Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T12:46:17.140Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Host acceptance behaviour of a predatory pentatomid, Eocanthecona Furcellata (wolff) (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae) towards larvae of Spodoptera Litura (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2011

P. Usha Rani
Affiliation:
Entomology Division, Indian Institute of Chemical Technology, Hyderabad 500 007, India
Sadao Wakamura
Affiliation:
National Institute of Sericulture and Entomological Sciences Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305, Japan
Get access

Abstract

Factors stimulating host seeking behaviour of Eocanthecona furcellata (Wolff), a pentatomid predator, were investigated by using Spodoptera litura (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) as prey. Faeces of S. litura larvae elicited a host seeking response by the predators. The active material is present in the prey mandibular gland secretions, digestive tract and body surface, which when placed on a filter paper evoked feeding attempts. Predators responded intensely towards the prey artificial diet too. Prey body washings with hexane and acetone also stimulated feeding behaviour.

Physical stimuli such as host shape or movement had no influence on acceptability of the prey to the predator. Larval size correlated with aggressive behaviour which limited predation rather than releasing stimulus for the host acceptance behaviour. Pharate instar stage of the prey was never accepted by E. furcellata. But pupal, egg and adult stages of S. litura stimulated predators to certain extent.

Neither extirpation of antennae nor blinding the vision prevented the bugs from locating the prey. However, excision of rostral tip decreased the prey capture efficiency. It is suggested that the rostral tip contains chemotactile sensillae which are responsible for the prey detection.

Résumé

Les agents qui stimulent l'hôte recherchant la conduite (on le comportement) due Eocanthecona furcellata, (c'est à-dire un mammifére à fourrure, comme le loup), un prédateur pentatome, furent examinés comme proie en utilisant le Spodoptera litura (lépidoptères nocturlles). Les fèces de la larve S. litura decouvrirent un hôte recherchant une réponse des prédateurs. La matière active est présente dans les glandes sécrétoires, le conduit digestif et à la surface du corps de la proie mandibulaire, qui, mise sun un papier filtre, susita des tentatives (on des efforts) faites envers la nourriture. Les prédateurs répondirent aussi vivement à la diète artificielle de la proie. Les lavages du corps de la proie à l'hexane et a l'acètone stimulirent aussi le comportement envers la nourriture. Le stimuli physique, comme par exemple, la forme de l'hôte on son mouvement, n'eut aucune influence sur l'acceptabilite’ de la proie vers le prédateur. La grandeur (on la taille, dimension) de la larve correspondait à la conduite agressive qui borna la prédation, an lieu de libérer le stimulus de sorte que le comportment de l'hôte l'accepta.

L'etape “pharate instar” de la proie ne fut jamais acceptée par E. furcellata. Mais la pupe, l'oeuf (l'ovule) et les étapes adultes de S. litura stimulèrent les prédateurs jusqu'à un certain point.

Nil l'extirpation de l'antenne et du tarsien, ni l'aveuglement de la vision empêchèrent les punaises à repérer la proie. Cependant, l'excision du bout rostral diminua l'efficacite’ de la capture de la proie. On a suggéré que le bout rostral contient des “sensillae” chimotactiles qui sont responsables à détecter (on à découvrier) la proie.

Type
Research Articles
Copyright
Copyright © ICIPE 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Arthur, A. P. (1981) Host acceptance by parasitoids. In Semiochemicals Their Role in Pest Control (Edited by Nordlund, D. A., Jones, R. L. and Lewis, W. J.), pp. 97120. John Wiley and Sons, NY.Google Scholar
Bragg, D. (1974) Ecological and behavioural studies of Phaegenes cynaerae: Ecology, host specificity, search and oviposition; and avoidance of superparasitism. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 67, 931936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbet, S. A. (1971) Mandibular gland secretion of larvae of the flour moth, Anagasta kuehnella contains an epideictic pheromone and elicits oviposition movements in a hymenopteran parasite. Nature 232, 481484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, E. S. (1962) Observations on the development and predatory habit of two reduvid Heteroptera, Rhinocoris carmelita Stal., and Platymeris rhadamanthus Gerst. Proc. R. Entomol. Soc. Lond. 37, 8998.Google Scholar
Ghorpade, K. D. (1972) Predaceous pentatomid Cantheconidea furcellata (Wolff) attacking Latoia lepida (Cramer) on mango near Bangalore. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 72, 596598.Google Scholar
Gope, B. (1981) A promising predator of Bihar hairy caterpillar and bunch caterpillar. Two and a Bud 28, 4748.Google Scholar
Hays, D. and Vinson, S. B. (1971) Host acceptance by the parasite Cardiochiles nigriceps Viereck. Anim. Behav. 19, 344352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendry, L. B., Greany, P. D., and Gill, R. J. (1973) Kairomone mediated host finding behaviour in the parasitic wasp Origilus lepidus. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 16, 471477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLain, D. K. (1979) Terrestrial trail–following by three species of predatory stink bugs. Flor. Entomol. 62, 153154.Google Scholar
Isenhour, D. J. (1985) Compoletis sonerensis (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) as a parasitoid of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae): Host stage preference and functional response. Entomophaga 30, 3136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, R. L., Lewis, W. J., Bowman, M. C. J., Beroza, M. and BierlB. A. (1971) Host seeking stimulant for parasite of corn earworm: isolation, identification and synthesis. Science 173, 842843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monteith, L. G. (1956) Influence of host movement on selection of host by Drino bohemica Mesn. as determined in an olfactometer. Can. Entomol. 88, 583586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mudd, A. and Corbet, S. A. (1973) Mandibular gland secretion of larvae of the stored products pests Anagasta kuehniella, Ephestia cautella, Plodia interpunctella and Ephestia elutella. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 16, 291293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rai, P. S. (1978) Cantheconidea furcellata (Wolff) (Pentatomidae: Heteroptera) A predator of leaf feeding caterpillar of rice. Curr. Sci. 47, 556557.Google Scholar
Richerson, J. V. and DeLoach, C. J. (1972) Some aspects of host selection by Perlitus coccinellae. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 65, 834840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, O. J. (1952) Biology and behaviour of Microtonus vittatae Muesebeck. Univ. Calif. Berkeley Publ. Entomol. 9, 315344.Google Scholar
Rani, Usha and Jamil, Kaiser (1990) Chemosensory responses of cowpea weevil, Callosobruchus chinensis to an aquatic weed, water hyacinth, Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms. J. Chem. Ecol. 16, 12691275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vinson, S. B. (1968) Source of a substance in Heliothis virescens that elicits a searching response in its habitual parasite, Cardiochiles nigriceps. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 61, 810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vinson, S. B., Barfield, C. S. and Henson, R. D. (1977) Oviposition behaviour of Bracon mellitor, a parasitoid of the boll weevil (Anthonomus grandis). II. Associative learning. Physiol. Entomol. 2, 157164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wakamura, S. (1988) Rearing of the beet army worm, Spodoptera exigua (Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), on artificial diet in the laboratory. Jpn. J. Appl. Entomol. Zool. 32, 329331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weseloh, R. M. (1971) Influence of primary (parasite) host on host selection of the hyperparasite Cheilonèurus noxius (Hymenoptera: Encry tidae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 64, 12331236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weseloh, R. M. (1977) Effects of behaviour of Apanteles melanoscelus females caused by modification in extraction, storage and presentation of gypsy moth silk kairomone. J. Chem. Ecol. 3, 723735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar