Geographic variation in sexual communication in the cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera.
communication interference
cotton bollworm
sex pheromone
sexual behavior
Journal
Pest management science
ISSN: 1526-4998
Titre abrégé: Pest Manag Sci
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100898744
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2020
Nov 2020
Historique:
received:
27
03
2020
revised:
04
05
2020
accepted:
14
05
2020
pubmed:
15
5
2020
medline:
25
11
2020
entrez:
15
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Geographic variation in male response to sex pheromone lures has been studied in the field in a number of moth species. However, only a few studies have investigated geographic variation in female calling and sex pheromone under field conditions. For an effective field implementation of sex pheromone lures, it is essential to know the local sex pheromone blend and local timing of sexual communication. We investigated the level and extent of geographic variation in the sexual communication of the important agricultural pest Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae) in three continents. We found there is no genetic variation in the calling behavior of H. armigera. In the female sex pheromone, we found more between-population variation than within-population variation. In male response experiments, we found geographic variation as well. Strikingly, when adding the antagonistic compound Z11-16:OAc to the pheromone blend of H. armigera, significantly fewer males were caught in Australia and China, but not in Spain. This variation is likely not only due to local environmental conditions, such as photoperiod and temperature, but also to the presence of other closely related species with which communication interference may occur. Finding geographic variation in both the female sexual signal and the male response in this pest calls for region-specific pheromone lures. Our study shows that the analysis of geographic variation in moth female sex pheromones as well as male responses is important for effectively monitoring pest species that occur around the globe. © 2020 The Authors. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Geographic variation in male response to sex pheromone lures has been studied in the field in a number of moth species. However, only a few studies have investigated geographic variation in female calling and sex pheromone under field conditions. For an effective field implementation of sex pheromone lures, it is essential to know the local sex pheromone blend and local timing of sexual communication. We investigated the level and extent of geographic variation in the sexual communication of the important agricultural pest Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae) in three continents.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We found there is no genetic variation in the calling behavior of H. armigera. In the female sex pheromone, we found more between-population variation than within-population variation. In male response experiments, we found geographic variation as well. Strikingly, when adding the antagonistic compound Z11-16:OAc to the pheromone blend of H. armigera, significantly fewer males were caught in Australia and China, but not in Spain. This variation is likely not only due to local environmental conditions, such as photoperiod and temperature, but also to the presence of other closely related species with which communication interference may occur.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Finding geographic variation in both the female sexual signal and the male response in this pest calls for region-specific pheromone lures. Our study shows that the analysis of geographic variation in moth female sex pheromones as well as male responses is important for effectively monitoring pest species that occur around the globe. © 2020 The Authors. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32406164
doi: 10.1002/ps.5893
pmc: PMC7586828
doi:
Substances chimiques
Sex Attractants
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3596-3605Subventions
Organisme : China Scholarship Council
ID : 201506300162
Organisme : Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research
ID : 822.01.012
Organisme : the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
Organisme : the National Science Foundation
ID : IOS-1456973
Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.
Références
J Chem Ecol. 2018 Aug;44(7-8):621-630
pubmed: 30039209
Neotrop Entomol. 2018 Apr;47(2):205-210
pubmed: 28474329
J Insect Physiol. 2012 Jan;58(1):61-6
pubmed: 22001286
Sci Rep. 2016 Mar 15;6:22998
pubmed: 26975244
Annu Rev Entomol. 1997;42:123-46
pubmed: 15012310
Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2000 Aug-Sep;30(8-9):863-8
pubmed: 10876131
J Econ Entomol. 2014 Jun;107(3):881-96
pubmed: 25026644
J Chem Ecol. 2017 Sep;43(9):881-890
pubmed: 28852942
PLoS One. 2013 Nov 18;8(11):e80134
pubmed: 24260345
J Chem Ecol. 1994 Jan;20(1):45-69
pubmed: 24241698
Environ Entomol. 2015 Jun;44(3):427-53
pubmed: 26313949
J Chem Ecol. 1994 Apr;20(4):871-87
pubmed: 24242202
J Chem Ecol. 1992 Mar;18(3):403-18
pubmed: 24254945
PLoS One. 2015 Mar 18;10(3):e0119618
pubmed: 25786260
J Chem Ecol. 2010 Jan;36(1):80-100
pubmed: 20108027
Evolution. 1998 Oct;52(5):1493-1500
pubmed: 28565374
PLoS One. 2013 Jul 09;8(7):e68756
pubmed: 23874751
Evolution. 2009 Aug;63(8):1987-2003
pubmed: 19473383
Ecol Evol. 2012 Jan;2(1):227-46
pubmed: 22408739
J Chem Ecol. 1990 Feb;16(2):531-42
pubmed: 24263509
BMC Evol Biol. 2015 Dec 16;15:282
pubmed: 26672978
J Insect Physiol. 2007 Feb;53(2):170-8
pubmed: 17240394
Annu Rev Entomol. 1997;42:371-91
pubmed: 15012318
J Insect Physiol. 2012 Sep;58(9):1209-16
pubmed: 22732233
PLoS One. 2014 Feb 19;9(2):e89255
pubmed: 24586634
J Chem Ecol. 2007 Feb;33(2):353-68
pubmed: 17200888
Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2005 Jun;35(6):575-83
pubmed: 15857763