2013
DOI: 10.1111/een.12053
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Host selection, oviposition behaviour and leaf traits in a specialist willow sawfly on species of Salix (Salicaceae)

Abstract: 1. Plant genotype influences plant-herbivore interactions by affecting insect attraction, acceptance and development. Here we linked oviposition behaviour of the specialist willow sawfly Nematus oligospilus Förster (Hymenoptera: Tenthredinidae) with leaf traits on different Salix L. (Salicaceae) genotypes. This was done as a first step to find oviposition cues that guide females to their host plants.2. By means of choice and no-choice bioassays we analysed host selection according to willow genotype and leaf s… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
23
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 46 publications
(86 reference statements)
2
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Landau’s Linearity Index was near 1 which indicates a hierarchy completely linear 37 . As expected from previous observations 17,24 and these data, the willow hybrid containing S. nigra (‘Lezama’) was the most preferred, with the highest David Score, which means that it always received more eggs in the comparisons. ‘Géminis’ was the least preferred hybrid with a David Score of 1 (this hybrid was never preferred against the others).
Figure 6Natural colonization and oviposition preference in six different commercial willow hybrids.
…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 88%
“…Landau’s Linearity Index was near 1 which indicates a hierarchy completely linear 37 . As expected from previous observations 17,24 and these data, the willow hybrid containing S. nigra (‘Lezama’) was the most preferred, with the highest David Score, which means that it always received more eggs in the comparisons. ‘Géminis’ was the least preferred hybrid with a David Score of 1 (this hybrid was never preferred against the others).
Figure 6Natural colonization and oviposition preference in six different commercial willow hybrids.
…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 88%
“…et al 2019. These results are also in agreement with our previous studies (Braccini et al, 2013(Braccini et al, , 2015 reinforcing the idea that orientation of N. oligospilus females on Salix spp. is driven by volatile cues and final decision for egg laying is determined by a balance among leaf structure, plant nutrients and secondary metabolites.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 93%
“…Females of this species are parthenogenetic in the Southern Hemisphere and emerge sexually mature. Upon emergence, females forage alone and lay individual eggs under the cuticle or first layer of epidermal cells of willow leaves (Braccini et al ., 2013). Due to the low larval mobility, after hatching the larva starts its development on the leaf where its mother laid the egg.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Other sawfly species use secondary metabolites in the selection of their host plant, such as Euura amerinae (L.) and Euura lasiolepis Smith, monophagous species that recognize and select their Salix host plants based on characteristic phenolic glycosides (Kolehmainen, ; Roininen et al., ). Host plant parameters not considered in the present study – such as leaf hardness, leaf surface, and plant volatiles – may also affect sawfly oviposition preferences (Buteler & Weaver, ; Braccini et al., ; Varella et al., ). They deserve further investigation in our study system.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Finally, most preference–performance research has been carried out on lepidopteran species, possibly skewing the information (Gripenberg et al., ). Other groups of insects, such as the hymenopterans, have been infrequently studied in this regard, comprising only the families Tenthredinidae and Cephidae of the Symphyta suborder and showing inconsistent results in preference–performance correlations (Roininen & Tahvanainen, ; Price et al., ; Nagasaka & Ohsaki, ; Ferrier & Price, ; Digweed, ; Perez‐Mendoza et al., ; Müller & Arand, ; Buteler et al., ; Braccini et al., ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%