4.7 Article

Are the Wild and Laboratory Insect Populations Different in Semiochemical Emission? The Case of the Medfly Sex Pheromone

Journal

JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD CHEMISTRY
Volume 60, Issue 29, Pages 7168-7176

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jf301474d

Keywords

Ceratitis capitata; male sex pheromone; two-dimensional gas chromatography with time-of-flight mass spectrometric detection; gas chromatography with electroantennographic detection; principal component analysis

Funding

  1. Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic [61388963]
  2. International Agency for Atomic Energy, United Nations, Vienna [16106]
  3. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq) [471352/2008-0, 306627/2008-6]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The medfly (Ceratitis capitata) is one of the major agricultural pests controlled through sterile insect technique (SIT) programs We studied the chemical composition of the volatiles released by calling males from one laboratory and two wild C. capitata populations using two-dimensional gas chromatography with time mass spectrometric detection (GC X GC/TOFMS) and gas chromatography with electroantennographic detection (GC-EAD). Multivariate data analyses revealed significant differences in the quantitative and qualitative composition of male chemical emanations between the three populations. The GC-EAD analyses of the male emanation of three C capitata populations revealed 14 antenally active compounds. The volatiles isomenthone, beta-pinene, ethyl octanoate, indole, geraniol, bornyl acetate, geranyl acetone, and (E)-caryophyllene are newly reported EAD active constituents of the male pheromone. GC EM) analyses of the laboratory population indicated that the males and females of C capitata possess comparable sensitivity to male produced volatiles. Our results are relevant to the development of a pheromone based monitoring system and also to the SIT control program.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available