Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T00:19:29.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Experimental Study of the Chemotactic Basis of Host Specificity in Phytophagous Insects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

A. J. Thorsteinson
A. J. Thorsteinson
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, The University of Manitoba
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The high degree of host specificity of many phytophagous insects is a commonplace, yet remarkable phenomenon. Nevertheless it has been relatively neglected as a field for experimental study.

The first beginning was made about 50 years ago when Grevillius (1905) found that the larvae of the browntail moth Euproctis chrysorrhoea (L.) which feeds on the chick weed, Stellaria, could be induced to feed on other plants by smearing the leaves with a paste containing tannin which is a constituent of chick weed. It is un1ikely that this work was highly critical with respect to the chemical purity of the test preparations, yet the basic principle inherent in all experimentation in this field was employed. That is to say, a relatively isolated chemical constituent of the host plant together with some ingestible substrate other than the host plant tissue was offered to the insects. Obviously, the induction of feeding indicated that the test material contains some substance that stimulates the appetite of the insect.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 87 , Issue 2 , February 1955 , pp. 49 - 57
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1955

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

Chauvin, R. 1945. Premiers essais de purification de la substance qui attire le doryphore vers les feuilles de pomme de terre. Comp. Rend. 221: 713–714.Google Scholar
Chauvin, R. 1951. Sur les facteurs responsables de l'attraction que manifestent les Acridiens pour le son. Bull. No. 1, Office National Anti-Acridien, Paris.Google Scholar
Chauvin, R. 1952. Nouvelles recherches sur les substances qui attirent le doryphore (L. decemlineata Say) vers la pomme de terre. Annales des Epiphyties 3: 303–308.Google Scholar
Chin, Chun-Teh. 1950. Studies on the physiological relations between the larvae of Leptinotarsa decemlineata Say and some solanaceous plants. H. Veenman and Zonen, Wageningen, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Dethier, V. G. 1941. Chemical factors determining choice of food plants by Papilio larvae. Amer. Naturalist 75: 61–73.Google Scholar
Dethier, V. G. 1953. Host plant perception in phytophagous insects. Trans. IXth Int. Congress Ent., Amsterdam, Vol. 2: 81–88.Google Scholar
Dethier, V. G. 1954. Evolution of feeding preferences in phytophagous insects. Evolution 8: 33–54.Google Scholar
Grevillius, A. Y. 1905. Zur Kenntnis der Biologie des Goldafters (Euproctis chrysorrhoea (L.)). Botan. Centr. Bieheft 18: 222–322.Google Scholar
Hérissey, H. and Boivin, R.. 1927. Sur la préparation du sinigroside (myronate de potasse, sinigrine). Soc. Chim., Biol. Bull. 9: 947.Google Scholar
Hesse, G. and Meier, R.. 1950. Uber einen Stoff, der bei der Futterwahl des Kartoffelkäfers eine Rolle spielt. Angewandte Chemie 62: 502–506.Google Scholar
Holloway, J. K. and Huffaker, C. B.. 1952. Insects to control a weed. Insects. The Year Book of Agriculture. U.S.D.A., Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Klein, G. 1932. Handbuch der Pflanzenanalyse. Verlag von Julius Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
Kuhn, R. and Gauhe, A.. 1947. Uber die Bedeutung des Demissins für die Resistenz von Solanum demissum gegen die Larven des Kartoffelkäfers. Z. Naturforsch. 2B: 407–409.Google Scholar
Langenbuch, R. 1952. Ist das Fehlen eines “Frassstoffes” oder das Vorhandensein eines “Vergällungsstoffes” die Ursache für die Resistenz der Wildkartoffel Solanum chacoense Bitt. gegenüber dem Kartoffelkäfer? Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Frage der Monophagie des Kartoffelkäfers. Z. PflKrankh. 59 pt. 5–6: 179–189.Google Scholar
Lassar-Cohn, 1928. Organic laboratory methods. Translated by Oesper, R. E. et al. Williams and Wilkins Co., Baltimore, Md.Google Scholar
Lederer, E. and Lederer, M.. 1954. Chromatography. Elsevier Publishing Co., N.Y.Google Scholar
Maltais, J. B. 1952. A simple apparatus for feeding aphids aseptically on chemically defined diets. Can. Ent. 84: 291–294.Google Scholar
Painter, R. H. 1951. Insect resistance in crop plants. The Macmillan Co., New York.Google Scholar
Raucourt, M. and Trouvelot, B.. 1936. Les principes constituants de la pomme de terre et le doryphore. Ann. épiphyt. phytogénét. 2: 51–98.Google Scholar
Thorpe, W. H., Crombie, A. C., Hill, R., and Darragh, J. H.. 1947. The behaviour of wire-worms in response ro chemical stimulation. Jour. Exper. Biol. 23: 234–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorsteinson, A. J. 1953. The chemotactic responses that determine host specificity in an oligophagous insect (Plutella maculipennis (Curt.) Lepidoptera). Can. Jour. Zool. 31: 52–72.Google Scholar
Van Rijn, J. J. L. and Dieterle, H.. 1931. Die Glykoside. 2nd ed.Gebrüder Borntraeger, Berlin.Google Scholar
Verschaffelt, E. 1910. The cause determining the selection of food in some herbivorous insects. Proc. Acad. Sci., Amsterdam, 13 (1): 536–542.Google Scholar
Williams, T. I. 1946. An introduction to chromatography. Blackie and Son, London.Google Scholar