Abstract
The closely related butterflies,Pieris rapae andP. napi oleracea, readily laid eggs onBarbarea vulgaris in greenhouse cages. When offered a choice between cabbage andB. vulgaris, P. rapae showed no preference, butP. napi oleracea preferredB. vulgaris. Bioassays of extracts ofB. vulgaris foliage revealed the presence of oviposition deterrent(s) in l-butanol extracts as well as stimulants in the postbutanol water extracts. However, the deterrent effect was apparently outweighed by the strong stimulatory effect in the whole plants. The postbutanol water extract was preferred over an equivalent cabbage extract by both species, but more significantly in the case ofP. napi oleracea. The stimulants were isolated by open column chromatography and HPLC, and the activity was associated with three glucosinolates.P. napi oleracea was more sensitive thanP. rapae to the natural concentration of compounds1 and3, whereas both species were strongly stimulated to oviposit by natural concentrations of compound2. Compounds1 and2 were identified as (2R)-glucobarbarin and (2S)-glucobarbarin, respectively, and3 was identified as glucobrassicin, on the basis of their UV, mass, and NMR spectra. When the pure compounds were tested at the same concentrations applied to bean plants, the (2R)-glucobarbarin at 0.2 mg/plant was preferred over a standard cabbage extract by both butterfly species. However, at a dose of 0.02 mg/plant,P. rapae preferred the cabbage extract whereasP. napi oleracea still preferred the (2R)-glucobarbarin. No such difference in response of the two species to the same two concentrations of (2S)-glucobarbarin was obtained. The results indicate a distinct difference in sensitivity of these butterflies to the epimers of glucobarbarin, and the differences in behavioral responses of the two butterfly species depend to a large extent on the concentration of stimulant present.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Chew, F.S., 1977a. Coevolution of pierid butterflies and their cruciferous foodplants. II. The distribution of eggs on potential foodplants.Evolution 31:568–579.
Chew, F.S. 1977b. The effects of introduced mustards (Cruciferae) on some native north American cabbage butterflies (Lepidoptera: Pieridae).J. Xerces Soc. 5:13–19.
Costello, C.E. 1990. Mass spectra of matrix materials.Methods Enzymol. 193:876.
Daxenbichler, M.E., Spencer, G.F., Carlson, D.G., Rose, G.B., Brinker, A.M., andPowell, R.G. 1991. Glucosinolate composition of seeds from 297 species of wild plants.Phytochemistry 30:2623–2638.
Dethier, V.G. 1982. Mechanisms of host-plant recognition.Entomol. Exp. Appl. 31:49–56.
Huang, X.P., andRenwick, J.A.A. 1993. Differential selection of host plants by twoPieris species: The role of oviposition stimulants and deterrents.Entomol. Exp. Appl. 68:59–69.
Huang, X.P., andRenwick, J.A.A. 1994. Relative activities of glucosinolates as oviposition stimulants forPieris rapae andP. napi oleracea. J. Chem. Ecol. Submitted.
Huang, X.P., Renwick, J.A.A., andSachdev-Gupta, K. 1993a. A chemical basis for differential acceptance ofErysimum cheiranthoides by twoPieris species.J. Chem. Ecol. 19:195–210.
Huang, X.P., Renwick, J.A.A., andSachdev-Gupta, K. 1993b. Oviposition stimulants and deterrents regulating differential acceptance ofIberis amara byPieris rapae andP. napi oleracea.J. Chem. Ecol. 19:1645–1663.
Jensen, S.K. 1990. Biochemical and physiological investigations of the meal and syrup fractions from aqueous enzymatic rapeseed processing. PhD thesis. Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, [Copenhagen], Denmark.
Kjaer, A. 1960. Naturally derived isothiocyanates (mustard oils) and their parent glucosides.Tortschr. Chem. Org. Naturst. 18:122–176.
Kjaer, A., andGmelin, R. 1957. Isothiocyanates XXVIII. A new isothiocyanate glucoside (glucobarbarin) furnishing (-)-5-phenyl-2-oxazolidinethione upon enzymaic hydrolysis.Acta Chem. Scand. 11:906–907.
Kjaer, A., andGmelin, R. 1958. Isothiocyanates XXXIII. An isothiocyanate glucoside (glucobarbarin) ofReseda luteola L.Acta Chem. Scand. 12:1693–1694.
Miller, J.R., andStrickler, K.L. 1984. Finding and accepting host plants, pp. 127–157,in W.J. Bell and R.T. Cardé (eds.). Chemical Ecology of Insects. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
Minchinton, I., Sang, J., Burke, D., andTruscott, R.J.W. 1982. Separation of desulfoglucosinolates by reversed-phase high performance liquid chromatography.J. Chromatogr. 247:141–148.
Renwick, J.A.A., andRadke, C.D. 1987. Chemical stimulants and deterrents regulating acceptance or rejection of crucifers by cabbage butterflies.J. Chem. Ecol. 13:1771–1776.
Renwick, J.A.A. andRadke, C.D. 1988. Sensory cues in host selection for oviposition by the cabbage butterfly,Pieris rapae.J. Insect Physiol. 34:251–257.
Renwick, J.A.A., Radke, C.D., andSachdev-Gupta, 1989. Chemical constituents ofErysimum cheiranthoides deterring oviposition by the cabbage butterfly,Pieris rapae.J. Chem. Ecol. 15:2161–2169.
Renwick, J.A.A., Radke, C.D., Sachdev-Gupta, K., andStädler, E. 1992. Leaf surface chemicals stimulating oviposition byPieris rapae (Lepidoptera: Pieridae) on cabbage.Chemoecology 3:33–38.
Richards, O.W. 1940. The biology of the small white butterfly (Pieris rapae), with special reference to the factors controlling its abundance.J. Anim. Ecol. 9:243–288.
Sachdev-Gupta, K., Radke, C.D., andRenwick, J.A.A. 1992. Chemical recognition of diverse hosts byPieris rapae butterflies, pp. 136–138, Proceedings, 8th International Symposium on Plant-Insect Relationships, Wageningen. (S.B.J. Menken, J.H. Visser & P. Harrewijn, eds.) Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht. pp. 136–138.
Traynier, R.M.M., andTruscott, R.J.W. 1991. Potent natural egg-laying stimulant for cabbage butterflyPieris rapae.J. Chem. Ecol. 17:1371–1380.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Huang, X., Renwick, J.A.A. & Sachdev-Gupta, K. Oviposition stimulants inBarbarea vulgaris forPieris rapae andP. napi oleracea: isolation, identification and differential activity. J Chem Ecol 20, 423–438 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02064448
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02064448