Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-m9pkr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T18:34:32.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A QUANTITATIVE STUDY OF CONSUMPTION AND UTILIZATION OF VARIOUS DIETS IN THE BERTHA ARMYWORM, MAMESTRA CONFIGURATA (LEPIDOPTERA: NOCTUIDAE)1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Clyde G. Bailey
Clyde G. Bailey
Affiliation:
Research Station, Agriculture Canada, Winnipeg, Manitoba
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Differential survival, growth, and egg production were obtained for the bertha armyworm, Mamestra configurata Wlk., feeding on four natural host plants and one artificial diet. Highest survival, growth, and egg production were obtained among insects reared on the artificial diet. Foliage of potato was the only food which appeared to lack the nutritive qualities essential for adequate survival, growth, and reproduction. Larvae reared on this plant consumed significantly less food, had a poorer survival, accumulated less reserves in the form of tissue growth, developed into smaller pupae, and produced adults that were less fecund than those reared on other foods. Despite these differences, the approximate digestibility (AD), the efficiency of conversion of ingested food to body tissue (ECI), and the efficiency of conversion of digested food to body substance (ECD) obtained for insects feeding on potato, were very similar to values obtained for insects which were reared on other plants. On each diet a linear relationship was obtained between food consumption and growth.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 108 , Issue 12 , December 1976 , pp. 1319 - 1326
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1976

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

Anonymous. 1957. Report of Entomology Branch. A. Rep. Br. Columb. Dep. Agric. 52: 30–32.Google Scholar
Bailey, C. G. and Riegert, P. W.. 1973. Energy dynamics of Encoptolophus sordidus costalis (Orthoptera: Acrididae) in a grassland ecosystem. Can. J. Zool. 51: 91–100.Google Scholar
Beckwith, R. C. 1970. Influence of host on larval survival and adult fecundity of Choristoneura conflictana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Can. Ent. 102: 1474–1480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucher, G. E. and Bracken, G. K.. 1976. The bertha armyworm, Mamestra configurata (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Artificial diet and rearing technique. Can. Ent. 108: 1327–1338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davey, P. M. 1954. Quantities of food eaten by the desert locust, Schistocerca gregaria (Forsk) in relation to growth. Bull. ent. Res. 45: 539–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dethier, V. G. 1947. Chemical insect attractants and repellents. London.Google Scholar
Friend, W. G. 1958. Nutritional requirements by phytophagous insects. A. Rev. Ent. 3: 57–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinton, J. M. 1971. Energy flow in a natural population of Neophilaenus lineatus (Homoptera). Oikos 22: 155–171.Google Scholar
Husain, M. A., Mathur, C. B., and Roonwal, M. L.. 1946. Studies on Schistocerca gregaria (Forsk). XIII. Food and feeding habits of the desert locust. Indian J. Ent. 8: 141–163.Google Scholar
Johansson, A. S. 1964. Feeding and nutrition in reproductive processes in insects. Symp. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 2: 43–55.Google Scholar
Kehat, M. and Wyndham, M.. 1972. The effect of food and water on development, longevity and fecundity in the Rutherglen Bug, Nysius vinitor (Hemiptera: Lygaeidae). Aust. J. Zool. 20: 67–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latheef, M. A. and Harcourt, D. G.. 1972. A quantitative study of food consumption, assimilation, and growth in Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) on two host plants. Can. Ent. 104: 1271–1276.Google Scholar
Lipke, H. and Fraenkel, G.. 1956. Insect nutrition. A. Rev. Ent. 1: 17–44.Google Scholar
Mukerji, M. K. and Guppy, J. C.. 1970. A quantitative study of food consumption and growth in Pseudaletia unipuncta (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Can. Ent. 102: 1179–1188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Painter, R. H. 1951. The role of nutritional factors in host plant selection. Trans. IXth int. Congr. Ent. 2: 101–105.Google Scholar
Smith, D. S. 1959. Utilization of food plants by the migratory grasshopper, Melanoplus bilituratus (Walker) (Orthoptera: Acrididae), with some observations on the nutritional value of the plants. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 52: 674–680.Google Scholar
Turnbull, A. L. 1962. Quantitative studies of the food of Linyphia triangularis Clerck (Araneae: Linyphiidae). Can. Ent. 94: 1233–1249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldbauer, G. P. 1964. The consumption, digestion and utilization of solanaceous and non-solanaceous plants by larvae of the tobacco hornworm, Protoparce sexta (Johan) (Lepidoptera: Sphingidae). Ent. exp. appl. 7: 253–269.Google Scholar
Waldbauer, G. P. 1968. The consumption and utilization of food by insects. Adv. Insect Physiol. 5: 229–288.Google Scholar
Wiegert, R. G. 1964. Population energetics of meadow spittlebugs, Philaenus spumarus L. as affected by migration and habitat. Ecol. Monogr. 34: 217–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiegert, R. G. 1968. The consumption and utilization of food by insects. Advanc. Insect Physiol. 5: 229–288.Google Scholar
Wigglesworth, V. B. 1950. Principles of Insect Physiology. 4th ed. Methuen, London.Google Scholar