4.6 Article

Effects of different Ficus feeding experiences on host preference of Perina nuda larvae (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae)

Journal

JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/jee/toad229

Keywords

Perina nuda; Ficus spp; host preference; choice; no choice

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigates the host preference of Perina nuda (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) on different banyan tree species and finds that larval feeding preference changes with instar and feeding experience.
Perina nuda (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) is a serious pest of banyan trees (Ficus spp.), which is distributed in South China, but little is known about the host preference on the different banyan tree species. To address this gap, we conducted experiments to investigate larval feeding preferences, assessing the impact of feeding experience in both choice and no-choice conditions. Fifth and sixth instars were exposed to 4 banyan species, and food intake, feeding area, and relative ingestion index were measured. Our findings reveal that Ficus concinna was the preferred host of fifth instars in choice tests, while sixth instars exhibited a preference for this host in no-choice tests. In contrast, fifth instars did not display a significant preference for any of the 4 species in no-choice tests. However, sixth instars fed on F. microcarpa, F. altissima, and F. concinna continued to exhibit a preference for the original host. These observations indicate that larval feeding preference changes with instar, and feeding experience contributes to a preference for the original host. Consequently, the feeding preference of P. nuda larvae is influenced by multiple factors, including instar and previous feeding experience. These findings enhance our understanding of P. nuda's ecological interactions and its potential impact on various banyan tree species.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available