalyptus leaves provide protection from grazing insects? Aust. J. Ecol. 7:347–352.Google Scholar
  16. Edwards, P. B. and Wanjura, W. J. 1990. Physical attributes of eucalypt leaves and the host range of chrysomelid beetles. Symp. Biol. Hung. 39:227–236.Google Scholar
  17. Edwards, P. B., Wanjura, W. J., and Brown, W. V. 1993. Selective herbivory by Christmas beetles in response to intraspecific variation in Eucalyptus terpenoids. Oecologia 95:551–557.Google Scholar
  18. Eigenbrode, S. D. and Espelie, K. E. 1995. Effects of plant epicuticular lipids on insect herbivores. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 40:171–194.Google Scholar
  19. Hallam, N. D. and Chambers, T. C. 1970. The leaf waxes of the genus Eucalyptus L'Héritier. Aust. J. Bot. 18:335–386.Google Scholar
  20. Haukioja, E. and Neuvonen, S. 1985. The relationship between size and reproductive potential in male and female Epirrita autumnata (Lep., Geometridae). Ecol. Entomol. 10:267–270.Google Scholar
  21. Howlett, B. G., Clarke, A. R., and Madden, J. L. 2001. The influence of leaf age on the oviposition preference of Chrysophtharta bimaculata (Olivier) and the establishment of neonates. Agric. For. Entomol. 3:121–127.Google Scholar
  22. Hunter, M. D. and McNeil, J. N. 1997. Host-plant quality influences diapause and voltinism in a polyphagous insect herbivore. Ecology 78:977–986.Google Scholar
  23. Jones, T. H., Potts, B. M., Vaillancourt, R. E., and Davies, N. W. 2002. Genetic resistance of Eucalyptus globulus to autumn gum moth defoliation and the role of cuticular waxes. Can. J. For. Res. 32:1961–1969.Google Scholar
  24. Justus, K. A., Dosdall, L. M., and Mitchell, B. K. 2000. Oviposition by Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) and effects of phylloplane waxiness. J. Econ. Entomol. 93:1152–1159.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Kaplan, E. L. and Meier, P. 1958. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 53:457–481.Google Scholar
  26. Leather, S. R. 1987. Pine monoterpenes stimulate oviposition in the Pine beauty moth, Panolis flammea. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 43:295–297.Google Scholar
  27. Li, H., Madden, J. L., and Potts, B. M. 1997. Variation in leaf waxes of the Tasmanian Eucalyptus species—I. Subgenus Symphyomyrtus. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 25:631–657.Google Scholar
  28. Lucas, P. W., Turner, I. M., Dominy, N. J., and Yamashita, N. 2000. Mechanical defences to herbivory. Ann. Bot. 86:913–920.Google Scholar
  29. Lukacs, Z. 1999. Phenology of Autumn Gum Moth Mnesampela privata (Guenée) (Lepidoptera: Geometridae). Doctoral Thesis, University of Tasmania, Hobart.Google Scholar
  30. McFarland, N. 1973. Some observations on the eggs of moths and certain aspects of first instar larval behaviour. J. Res. Lepid. 12:199–208.Google Scholar
  31. McFarland, N. 1988. Portraits of South Australian Geometrid Moths. Allan Press, Lawrence, KS.Google Scholar
  32. McQuillan, P. B. 1985. A taxonomic revision of the Australian autumn gum moth genus Mnesampela Guest (Lepidoptera: Geometridae, Ennominae). Ent. Scand. 16:175–202.Google Scholar
  33. Meusel, I., Neinhuis, C., MarkstÄdter, C., and Barthlott, W. 2000. Chemical composition and recrystallization of epicuticular waxes: Coiled rodlets and tubules. Plant Biol. 2:462–470.Google Scholar
  34. Morris, B. D., Foster, S. P., and Harris, M. O. 2000. Identification of 1-octacosanal and 6-methoxy-2-benzoxazolinone from wheat as ovipositional stimulants for Hessian fly, Mayetiola destructor. J. Chem. Ecol. 26:859–873.Google Scholar
  35. Morrow, P. A. 1983. The role of sclerophyllous leaves in determining insect grazing damage, pp. 509–524, in F. J. Kruger, D. T. Mitchell, and J. U. M. Jarvis (eds.). Mediterranean-Type Ecosystems: The Role of Nutrients. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  36. MÜller, C. and Hilker, M. 2001. Host finding and oviposition behaviour in a chrysomelid specialist—The importance of host plant surface waxes. J. Chem. Ecol. 27:985–994.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Nahrung, H. F., Dunstan, P. K., and Allen, G. R. 2001. Larval gregariousness and neonate establishment of the eucalypt-feeding beetle Chrysophtharta agricola (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Paropsini). Oikos 94:358–364.Google Scholar
  38. Ohmart, C. P. 1991. Role of food quality in the population dynamics of chrysomelid beetles feeding on Eucalyptus. For. Ecol. Manage. 39:35–46.Google Scholar
  39. Ohmart, C. P. and Edwards, P. B. 1991. Insect herbivory on Eucalyptus. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 36:637–657.Google Scholar
  40. Ohmart, C. P., Thomas, J. R., and Stewart, L. G. 1987. Nitrogen, leaf toughness and the population dynamics of Paropsis atomaria Olivier (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae)—A hypothesis. J. Aust. Entomol. Soc. 26:203–207.Google Scholar
  41. Price, P. W. 2003. Macroevolutionary Theory on Macroecological Patterns. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  42. Renwick, J. A. A. 1989. Chemical ecology of oviposition in phytophagous insects. Experientia 45:223–228.Google Scholar
  43. Renwick, J. A. A. and Chew, F. S. 1994. Oviposition behaviour in Lepidoptera. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 39:377–400.Google Scholar
  44. Ross, D. W., Birgersson, G., Espelie, K. E., and Berisford, C. W. 1995. Monoterpene emissions and cuticular lipids of loblolly and slash pines—Potential bases for oviposition preference of the Nantucket pine tip moth. Can. J. Bot. 73:21–25.Google Scholar
  45. Schiestl, F. P. and Marion-Poll, F. 2002. Detection of physiologically active flower volatiles using gas chromatography coupled with electroantennography, pp. 173–198, in J. F. Jackson, H. F. Linskens, and R. Inman (eds.). Molecular Methods of Plant Analysis: Vol. 21. Analysis of Taste and Aroma. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  46. Sipura, M., Ikonen, A., Tahvanainen, J., and Roininen, H. 2002. Why does the leaf beetle Galerucella lineola F. attack wetland willows? Ecology 83:3393–3407.Google Scholar
  47. Specht, R. L. and Moll, E. J. 1983. Mediterranean-type heathlands and sclerophyllous shrublands of the world: An overview, pp. 41–65, in F. J. Kruger, D. T. Mitchell, and J. U. M. Jarvis (eds.). Mediterranean-Type Ecosystems: The Role of Nutrients. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  48. StÄdler, E. 1974. Host plant stimuli affecting oviposition behaviour of the Eastern spruce budworm. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 17:176–188.Google Scholar
  49. Steinbauer, M. J. 2001. Specific leaf weight as an indicator of juvenile leaf toughness in Tasmanian bluegum (Eucalyptus globulus ssp. globulus): Implications for insect defoliation. Aust. For. 64:32–37.Google Scholar
  50. Steinbauer, M. J. 2002. Oviposition preference and neonate performance of Mnesampela privata in relation to heterophylly in Eucalyptus dunnii and E. globulus. Agric. For. Entomol. 4:245–253.Google Scholar
  51. Steinbauer, M. J., Clarke, A. R., and Madden, J. L. 1998. Oviposition preference of a Eucalyptus herbivore and the importance of leaf age on interspecific host choice. Ecol. Entomol. 23:201–206.Google Scholar
  52. Steinbauer, M. J., McQuillan, P. B., and Young, C. J. 2001. Life history and behavioural traits of Mnesampela privata that exacerbate population responses to eucalypt plantations: Comparisons with Australian and outbreak species of forest geometrid from the northern-hemisphere. Aust. Ecol. 26:525–534.Google Scholar
  53. Strauss, S. Y. 2001. Benefits and risks of biotic exchange between Eucalyptus plantations and native Australian forests. Aust. Ecol. 26:447–457.Google Scholar
  54. Tahvanainen, J. O. and Root, R. B. 1972. The influence of vegetational diversity on the population ecology of a specialised herbivore, Phyllotreta crucifera (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Oecologia 10:321–346.Google Scholar
  55. Tammaru, T., Kaitaniemi, P., and RuohomÄki, K. 1996. Realised fecundity in Epirrita autumnata (Lepidoptera: Geometridae): Relation to body size and consequences to population dynamics. Oikos 77:407–416.Google Scholar
  56. Thomas, D. A. and Barber, H. N. 1974. Studies on leaf characteristics of a cline of Eucalyptus urnigera from Mt. Wellington, Tasmania: II. Reflection, transmission and absorption of radiation. Aust. J. Bot. 22:701–707.Google Scholar
  57. Turner, I. M. 1994. A quantitative-analysis of leaf form in woody-plants from the world's major broadleaved forest types. J. Biogeogr. 21:413–419.Google Scholar
  58. Udayagiri, S. and Mason, C. E. 1997. Epicuticular wax chemicals in Zea mays influence oviposition in Ostrinia nubilalis. J. Chem. Ecol. 23:1675–1687.Google Scholar
  59. Wardell-Johnson, G. W., Williams, J. E., Hill, K. D., and Cumming, R. 1997. Evolutionary biogeography and contemporary distribution of eucalypts, pp. 92–128, in J. E. Williams and J. C. Z. Woinarski (eds.). Eucalypt Ecology: Individuals to Ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin J. Steinbauer
    • 1
  • Florian P. Schiestl
    • 2
  • Noel W. Davies
    • 3
  1. 1.CRC for Sustainable Production Forestry and CSIRO EntomologyCanberraAustralia;
  2. 2.Department of Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of Vienna, Austria and School of Botany, and Zoology, Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia
  3. 3.Central Science LaboratoryUniversity of TasmaniaHobartAustralia

Personalised recommendations