Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T18:03:30.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

POSTEMBRYONIC GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF F1 AND F2 TOBACCO BUDWORMS (LEPIDOPTERA: NOCTUIDAE) FROM PARTIALLY STERILE MALES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

F. I. Proshold  and
J. A. Bartell
F. I. Proshold
Affiliation:
Metabolism and Radiation Research Laboratory, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fargo, North Dakota
J. A. Bartell
Affiliation:
Metabolism and Radiation Research Laboratory, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fargo, North Dakota
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Tobacco budworms, Heliothis virescens (F.), with inherited sterility caused by irradiation of the male parent were smaller than progeny from normal parents and developed more slowly throughout the larval and pupal periods. In the second generation the population segregated into two groups, those with normal and those with delayed development. Also, when the P1 male received 15.0 krad, 8% of the F1 larvae had more than the normal five instars. Moreover, when those F1 progeny that had only five larval instars were outcrossed to normal moths, this tendency for supernumerary molts increased nearly 3-fold. The slower development of progeny of treated moths would have to be considered in field tests made to evaluate the effect of inherited sterility on the tobacco budworm. However, with continuous release of irradiated males, the delayed development or smaller size of the progeny should not lessen the possibility that this method could successfully suppress field populations.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 104 , Issue 2 , February 1972 , pp. 165 - 172
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1972

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, pp. 1–4.Google Scholar
Cogburn, R. R., Tilton, E. W., and Burkholder, W. E.. 1966. Gross effects of gamma irradiation on the Indian-meal moth and the Angoumois grain moth. J. econ. Ent. 59: 682–685.Google Scholar
Hardwick, D. F. 1965. The corn earworm complex. Mem. ent. Soc. Can., No. 40.Google Scholar
Knipling, E. F. 1966. Some basic principles in insect population suppression. Bull. ent. Soc. Am. 12: 7–15.Google Scholar
Knipling, E. F. 1970. Suppression of pest Lepidoptera by releasing partially sterile males: A theoretical appraisal. Bioscience 20: 465–470.Google Scholar
North, D. T. and Holt, G. G.. 1968. Inherited sterility in progeny of irradiated male cabbage loopers. J. econ. Ent. 61: 928–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
North, D. T. 1969. Population suppression by transmission of inherited sterility to progeny of irradiated cabbage loopers, Trichoplusia ni. Can. Ent. 101: 513–520.Google Scholar
Proshold, F. I. and Bartell, J. A.. 1970. Inherited sterility in progeny of irradiated male tobacco budworms: Effects on reproduction, developmental time and sex ratio. J. econ. Ent. 63: 280–285.Google Scholar
Proverbs, M. D. and Newton, J. R.. 1962. Some effects of gamma radiation on the reproductive potential of the codling moth, Carpocapsa pomonella (L.) (Lepidoptera: Olethreutidae). Can. Ent. 94: 1162–1170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, D. W. and Quintana, V.. 1968. Inherited partial sterility among survivors from irradiation-eradication experiments. J. econ. Ent. 61: 318–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar