Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T10:23:02.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

TRANSFER OF SPERM BY IRRADIATED HELIOTHIS VIRESCENS (LEPIDOPTERA: NOCTUIDAE) AND RELATIONSHIP TO FECUNDITY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Hollis M. Flint  and
Elaine L. Kressin
Hollis M. Flint
Affiliation:
Metabolism and Radiation Research Laboratory, Entomology Research Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fargo, North Dakota
Elaine L. Kressin
Affiliation:
Metabolism and Radiation Research Laboratory, Entomology Research Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fargo, North Dakota
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Untreated male tobacco budworms, Heliothis virescens (F.), fail to transfer sperm in about 15–20% of their matings. Tobacco budworms sterilized by 45 krad significantly fail to transfer sperm in about 50% of their matings. Females that received a spermatophore but had no sperm in their spermathecae produced the same numbers of eggs as virgin females. Females with sperm in their spermathecae laid the same numbers of eggs, whether the sperm came from irradiated or untreated males.Irradiated males did not transfer sperm to the spermathecae of the female because sperm were not incorporated into the spermatophore. The failure to incorporate sperm into the spermatophore occurred because the sperm in the male reproductive system did not move from the duplex to the simplex area where the spermatophore is formed. Males irradiated after mating were able to transfer sperm in a second mating as well as untreated males.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 101 , Issue 5 , May 1969 , pp. 500 - 507
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1969

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

Berger, R. S. 1963. Laboratory techniques for rearing Heliothis species on artificial medium. USDA-ARS 33–84.Google Scholar
Callahan, P. S. 1958. Behavior of the imago of the corn eanvorm, Heliothis zea (Boddie), with special reference to emergence and reproduction. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 51: 271–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callahan, P. S., and Cascio, T.. 1963. Histology of the reproductive tracts and transmission of sperm in the corn earworm, Heliothis zea. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 56: 535–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callahan, P. S., and Chapin, J. B.. 1960. Morphology of the reproductive systems and mating in two representative members of the family Noctuidae, Pseudaletia imipuncta and Peridrome margaritosa, with comparison to Heliothis zea. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 53: 763–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flint, H. M., and Lahren, C. K.. 1966. A paper-bag test cage for use with the tobacco budworm. J. econ. Ent. 59: 1540–1541.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flint, H. M., and Kressin, E. L.. 1967. Gamma irradiation of pupae of the tobacco budworm. J. econ. Ent. 60: 1655–1659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flint, H. M., and Kressin, E. L.. 1968. Gamma irradiation of the tobacco budworm: sterilization, competitiveness, and observations on reproductive biology. J. econ. Ent. 61(2): 477–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, J. A., and Howard, M. G.. 1968. Insemination without spermatophores in the oriental fruit moth, Grapholitha molesta (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). can. Ent. 100: 190–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godwin, P. A., Rule, H. D., and Waters, W. E.. 1964. Some effects of gamma irradiation on the gypsy moth, Porthetria dispar. J. econ. Ent. 57: 986–990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howland, A. F., Vail, P., and Henneberry, T. J.. 1965. Effect of chemosterilants on fertility of cabbage loopers. J. econ. Ent. 59: 156–159.Google Scholar
North, D. T., and Holt, G. G.. 1968. Genetic and cytogenetic basis of radiation-induced sterility in the adult male cabbage looper, Trichoplusia ni. Isotopes and Radiation in Entomology, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna: 391–403 (Proceedings of a Symposium).Google Scholar
Ouye, M. T., Garcia, R. S., and Martin, D. F.. 1964 a. Determination of the optimum sterilizing dosage for pink bollworms treated as pupae with gamma radiation. J. econ. Ent. 57: 387–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ouye, M. T., Graham, H. M., Richmond, C. A., and Martin, D. F.. 1964 b. Mating studies of the pink bollworm. J. econ. Ent. 57: 222–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ouye, M. T., Garcia, R. S., and Martin, D. F.. 1965. Sterilization of pink bollworm adults with metepa. J. econ. Ent. 58: 1018–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raun, E. S., Lewis, L. C., Picken, J. C. Jr., and Hotchkiss, P. K.. 1967. Gamma irradiation of European corn borer larvae. J. econ. Ent. 60: 1724–1730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rule, H. D., Godwin, P. A., and Waters, W. E.. 1965. Irradiation effects on spermatogenesis in the gypsy moth, Porthetria dispar (L.). J. Insect Physiol. 11: 369–378.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shorey, H. H., Morin, K. L., and Gaston, L. K.. 1968. Sex pheromones of Noctuid moths. XV. Timing of development of pheromone-responsiveness and other indicators of reproductive age in males of eight species. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 61: 857–861.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, O. R. 1967. Relationship of multiple mating to fertility in Atteva punctella (Lepidoptera: Yponomeutridae). Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 60: 583–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toppozada, A., Abdallah, S., and Eldefrawi, M. E.. 1966. Chemosterilization of larvae and adults of the Egyptian cotton leafworm, Prodenia litura, by apholate, metepa, and tepa. J. econ. Ent. 59: 1125–1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar