4.3 Article

Re-examining the relationship between sexual maturation and age of response to methyl eugenol in males of the oriental fruit fly

期刊

ENTOMOLOGIA EXPERIMENTALIS ET APPLICATA
卷 128, 期 3, 页码 380-388

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1570-7458.2008.00710.x

关键词

Bactrocera dorsalis; Diptera; Tephritidae; chemical attraction; trap capture; sex pheromone

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Males of the oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) (Diptera: Tephritidae), are strongly attracted to, and feed voraciously on, methyl eugenol (ME) and use metabolites of this chemical to synthesize their sex pheromone. Previously,Wong et al. (1989) proposed that B. dorsalis males were attracted to ME even before attaining sexual maturity. However, their interpretation is possibly confounded by the fact that, in monitoring age-related mating readiness, males were presented with equal-aged females. As a result, if females mature more slowly than males, the age of male sexual maturation may have been overestimated, which may have accounted for the discrepancy observed between male age of ME responsiveness and mating activity. Here, we re-examined the relationship between male age and mating readiness by comparing male mating activity when presented with same-aged females vs. sexually mature females. In addition, we measured the age-dependent response of B. dorsalis males to ME by recording (i) capture in ME-baited traps, and (ii) feeding duration on ME-containing paper discs. Our data support the conclusion of Wong et al. (1989) that B. dorsalis males show attraction to, and feed on, ME before attaining sexual maturity, but suggest that a marked difference in ME response and mating activity exists over a shorter age interval than indicated by Wong et al. (1989). Early attraction to, but not ingestion of, ME was related to accelerated sexual maturation. Unexpectedly, ingestion of ME by sexually immature males did not boost their mating success in trials conducted 10 days after feeding on the lure.

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

4.3
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