Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T04:46:15.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sexual attraction among Lygus (Hemiptera: Miridae) species

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2012

A.R. Wardle  and
J.H. Borden
A.R. Wardle
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada V5A 1S6
J.H. Borden*
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada V5A 1S6
*
1 Corresponding author (e-mail: [email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Lygus bugs (Hemiptera: Miridae), particularly the tarnished plant bug, Lygus lineolaris (Palisot de Beauvois), and Lygus hesperus Knight, are serious pests in North America (Hedlund and Graham 1987). Sex pheromones have been identified in some mirids (Smith et al. 1991; Millar et al. 1997; Millar and Rice 1998) but not in Lygus spp. (Ho and Millar 2002), despite evidence that lygus bug females produce sex pheromones (Scales 1968; Strong et al. 1970; Graham 1987; McLaughlin 1996; Scott and Snodgrass 2000). Graham (1987) found that L. lineolaris and Lygus elisus Van Duzee males were attracted to females of their own and the other species but not to L. hesperus females, whereas L. hesperus males were attracted only to conspecific females. In southwestern British Columbia, Lygus shulli Knight is a major pest in such diverse sites as conifer nurseries and greenhouses (Gillespie et al. 2000). Our objective was to determine whether sexual attraction occurs in L. shulli and whether L. shulli is cross-attracted to females of two other Lygus spp.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 135 , Issue 5 , October 2003 , pp. 733 - 735
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 2003

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

Aldrich, J.R., Lusby, W.R., Kochansky, J.P., Hoffman, M.P., Wison, L.T., Zalom, F.G. 1988. Lygus bug pheromones vis-à-vis stink bugs. pp 213–6 in Brown, J.M. (Ed), Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Production Research Conferences, New Orleans, Louisiana, 3–8 January 1988. Memphis, Tennessee: National Cotton Council of AmericaGoogle Scholar
Gillespie, D.R., Foottit, R.G., Shipp, L., Schwartz, M.D., Wang, K., Quiring, D.M.J. 2000. Lygus bugs in protected crops — improving our understanding. pp 1–8in Foottit, R.G., Mason, P.G. (Eds), Proceedings of the Lygus Working Group Meeting, ESC/ESS Joint Meeting, Saskatoon Saskatchewan, 26 September 1999. Ottawa, Ontario: Agriculture and Agri-Food CanadaGoogle Scholar
Graham, H.M. 1987. Attraction of Lygus spp. males by conspecific and congeneric females. Southwestern Entomologist 12: 147–55Google Scholar
Hedin, P.A., Parrott, W.L., Tedders, W.L., Reed, D.K. 1985. Field responses of the tarnished plant bug to its own volatile constituents. Journal of the Mississippi Academy of Sciences 30: 63–6Google Scholar
Hedlund, R.C., HM, Graham (Editors). 1987. Economic importance and biological control of Lygus and Adelphocoris in North America. United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service ARS–64Google Scholar
Ho, H-Y, Millar, J.G. 2002. Identification, electroantennogram screening, and field bioassays of volatile chemicals from Lygus hesperus Knight (Heteroptera: Miridae). Zoological Studies 41: 311–20Google Scholar
Kelton, L.A. 1982. Plant bugs on fruit crops in Canada. Agriculture Canada Monograph 24Google Scholar
McLaughlin, J.R. 1996. Population monitoring of Lygus hesperus with female baited traps. pp 733–4 in Dugger, C.P., Richter, D.A. (Eds), Proceedings Beltwide Cotton Production Research Conferences, Nashville, Tennesse, 9–12 January 1996. Memphis, Tennessee: National Cotton Council of AmericaGoogle Scholar
Millar, J.G., Rice, R.E. 1998. Sex pheromone of the plant bug, Phytocoris californicus Knight (Heteroptera: Hemiptera: Miridae). Journal of Economic Entomology 91: 132–7Google Scholar
Millar, J.G., Rice, R.E., Wang, Q. 1997. Sex pheromone of the mirid Phytocoris relativus. Journal of Chemical Ecology 23: 1743–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS Institute Inc. 1999. SAS/STAT user's guide. Version 8.1. Cary, North Carolina: SAS Institute IncGoogle Scholar
Scales, A.L. 1968. Female tarnished plant bugs attract males. Journal of Economic Entomology 61: 1466–7Google Scholar
Schwartz, M.D., Foottit, R.G. 1992. Lygus bugs on the prairies. Biology, systematics and distribution. Agriculture Canada Research Branch Technician Bulletin 1992–4EGoogle Scholar
Scott, W.P., Snodgrass, G.L. 2000. Response of tarnished plant bugs (Heteroptera: Miridae) to traps baited with virgin males or females. Southwestern Entomologist 25: 101–8Google Scholar
Smith, R.F., Pierce, H.D. Jr, Borden, J.H. 1991. Sex pheromone of the mullein bug, Campylomma verbasci (Meyer) (Heteroptera: Miridae). Journal of Chemical Ecology 17: 1437–47CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strong, F.E., Sheldah, J.A., Hughes, P.R., Hussein, E.M.K. 1970. Reproductive biology of Lygus hesperus Knight. Hilgardia 40: 105–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takács, S., Gries, G., Gries, R. 2002. Where to find a mate? Resource-based sexual communication of webbing clothes moth. Naturwissenschaften 89: 57–9Google Scholar
Wardle, A.R., Borden, J.H., Pierce, H.D. Jr, Gries, R. 2003. Volatile compounds released by disturbed and calm adults of the tarnished plant bug, Lygus lineolaris. Journal of Chemical Ecology 29: 931–44Google Scholar