Searching Behavior Patterns in Insects

Bell, William J.

doi:10.1146/annurev.en.35.010190.002311

Cited by 427 publications

(309 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

284

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These experiments do not allow us to establish how males narrow their search to suitable host plant habitats (Papaj & Prokopy 1989;Bell 1990), but suggest that once males are there, cues from the plant help them find potential mates. Although undamaged plants were visited occasionally, particularly when new shoots were exposed, visits and searches around plants increased by about threefold in the presence of chemical cues released by larvae or damaged tissue.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Host plants and immatures as mate-searching cues in Heliconius butterflies

Estrada

Gilbert

2010

Animal Behaviour

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Host plants and immatures as mate-searching cues in Heliconius butterflies

Estrada

Gilbert

2010

Animal Behaviour

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Associative learning (Vet and Dicke 1992;Dicke et al 1990a;Takabayashi et al 2006) or the presence/absence of a particular background odor (Bell 1990;Mumm and Hilker 2005;De Boer and Dicke 2006) could also play a role in attraction toward a nonspecific chemical cue like DMDS. Indeed, predators in a cabbage field could learn by experience that DMDS is often associated with sites where prey can be found.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identification of a Widespread Monomolecular Odor Differentially Attractive to Several Delia Radicum Ground-dwelling Predators in the Field

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dimethyl disulfide (DMDS) was identified as a major volatile constituent of Brassica napus roots heavily infested by Delia radicum, the cabbage root fly. Attractiveness of this widespread compound was tested in the field in a naturally complex odorous environment. By using an original setup especially designed for ground dwelling beetles, different concentrations of the pure molecule as well as attractiveness of the natural blend emitted by the rotten part of infested roots were tested simultaneously. The use of general linear model (GLM) statistics permitted us to finely discriminate the responses among the different treatments. The main predators of D. radicum (i.e., two staphylinids Aleochara bilineata and Aleochara bipustulata and carabid beetles of the genus Bembidion) were significantly attracted by DMDS, but responded in different ways to the natural blend and to the different concentrations tested. The dose-response curves were similar for the two staphylinids. However, whereas A. bilineata was more attracted by the natural volatile blend than by its preferred DMDS concentration, A. bipustulata was attracted as much by the natural blend as by its preferred DMDS concentration. Carabid beetles exhibited a different response. They were not attracted by the natural blend, but responded to a wider range of DMDS concentrations that included low concentrations that did not attract the staphylinid beetles. These results are discussed according to the potential resources searched by each taxon studied and their specificity for the resources. The possible use of DMDS for enhancing biological control of D. radicum is mentioned.

show abstract

“…A majority of crickets escaped running predators only after physical contact, and not by using their winddetection system as generally assumed in the literature (Figure 4C, D). Besides providing for the crucial role of cercal touch perception during cricket escapes, these results reinforced the importance of considering the issue of multimodality in sensory ecology studies based upon the fact that many animals use a hierarchy of cues (e.g., visual, odour, touch) to establish risk, and these cues may change over time, as animals learn to ignore irrelevant stimuli (e.g., Bell 1990;Hern et al 1996;Dukas 1998;Rowe and Guilford 1999;Cronin 2005;Conover 2007;Catania et al 2008).…”

Section: Future Challenges Taking the Lab To The Fieldmentioning

confidence: 71%