Leaf Injury and Food Consumption by Larvae of Phaedon Cochleariae (Coleoptera; Chrysomelidae) and Plutella Maculipennis (Lepidoptera Plutellidae) Feeding on Turnip and Radish

Taylor, W. E.; Bardner, R.

doi:10.1111/j.1570-7458.1968.tb02043.x

Cited by 37 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We used a wet scalpel blade to transfer larvae without injury, which sometimes left a drop of water on the leaf piece. This general trend of increased consumption rates on plants with higher nitrogen contents is opposite to the pattern previously documented for phytophagous insects (i.e., C. memnon) in this and similar studies (e.g., Taylor and Bardner 1968, Hoekstra and Beenakkers 1976, Slansky and Feeny 1977. After I wk we placed each larva on a moistened leaf; all larvae immediately resumed normal feeding (with the exception of a single fatality).…”

Section: Feeding and Growth Of Hispine Larvaecontrasting

confidence: 83%

Nutritional Ecology of Heliconia Herbivores: Experiments with Plant Fertilization and Alternative Hosts

Auerbach¹,

Strong²

1981

Ecological Monographs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Efficiencies of food use, growth rates, and consumption rates were measured for larvae of eight tropical insect species, reared upon normal and fertilized Heliconia species (Zingiberales: Heliconiaceae) and Musa sp. (Zingiberales: Musaceae) in Costa Rica. Cephaloleia consanguinea and Chelobasis perplexa (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae, Hispinae) feed only on Heliconia. Caligo memnon and Opsiphanes tamarindi (Lepidoptera: Brassolidae) are oligophagous, with known hosts in two families of Zingiberales. Sibine apicalis, Sibine sp., and Metraga sp. (Lepidoptera: Limacodidae) and Megalopyge sp. (Lepidoptera: Megalopygidae) are polyphagous, with dicot and monocot hosts.Foliar nitrogen content of natural Heliconia imbricata (x = 1.76%) was lower than that of H. latispatha (x = 3.01%) and Musa sp. (.X = 3.30%). The oligophagous brassolids generally had lower growth rates, lower efficiencies of food use, and lower nitrogen accumulation rates on H. imbricata than on Musa sp.The hispines had lower relative consumption and growth rates than any of the lepidopterans examined on any host or treatment. Growth rates and nitrogen accumulation rates for the hispine species were not affected by host plant fertilization. Efficiencies of nitrogen use declined with increasing foliar nitrogen content for the hispines.Several parameters of food use efficiency were correlated with larval feeding specialization. The specialized hispines and oligophagous brassolids had higher efficiencies of food assimilation and nitrogen use on H. imbricata than did the polyphagous limacodids and megalopygid. Other efficiency indices, such as net growth efficiency, were not correlated with feeding specialization.The hispine Ch. perplexa has one of the longest larval developmental times known for a nondiapausing chrysomelid ( =200 d). Its slow growth is correlated with a low metabolic rate, which we interpret as a physiological adaptation for starvation resistance. Larvae feed only on rolled Heliconia leaves, which are produced infrequently by host plants, and long fasts are a predictable feature of development. Ch. perplexa's eight larval instars are about equal in duration, and closely match the duration of a rolled leafs suitability as food for these larvae. After a rolled leaf unfurls, the larvae must either wait for another on the same plant, or search haphazardly for one on nearby plants. The feeding of Ce. consanguinea larvae is apparently moisture limited in this tropical rain forest, and these larvae also have a high resistance to starvation.The oligophagous brassolids have become pests of banana, which is introduced into the Americas. These species increase growth rates with increased nitrogen content of host tissue. They are infrequent on H. imbricata, which has few chemical defenses against herbivores. Thus, the low nitrogen content of H. imbricata may protect it from some herbivory.

show abstract

Section: Feeding and Growth Of Hispine Larvaecontrasting

confidence: 83%

Nutritional Ecology of Heliconia Herbivores: Experiments with Plant Fertilization and Alternative Hosts

Auerbach¹,

Strong²

1981

Ecological Monographs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This relationship holds for specialists as well as generalists, and small (20 mg) as well as large (1200 mg) larvae. It is difficult however, to distinguish between low water content and other quantitative defenses as possible causal factors for these and similar results (Soo Hoo & Fraenkel, 1966;Taylor & Bardner, 1968;Waldbauer, 1968;Feeny, 1970;Shaw & Little, 1972;Hough & Pimentel, 1978).…”

Section: Quantitative Defensesmentioning

confidence: 93%

The Effects of Larval Feeding Specialization and Plant Growth Form on the Consumption and Utilization of Plant Biomass and Nitrogen: An Ecological Consideration

Scriber

1978

Entomologia Exp Applicata

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Feeding experiments were carried out on larvae of 22 species of Lepidoptera, belonging mainly to the Papilionidae and the Bombycoidea, with a range of feeding habits from specialists on one plant family to polyphagous on a wide range of families. Consumption rates, conversion rates and hence growth rates were lower in tree-feeders than herb-feeders and may be related to differences in leaf water content. Such "quantitative" plant defense mechanisms may be metabolically more costly for insects to overcome than "qualitative" chemical defenses. It is suggested that, although it is only one of several possible factors involved, leaf water content might provide a useful index of the range in larval gross production efficiences and relative growth rates to be expected from a range of acceptable food plants. Feeny (1976) and Rhoades & Cates (1976) have suggested that "apparent" or "predictable" plant resources tend to be defended from phytophagous herbivores by relatively high concentrations of "quantitative" (see Feeny, 1975) or "digestibility-reducing" types of chemicals such as tannins, silica, lignin, resins, and other factors contributing to leaf toughness. Such defences may be effective against both specialist and generalist herbivores. By contrast, "unapparent" or "unpredictable" plants, or plant parts, may be able to escape in space or time, or else deter potential herbivorous enemies with a divergent array of toxic or repellent compounds which are effective in relatively low concentrations (Feeny, 1975).In this paper data are presented on experiments with 22 species of phytophagous Lepidoptera fed various natural foodplant leaves. From these studies several general patterns seem to have emerged which may provide a useful framework within which many insect/plant interactions may be more clearly understood or interpreted, and the results are discussed with reference to the concepts of quantitative and qualitative defenses. MATERIALS AND METHODSLarvae of 22 species of Lepidoptera were reared on mature leaves of natural food plants with an abundance of food. Leaf turgot and shape, and water availability for the plants during the feeding experiment was maintained by the use PLANT GROWTH FORM AND LARVAL FEEDING 695 of Aquapics® (see Scriber, 1977). All experiments were run with a photo: scotophase of 16:Shr with corresponding day: night temperatures of 23.5°: 19.5 °.The insect species used and their feeding habits are listed below. They are classified as "specialist" feeders if restricted to one plant family, "intermediate" if feeding on two to ten families, and polyphagous if feeding on plants from more than ten families. Slansky & Feeny, 1977). Family PapilionidaeApproximately 800 larvae of these species were individually monitored in the penultimate and final larval instars, and the following parameters were calculated (Waldbauer, 1968;Kozlovsky, 1968), all on a dry weight basis: G.R.: Growth Rate = mg (dry wt.) biomass gained/day R.G.R.: Relative growth rate =mg biomass gained/rag larval biomass/day C.R.: Consu...

show abstract

“…The consumption rate is normally inversely related to nitrogen content of the food (e.g. House, I965;Taylor & Bardner, 1968;Baker, 1975). Thus, in larvae of the caddisfly, Sericostoma personatum (Spence), Iversen (1974) found a significantly lower consumption rate on leaves of high nitrogen content as compared to those of low nitrogen content.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

How do macrophytes growing in or close to water reduce their consumption by aquatic herbivores?

Otto

Svensson

1981

Hydrobiologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Larvae of Potamophylax cingulatus (Steph.) (Trichoptera) which are polyphagous herbi-and detritivorous, were used as test organism to investigate the palatability of aquatic and terrestrial macrophytes. In 7 out of 9 plant pairs the consumption rate was low on the species growing in or close to water. The consumption rate was negatively correlated with the nitrogen content of the plant. It is argued that the majority of the aquatic plants produce secondary plant substances, which reduce the attacks by aquatic herbivores. A restricted distribution, the long time of exposure to herbivores, as well as the relatively large probability of being discovered at the border of an inhabitable area, are factors suggested to have influenced the development of chemical defence mechanisms in aquatic macrophytes.

show abstract

Leaf Injury and Food Consumption by Larvae of Phaedon Cochleariae (Coleoptera; Chrysomelidae) and Plutella Maculipennis (Lepidoptera Plutellidae) Feeding on Turnip and Radish

Cited by 37 publications

References 11 publications

Nutritional Ecology of Heliconia Herbivores: Experiments with Plant Fertilization and Alternative Hosts

Nutritional Ecology of Heliconia Herbivores: Experiments with Plant Fertilization and Alternative Hosts

The Effects of Larval Feeding Specialization and Plant Growth Form on the Consumption and Utilization of Plant Biomass and Nitrogen: An Ecological Consideration

How do macrophytes growing in or close to water reduce their consumption by aquatic herbivores?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About