A neurophysiological study of sensitivity to a feeding deterrent in two sister species of Heliothis with different diet breadths

Journal of Insect Physiology

Volumn 46, Issue 6, 2000, Pages 905-912

  Bernays, E A ^a   Chapman, R F ^b  

^a Depts Ecol Evol Biol Entomol U   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

Author keywords

Diet breadth; Feeding deterrence; Heliothis subflexa; Heliothis virescens; Peripheral interactions

Indexed keywords

INOSITOL; SINIGRIN; SUCROSE;

ANIMAL CELL; ANIMAL TISSUE; ARTICLE; CONCENTRATION RESPONSE; FEEDING BEHAVIOR; HELIOTHIS; INSECT; MOLECULAR INTERACTION; NEUROPHYSIOLOGY; NONHUMAN; SENSORY RECEPTOR; SPECIES DIFFERENTIATION; TASTE BUD;

HELIOTHIS SUBFLEXA; HELIOTHIS VIRESCENS;

EID: 0034087455     PISSN: 00221910     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0022-1910(99)00197-3     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Asaoka, K., 1994. Different spectrum in responses of deterrent receptor cells in Sawa-J, a strain of the silkworm, Bombyx mori, with abnormal feeding habit. Zoological Science 11 Supplement p. 102.
2. Asaoka, K., 1998. Taste in the "non-preference" mutant of Bombyx mori, NPS. Abstract: Tenth International Symposium on Insect-Plant Relationships, Oxford, July 1998, p. 22.
3. Bernays E.A., Chapman R.F. The evolution of deterrent responses in plant-feeding insects. Chapman R.F., Bernays E.A., Stoffolano J.G. Perspectives in Chemoreception and Behavior. 1987;159-173 Springer-Verlag, New York.
4. Bernays E.A., Oppenheim S., Chapman R.F., Kwon H., Gould F. Taste sensitivity of insect herbivores to deterrents is greater in specialists than in generalists: a behavioral test of the hypothesis with two closely related caterpillars. Journal of Chemical Ecology. 26:2000;547-562.
5. Blaney W.M., Simmonds M.S.J., Ley S.V., Katz R.B. An electrophysiological and behavioural study of insect antifeedant properties of natural and synthetic drimane-related compounds. Physiological Entomology. 12:1987;281-291.
6. Blom F. Sensory activity and food intake: a study of input-output relationships in two phytophagous insects. Netherlands Journal of Zoology. 28:1978;277-340.
7. Chapman R.F. Chemosensory regulation of feeding. Chapman R.F., de Boer G. Regulatory Mechanisms in Insect Feeding. 1995;101-136 Chapman and Hall, New York.
8. de Boer G. Plasticity in food preference and diet-induced differential weighting of chemosensory information in larval Manduca sexta. Journal of Insect Physiology. 39:1993;17-24.
9. de Boer G., Hanson F.E. Differentiation of roles of chemosensory organs in food discrimination among host and non-host plants by larvae of the tobacco hornworm, Manduca sexta. Physiological Entomology. 12:1987;387-398.
10. Eichenseer H., Mullin A.M. Antifeedant comparisons of GABA/glycinergic antagonists for diabroticite leaf beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Journal of Chemical Ecology. 23:1997;71-82.
11. Fang Q.Q., Cho S., Regier J.C., Mitter C., Matthews M., Poole R.W., Friedlander T.P., Zhao S.W. A new nuclear gene for insect phylogenetics: Dopa decarboxylase is informative of relationships within Heliothinae (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Systematic Biology. 46:1997;269-283.
12. Gothilf S., Hanson F.E. A technique for electrophysiologically recording from chemosensory organs of intact caterpillars. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata. 72:1994;305-310.
13. Hodgson E.S., Lettvin J.Y., Roeder K.D. Physiology of a primary chemoreceptor unit. Science. 122:1955;417-418.
14. Laster M.L. Interspecific hybridization of Heliothis virescens and H. subflexa. Environmental Entomology. 1:1972;682-687.
15. Ma, W.C., 1972. Dynamics of feeding responses in Pieris brassicae Linn as a function of chemosensory input: a behavioural, ultrastructural and electrophysiological study. Mededelingen Landbouwhogeschool Wageningen 72-11, 162 pp.
16. Mitter C., Poole P.W., Matthews M. Biosystematics of the Heliothinae (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Annual Review of Entomology. 38:1993;207-225.
17. Schoonhoven L.M. What makes a caterpillar eat? The sensory code underlying feeding behavior. Chapman R.F., Bernays E.A., Stoffolano J.G. Perspectives in Chemoreception and Behavior. 1987;69-97 Springer-Verlag, New York.
18. Schoonhoven L.M., Blom F. Chemoreception and feeding behaviour in a caterpillar: towards a model of brain functioning in insects. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata. 49:1988;123-129.
19. Schoonhoven L.M., Blaney W.M., Simmonds M.S.J. Sensory coding of feeding deterrents in phytophagous insects. Bernays E.A. Insect-Plant Interactions, vol. 4. 1992;59-79 CRC Press, Boca Raton.
20. Schoonhoven L.M., Jermy T., van Loon J.J.A. Insect-Plant Biology. From Physiology to Evolution. 1998;Chapman and Hall, London.
21. Shields V.D.C., Mitchell B.K. Responses of maxillary styloconic receptors to stimulation by sinigrin, sucrose and inositol in two crucifer-feeding, polyphagous lepidopterous species. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B. 347:1995;447-457.
22. Shields V.D.C., Mitchell B.K. The effect of phagostimulant mixtures on deterrent receptor(s) in two crucifer-feeding lepidopterous species 1995. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B. 347:1995;459-464.
23. Simmonds, M.S.J., Blaney, W.M., 1984. Some neurophysiological effects of azadirachtin on lepidopterous larvae and their feeding response. Proceedings of the second International Neem Conference, pp. 163-180.
24. Smith J.J.B., Mitchell B.K., Rolseth B.M., Whitehead A.T., Albert P.J. SAPID tools: microcomputer programs for analysis of multi-unit nerve recordings. Chemical Senses. 15:1990;253-270.