Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T01:01:13.154Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of age and food source on secondary chemistry of larvae of Lymantria species (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

R. Deml
R. Deml*
Affiliation:
Lehrstuhl für Tierökologie II, Universität Bayreuth, D-95440 Bayreuth, Germany
*
*Fax: +49 (0)921 / 55 2743 E-mail: reinhold.deml@uni-bayreuth.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Haemolymph and osmeterial secretions of caterpillars of Lymantria monacha (Linnaeus) and L. concolor Walker were analysed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry for low molecular weight secondary metabolites. The similarities of their chemical compositions were determined by means of cluster analysis techniques in order to characterize possible chemical variations related to developmental stage or food of the larvae. For this purpose, two dissimilarity coefficients (Euclidean distances, Canberra metrics) and four clustering methods (UPGMA, WPGMA, WPGMC, single linkage) were combined. The patterns of secondary compounds obtained from the haemolymph and osmeterial secretions studied did not differ statistically significantly between two groups of L. monacha larvae fed with either larch, Larix decidua Mil., or Norway spruce, Picea abies (L.), indicating no relevant influence of plant chemistry. However, haemolymph of penultimate instar larvae of L. concolor fed on Rhododendroncontained a mixture of compounds differing statistically significantly from that of last instar caterpillars. The total compositions of the corresponding gland secretions were statistically identical though the presence/amounts of individual compounds varied. This suggested that the haemolymph composition reflected changing physiological requirements of the successive instars, whereas the composition of the defensive mixtures remained comparatively constant, possibly due to a constant spectrum of potential enemies. A more pronounced age-dependence of larval chemistry was shown by a similar analysis of data from various developmental stages of L. dispar (Linnaeus) and one of its food plants. This analysis suggested plant composition affected the secondary chemistry of early larval instars of L. dispar. The results are discussed in terms of the roles of secondary metabolites in defence against natural enemies.

Type
Review Article
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 94 , Issue 2 , April 2004 , pp. 137 - 143
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbott, L.A., Bisby, F.A. & Rogers, D.J. (1985) Taxonomic analysis in biology. New York, Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, J.R., Schaefer, P.W., Oliver, J.E., Puapoomchareon, P., Lee, C.-J. & Vander, Meer R.K. (1997) Biochemistry of the exocrine secretion from gypsy moth caterpillars (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 90, 75–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowers, M.D. (1992) The evolution of unpalatability and the cost of chemical defence in insects. pp. 216–244in Roitberg, B.D. & Isman, M.B. (Eds) Insect chemical ecology: an evolutionary approach. New York, Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Deml, R. (2001) Influence of food and larval age on the defensive chemistry of Saturnia pyri. Zeitschrift für Naturforschung 56c, 89–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deml, R. & Dettner, K. (1995a) Extrusible glands and volatile components of the larval gypsy moth and other tussock moths (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae). Entomologia Generalis 19, 239–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deml, R. & Dettner, K. (1995b) ‘Balloon hairs’ of gipsy moth larvae (Lep., Lymantriidae): morphology and comparative chemistry. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 112B, 673–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deml, R. & Dettner, K. (1997) Chemical defence of emperor moths and tussock moths (Lepidoptera: Saturniidae, Lymantriidae). Entomologia Generalis 21, 225–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frohne, D. & Jensen, U. (1998) Systematik des Pflanzenreichs: unter besonderer Berücksichtigung chemischer Merkmale und pflanzlicher Drogen. 5th edn. Stuttgart, Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Gessner, O. & Orzechowski, G. (1974) Gift- und Arzneipflanzen von Mitteleuropa. 3rd edn. Heidelberg, Universitätsverlag C. Winter.Google Scholar
Hegnauer, R. (1962–1996) Chemotaxonomie der Pflanzen. Basel, Birkhäuser.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honda, K. (1981) Larval osmeterial secretions of the swallowtails (Papilio). Journal of Chemical Ecology 7, 1089–1113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Honda, K. (1983) Evidence for de novo biosynthesis of osmeterial secretions in young larvae of the swallowtail butterflies (Papilio): deuterium incorporation in vivo into sesquiterpene hydrocarbons as revealed by mass spectrometry. Insect Science and its Application 4, 255–261.Google Scholar
McLafferty, F.W. & Stauffer, D.B. (1989) The Wiley/NBS registry of mass spectral data. NewYork, Wiley.Google Scholar
Pasteels, J.M., Rowell-Rahier, M. & Raupp, M.J. (1988) Plantderived defense in chrysomelid beetles. pp. 235–272in Barbosa, P. & Letourneau, D.K. (Eds) Novel aspects of insect–plant interactions. New York, Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
Rausher, M.D. (1992) Natural selection and the evolution of plant-insect interactions. pp. 20–88in Roitberg, B.D. & Isman, M.B. (Eds) Insect chemical ecology: an evolutionary approach. New York, Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Schwenke, W. (1978) Die Forstschädlinge Europas. Vol. 3: Schmetterlinge. Hamburg, Parey.Google Scholar
Scriber, J.M. & Feeny, P. (1979) Growth of herbivorous caterpillars in relation to feeding specialization and to the growth form of their food plants. Ecology 60, 829–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sneath, P.H.A. & Sokal, R.R. (1973) Numerical taxonomy. San Francisco, W.H. Freeman & Co.Google Scholar
Stenhagen, E., Abrahamsson, S. & McLafferty, F.W. (1974) Registry of mass spectral data. New York, Wiley.Google Scholar
Weseloh, R.M. (1989) Simulation of predation by ants based on direct observations of attacks on gypsy moth larvae. Canadian Entomologist 121, 1069–1076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitman, D.W. (1988) Allelochemical interactions among plants, herbivores, and their predators. pp. 11–64in Barbosa, P. & Letourneau, D.K. (Eds) Novel aspects of insectplant interactions. New York, Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar