Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-rvbq7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T07:23:47.074Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Sexual behaviour of Heliothis peltigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

E. Dunkelblum*
Affiliation:
Institute of Plant Protection, Bet Dagan, Israel
M. Kehat
Affiliation:
Institute of Plant Protection, Bet Dagan, Israel
*
Dr E. Dunkelblum, Institute of Plant Protection, ARO, The Volcani Center, Bet-Dagan 50250, Israel.

Abstract

The sexual behaviour of Heliothis peltigera (Denis & Schiffermüller) was studied in the laboratory. Calling activity was very low during the first five hours of scotophase and then increased sharply, particularly in six-to eight-day old females. Peak activity was observed, in all ages tested, between eight and nine hours into scotophase. Calling in six-day old females was significantly higher than in two-day old females but no significant differences were detected between four-to eight-day old females. Maximal amounts of pheromone were found in the pheromone glands of five-to eight-day old females in the second half of scotophase. Male activity was monitored in a wind tunnel. There was no response to pheromone lures during the first two days, then flying activity increased sharply and maintained its high level until the eighth day. Peak activity was observed between six and eight hours into scotophase. Mating activity was very low during the first five hours of scotophase and then increased sharply, with 61.8% of the observed pairs mating between six and eight hours into scotophase. The sexual behaviour of H. peltigera was very similar to the reported behaviour of the sympatric species Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) indicating that the reproductive separation of the two species is not affected by temporal factors, but depends mainly on the species-specific pheromone blends.

Type
Research Paper
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

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

Altstien, M., Gazit, Y. & Dunkelblum, E. (1990) Regulation of sex pheromone biosynthesis in Chrysodeixis chalcites and Heliothis peltigera by PBAN. pp. 303307in Berkovec, A. B. & Masler, E. P. (Eds) Insect neurochemistry and neurophysiology. Clifton, NJ, Humana Press.Google Scholar
Avidov, Z. & Harpaz, I. (1969) Plant Pests of Israel. Israel Universities Press, Jerusalem, pp. 340343.Google Scholar
Baker, T.C. & Carde, R.T. (1979) Endogenous and exogenous factors affecting periodicities of female calling and male sex pheromone response in Grapholita molesta (Busck). Journal of Insect Physiology 25, 943950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delisle, J. & McNeil, J. (1987) The combined effect of photoperi-od and temperature on the calling behaviour of the true ar-myworm, Pseudaletia unipunctata. Physiological Entomology 12, 157164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunkelblum, E. & Kehat, M. (1989) Female sex pheromone components of Heliothis peltigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae): chemical identification from gland extracts and male response. Journal of Chemical Ecology 15, 22332245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunkelblum, E., Gothilf, S. & Kehat, M. (1980) Identification of the sex pheromone of the cotton bollworm, Heliothis ar-migera, in Israel. Phytoparasitica 8, 209211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunkelblum, E., Kehat, M., Harel, M. & Gordon, E. (1987) Sexual behaviour and pheromone titre of the Spodoptera lit-toralis female moth. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 44, 241247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardwick, D.F. (1970) A generic revision of the North American Heliothidinae (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada 73, 28.Google Scholar
Haynes, K.F. & Birch, M.C. (1984) The periodicity of pheromone release and male responsiveness in the artichoke plum moth, Platyptilia carduidactyla. Physiological Entomology 9, 287295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollander, A.L. & Yin, CM. (1982) Neurological influence on pheromone release and calling behaviour in the gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar. Physiological Entomology 1, 163166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kehat, M. & Dunkelblum, E. (1990) Behavioural responses of male Heliothis armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) moths in a flight tunnel to combinations of components identified from female sex pheromone glands. Journal of Insect Behavior 3, 7583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kehat, M., Gothilf, S., Dunkelblum, E. & Greenberg, S. (1980) Field evaluation of female sex pheromone components of the cotton bollworm, Heliothis armigera. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 27, 188193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klun, J.A., Bierl-Leonhardt, B.A., Sparks, A.N., Primiani, M., Chapman, O.L., Lepone, G. & Lee, G.H. (1980a) Sex pheromone chemistry of the female tobacco budworm moth, Heliothis virescens. Journal of Chemical Ecology 6, 177183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klun, J.A., Plimmer, J.R., Bierl-Leonhardt, B.A., Sparks, A.N., Primiani, M., Chapman, O.L., Lee, G.H. & Lepone, G. (1980b) Sex pheromone chemistry of the female corn earworm moth, Heliothis zea. Journal of Chemical Ecology 6, 165175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kou, R. & Chow, Y.S. (1987a) Emergence time and mating-related behavior of the cotton bollworm, Heliothis armigera, (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in reversed photoperiod. Bulletin Institute of Zoology, Academia Sinica 26, 179186.Google Scholar
Kou, R. & Chow, Y.S. (1987b) Calling behavior of the cotton bollworm, Heliothis armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 80, 490493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linn, C.E., Campbell, M.G. & Roelofs, W.L. (1988) Temperature modulation of behavioural thresholds controlling male moth sex pheromone response. Physiological Entomology 13, 5967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, M. (1991) Classification of the Heliothinae. Bulletin No. 44. Chatham, Natural Resources Institute.Google Scholar
Nesbitt, B.F., Beevor, P.S., Hall, D.R. & Lester, R. (1979) Female sex pheromone components of the cotton bollworm, Heliothis armigera. Journal of Insect Physiology 25, 535541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nesbitt, B.F., Beevor, P.S., Hall, D.R. & Lester, R. (1980) Z-9-hexadecenal: a minor component of the female sex pheromone of Heliothis armigera. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 27, 306308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piccardi, P., Capizzi, A., Cassani, G., Spinelli, P., Asura, E. & Massardo, P. (1977) A sex pheromone component of the Old World bollworm, Heliothis armigera. Journal of Insect Physiology 23, 14431445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raina, A.K. & Klun, J.A. (1984) Brain factor control of sex pheromone production in the female earworm moth. Science 225, 531533.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raina, A.K., Klun, J.A. & Stadelbacher, E.A. (1986) Diel periodicity and effect of age on female sex pheromone titre in Heliothis zea (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 79, 128131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rafaeli, A. & Soroker, V. (1989) Influence of diel rhythm and brain hormone on pheromone production in two lepidop-teran species. Journal of Chemical Ecology 15, 447455.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roome, R.E. (1975) Activity of adult Heliothis armigera (Hb.) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) with reference to the flowering of sorghum and maize in Botswana. Bulletin of Entomological Research 65, 523530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shorey, H.H., McFarland, S.U. & Gaston, L.K. (1968) Sex pher-omones of noctuid moths XIII. Changes in pheromone quantity as related to reproductive age and mating history, in females in seven species of Noctuidae (Lepidoptera). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 61, 372376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Topper, C.P. (1987) Nocturnal behaviour of adults of Heliothis armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in the Sudan Gezira and pest control implications. Bulletin of Entomological Research 77, 541554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yathom, S. (1971) Distribution and flight period of Heliothidinae species in Israel in 1959–1969. Israel Journal of Agricultural Research 21, 5161.Google Scholar