4.1 Article

Survival of immature Helicoverpa punctigera (Wallengren) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on some C4 and C3 plants

Journal

AUSTRAL ENTOMOLOGY
Volume 60, Issue 4, Pages 791-797

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/aen.12563

Keywords

Helicoverpa punctigera; host plants; larval survival; photosynthetic pathway

Categories

Funding

  1. University of New England (UNE)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Research has shown that Helicoverpa punctigera larvae have certain survival rates on native non-crop hosts in the inland regions of Australia, especially on plants with the C4 photosynthetic pathway. Among the C4 plants studied, Atriplex species had a positive impact on larval survival, suggesting that they may provide a suitable food source in the field, particularly when growing near C3 plants.
Helicoverpa punctigera (Wallengren) larvae have been recorded on native non-crop hosts in the inland regions of Australia. However, there are few records of their survival on these non-crop hosts, especially on plants with the C4 photosynthetic pathway. We investigated larval survival on four C4 plant species (Atriplex numularia Lindl. Atriplex vesicaria Heward ex Benth., Portulaca oleraceae L. and Tribulus terrestris L.) and two C3 plant species (Medicago polymorpha L. and Cullen cinereum (Lindl.)) under glasshouse conditions. Larvae fed on all C4 plants, although performance varied among these plants being higher (32.2 +/- 6.9 and 31.7 +/- 6.9% survival) on the Atriplex plant species and lowest (15.9 +/- 7.9% survival) on P. oleraceae. Larval survival was similar between the two Atriplex species. A direct comparison of larval performance between the C4 plant A. nummularia and the known H. punctigera C3 host plants C. cinereum or M. polymorpha suggested that this C4 plant might be a suitable food source in the field, particularly in situations where it is growing nearby to C3 plants as is common in inland Australia.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available