4.1 Article

Behaviors of naive vs. pheromone-exposed leafroller moths in plumes from high-dosage pheromone dispensers in a sustained-flight wind tunnel: Implications for mating disruption of these species

期刊

JOURNAL OF INSECT BEHAVIOR
卷 17, 期 4, 页码 533-554

出版社

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1023/B:JOIR.0000042540.09188.eb

关键词

mating disruption; leafrollers; sustained-flight wind tunnel; Choristoneura rosaceana; Argyrotaenia velutinana

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Brief exposures of male Choristoneura rosaceana and Argyrotaenia velutinana to the plumes generated by lures releasing 3-component pheromone blends specifically tuned for each species or by commercially distributed Isomate OBLR/PLR Plus pheromone rope dispensers induced markedly different subsequent behavioral responses to pheromone. A greater proportion of C. rosaceana males took flight and successfully oriented toward lures 24 h after preexposure to a lure, a rope, or the lure - rope combination in a sustained-flight wind tunnel compared to naive moths. Flights were also longer for preexposed than naive moths. Preexposed male C. rosaceana were not more likely to fly toward ropes 24 h after preexposure. By contrast, fewer male A. velutinana oriented to lures 24 h after preexposure than did naive moths. Those preexposed A. velutinana successfully locking onto plumes from lures flew for significantly shorter intervals than did unexposed moths. Electroantennograms revealed no changes at the periphery 15 min and 24 h after preexposure. For A. velutinana, the long-lasting effect was decreased attraction to a lure and increased attraction to a rope. For C. rosaceana, pheromone preexposure increased responsiveness to its authentic blend. This behavioral evidence is sufficient to explain why sexual communication of C. rosaceana is more difficult to disrupt than that of A. velutinana. Furthermore, it suggests a more complete blend of pheromone may be necessary to disrupt the former species but not the latter when using rope dispensers.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据