Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T13:46:42.271Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effect of learning on the oviposition preference of field-collected and laboratory-reared Chilo partellus (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) populations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2007

J.J. Glas*
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Entomology, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 8031, 6700 EH Wageningen, the Netherlands
J. van den Berg
Affiliation:
School of Environmental Sciences and Development, North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, Potchefstroom, 2520, South Africa
R.P.J. Potting
Affiliation:
Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Food Quality, Plant Protection Service – International Phytosanitary Affairs, P.O. Box 9102, 6700 HC, Wageningen, the Netherlands
*
*Fax: +31 317 484821 E-mail: joris.glas@wur.nl
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent studies show that Vetiver grass, (Vetiveria zizanioides (L.) Nash), may have potential as a dead-end trap crop in an overall habitat management strategy for the spotted stem borer, Chilo partellus (Swinhoe) (Lepidoptera: Crambidae). Vetiver grass is highly preferred for oviposition, in spite of the fact that larval survival is extremely low on this grass. The oviposition behaviour of female Chilo partellus moths was investigated by determining the amount and size of egg batches allocated to maize and Vetiver plants and studying the effect of rearing conditions and oviposition experience on host plant selection. Two-choice preference tests were used to examine the effect of experience of maize (a suitable host plant) and Vetiver plants on the oviposition choice of C. partellus. For both field-collected and laboratory-reared moths, no significant differences were found in the preference distributions between the experienced groups. It is concluded that females do not learn, i.e. that they do not change their preference for Vetiver grass after having experienced oviposition on either maize or this grass, which supports the idea that trap cropping could have potential as a control method for C. partellus. Differences observed between field-collected and laboratory-reared moths in the amount and size of egg batches laid on maize and Vetiver grass indicate that data obtained from experiments with laboratory-reared insects should be treated with caution.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Introduction

The stem borer, Chilo partellus (Swinhoe) (Lepidoptera: Crambidae), is an economically important pest of maize (Zea mays L.) (Poaceae), and other cereal crops in eastern and southern Africa (Overholt, Reference Overholt and Polaszek1998; Kfir et al., Reference Kfir, Overholt, Khan and Polaszek2002). The species is indigenous to Asia and invaded Africa sometime before 1930 (Tams, Reference Tams1932). Like most cereal stem borers, C. partellus is polyphagous; and it has a wide variety of host plants, both cultivated and wild (Ingram, Reference Ingram1958; Seshu Reddy, Reference Seshu Reddy1983; Harris, Reference Harris1990; Khan et al., Reference Khan, Chiliswa, Ampong-Nyarko, Smart, Polaszek, Wandera and Mulaa1997; Polaszek & Khan, Reference Polaszek, Khan and Polaszek1998; Van den Berg et al., Reference Van den Berg, Rebe, De Bruyn and Van Hamburg2001; Rebe et al., Reference Rebe, Van den Berg and McGeoch2004).

In recent years, there has been an increased interest in the application of trap cropping in pest management (Hokkanen, Reference Hokkanen1991; Shelton & Badenes-Perez, Reference Shelton and Badenes-Perez2006). In East Africa, trap cropping with a number of wild host plants, including Napier grass, (Pennisetum purpureum Schumach.), is applied in the management of Chilo partellus (Khan et al., Reference Khan, Pickett, Wadhams and Muyekho2001, Reference Khan, Midega, Hutter, Wilkins and Wadhams2006).

Results from laboratory and greenhouse studies show that Vetiver grass, (Vetiveria zizanioides (L.) Nash) (Poaceae), is highly preferred for oviposition by C. partellus, but that larval survival is extremely low on this grass (Van den Berg et al., Reference Van den Berg, Midega, Wadhams and Khan2003). Vetiver grass has, therefore, been indicated as a potential dead-end trap plant in an overall habitat management strategy for C. partellus (Van den Berg et al., Reference Van den Berg, Midega, Wadhams and Khan2003; Van den Berg, Reference Van den Berg2006a). The term dead-end trap crop is used to describe plants, like Vetiver grass, that are highly attractive to insects but on which their offspring cannot survive (Shelton & Badenes-Perez, Reference Shelton and Badenes-Perez2006).

For the development of a sound application of trap cropping as a pest management strategy, it is important to understand the factors influencing the oviposition behaviour of C. partellus. In spite of its economic importance, the host selection behaviour of the herbivorous insect is still poorly understood.

It has been demonstrated in a number of insect species that egg-laying females may gain experience when they oviposit on a specific substrate for the first time (Papaj & Lewis, Reference Papaj and Lewis1993). This experience can influence subsequent choices of oviposition substrates, a phenomenon called learning (Papaj & Prokopy, Reference Papaj and Prokopy1989; Schoonhoven et al., Reference Schoonhoven, Jermy, Van Loon and Schoonhoven1998). In Lepidoptera, learning in host selection for oviposition has been clearly demonstrated in experiments on several butterflies, with ovipositing females preferring host plants of which they have experience (Papaj & Prokopy, Reference Papaj and Prokopy1989). However, only relatively recently the existence of learning has been studied in adult moths (e.g. Firempong & Zalucki, Reference Firempong and Zalucki1991; Cunningham et al., Reference Cunningham, Jallow, Wright and Zalucki1998). Experimental evidence has shown that learning occurs in the host selection and oviposition behaviour of Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) (Cunningham et al., Reference Cunningham, Jallow, Wright and Zalucki1998). In a recent study, it was shown for the diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (Linnaeus) (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae), that an oviposition experience on a non-host plant can alter the oviposition behaviour of this moth to accept the non-host plant for oviposition (Zhang & Liu, Reference Zhang and Liu2006).

The objective of this study was to investigate the factors influencing the oviposition behaviour of C. partellus female moths. The role of oviposition experience and rearing history was investigated. Knowledge of these two factors influencing the oviposition behaviour of C. partellus could be essential in the application and design of pest management strategies to control this pest through trap cropping.

Materials and methods

Two identical experiments were conducted, one using field-collected moths and one using laboratory-reared moths. All experiments were conducted in the summer of 2005/2006 at the North-West University in Potchefstroom, South Africa.

Field collection of C. partellus

Sorghum stems were collected during the winter months from a monocrop block of sorghum (approx. 1 ha), consisting of different sorghum varieties planted for research purposes. The stems were brought under a metal framework that was covered with a net. During the spring, C. partellus moths emerged late afternoon from pupae inside the stalks, and individuals were caught in small tubes in the early evening. This was done every night during the time that the experiments were running. A flashlight was used to locate the moths in the dark on the net. Females that were caught were assumed to have mated, as it was found in a study by Päts (Reference Päts1990) that 97% of C. partellus females mated shortly after they emerged during the last five hours of the scotophase on the night of eclosion. For this study, moths were caught at 7 pm in the evening, which implies that moths present at this time should have emerged and mated the previous night.

Laboratory-reared C. partellus

Laboratory colonies of C. partellus had been reared for 30 years (about 360 generations) before being used for this study and had been maintained on an artificial diet, according to protocol described by Kfir (Reference Kfir1992) at the Agricultural Research Council – Plant Protection Research Institute (ARC-PPRI) in Pretoria.

Production of potted maize and Vetiver grass

Maize plants (cv. Pan 6804) were grown outside in 2-l pots during summer (October–February). Plants were thinned to one plant per pot and used in the experiments when they were about 4 weeks old (with 5–9 leaves). Maize plants of this age are expected to attract maximum oviposition (Singh & Sandhu, Reference Singh and Sandhu1978). The potted Vetiver grass patches, raised from stem cuttings, were 3–6 months old and full-grown when used in the experiments. Dead Vetiver grass leaves were removed before using plants in the experiments.

No-choice experiment

A no-choice experiment was conducted to provide moths with an oviposition experience. Experienced moths were defined as females that had laid at least one egg batch on maize or Vetiver grass in the no-choice experiment. Naïve moths were defined as moths without an oviposition experience. Moths tested in the no-choice experiment were mated and 1 day old.

The experiment was conducted in muslin cloth cages measuring 0.50×0.55×0.75 m. Cages were placed in a greenhouse under natural light conditions, in which the temperature varied between 18–26°C. Pots containing maize or Vetiver grass plants were placed singly in the centre of each cage. Individual females were released into the centre of each cage and moths were allowed to oviposit overnight. The plants were removed from the cages and their leaves were carefully inspected for egg batches. The numbers of egg batches were recorded only in the experiment with the laboratory-reared moths. Moths that had laid eggs (and thus had an oviposition experience) were caught and put in small tubes for use in the subsequent two-choice experiment.

No-choice experiments with maize and Vetiver plants were always done on the same day to avoid day-specific effects. In each of the three no-choice experiments, approximately 50 female moths were evaluated and the cages containing the pots were completely randomized. Moths that did not oviposit in the no-choice experiment were excluded from the rest of the experiment.

Two-choice experiment

A two-choice experiment was conducted to determine the oviposition preference of moths when presented with a choice between maize and Vetiver grass. For each insect population three different tests were performed: (i) with naïve female; (ii) with experienced female on maize; and (iii) with experienced female on Vetiver grass.

The experiment was conducted under similar conditions as the no-choice experiment and using the same type of cages. Two pots were placed in diagonally opposite corners inside each cage. One pot contained a maize plant while the other contained a Vetiver grass plant. Each two-choice experiment was replicated 12–15 times. Females were allowed to oviposit within a 3-day period before they were removed. After the test, plants were removed from the cages and the number of egg batches was counted on each plant. Egg batches were removed and eggs were counted using a light microscope after a few days when they turned brown and could easily be distinguished from each other. For each replication, pots were shifted to avoid positional bias by the moths. Cages containing differently experienced moths were completely randomized.

Statistical analyses

A replicated goodness-of-fit G-test was used to compare the numbers of egg batches deposited on each pair of plants in each of the three experience tests with the null hypothesis of no preference. A G-test of an R×C table of independence was used to compare the overall relative proportions of egg batches laid on maize and Vetiver grass between the different experience tests. Data from the no-choice test on mean number of egg batches and mean number of eggs per plant were analyzed by means of t-tests. T-tests were also used to compare total number of egg batches and eggs between field-collected and laboratory-reared moths.

Results

The females were very unwilling to oviposit on the plants. Therefore, the number of nights that moths were exposed to plants in the two-choice experiment was increased from one to three during the experiment to give females more time for oviposition. However, this did not result in an increase in the number of females that actually laid eggs nor had this a significant effect on the total number of egg batches laid by moths during the two-choice experiment (t=−0.7059, P=0.48).

No-choice experiment

Unfortunately, the number of egg batches and eggs per plant laid by field-collected moths in the no-choice experiment were not recorded.

The laboratory-reared females laid on average significantly more egg batches on Vetiver grass than on maize (table 1). The size of the egg batches did not differ significantly between maize and Vetiver grass. Therefore, the average number of eggs was significantly higher on Vetiver grass than on maize plants (table 1).

Table 1. Average number of egg batches (±SE) and total number of eggs (±SE) laid on maize and Vetiver grass in the no-choice experiment by naïve laboratory-reared C. partellus female moths.

Oviposition preference of field-collected and laboratory-reared C. partellus populations in the two-choice experiment

Naïve field-collected females laid significantly more egg batches on Vetiver grass than on maize plants (G P=11.8, P<0.001; table 2a) (G P measures the difference between treatments when all replicates are pooled). Variation between replicates was large but not significant. Field-collected females with an oviposition experience on maize preferred to lay eggs on Vetiver grass in the choice experiment but the difference was not significant and there was significant variation between replicates (G H=29.3, P<0.01) (G H measures heterogeneity between replicates). Field-collected females with an oviposition experience on Vetiver grass laid very few egg batches and only on Vetiver grass (G P=6.9, P<0.01).

Table 2. Average number of egg batches (±SE) laid on maize (M) and Vetiver grass (VG) by (a) field-collected and (b) laboratory-reared C. partellus female moths in the two-choice experiment.

(a)

(b)

Naïve laboratory-reared females laid significantly more egg batches on Vetiver grass than on maize plants (G P=47.7, P<0.001; table 2b). Laboratory-reared females, which were experienced on maize or Vetiver grass, also showed a significant preference for Vetiver grass (G P=33.2, P<0.001 and G P=45.1, P<0.001, respectively). Variation between replicates was not significant for laboratory-reared females in each of the three experience tests.

Overall, there was no significant difference in choice distribution for maize or Vetiver grass plants between field-collected females with different oviposition experiences (G=5.517, df=2, P=0.063). In the experiment with the laboratory-reared moths, an oviposition experience with maize or Vetiver grass did not induce a significant preference shift either (G=1.107, df=2, P=0.575).

In the two-choice experiment, egg batches laid by field-collected moths (on both type of plants) were on average significantly larger compared to egg batches laid by laboratory-reared moths (P<0.05; table 3). The average number of egg batches laid by laboratory-reared moths was, however, significantly higher than for field-collected moths and, therefore, the total number of eggs laid by laboratory-reared moths was also significantly higher compared to field-collected moths (table 3). On maize plants, field-collected and laboratory-reared moths laid approximately the same number of egg batches and eggs. Significantly more egg batches (t=3.876, P=0.000) and more eggs per plant (t=−3.227, P=0.002) were laid on Vetiver grass by laboratory-reared moths than by field-collected moths.

Table 3. Average number of egg batches (±SE) and total number of eggs (±SE) laid by field-collected and laboratory-reared C. partellus females on both maize and Vetiver plants in the two-choice experiment.

Discussion

Vetiver grass is highly preferred for oviposition by C. partellus, despite the fact that this plant is a poor host for its offspring. Host plant volatiles are often an important search cue for host-seeking herbivorous females. Host plants of C. partellus produce green leaf volatiles, which are used in host location (Khan et al., Reference Khan, Pickett, Van den Berg, Wadhams and Woodcock2000). It has recently been suggested that the ‘differential attraction/oviposition’ between cultivated and wild hosts may be associated with differences in production of green leaf volatiles between cultivated and wild hosts (Birkett et al., Reference Birkett, Chamberlain, Khan, Pickett, Toshova, Wadhams and Woodcock2006). Future studies should focus on the volatile profiles of Vetiver grass and maize to provide insight into the differential oviposition between maize and Vetiver grass. Limited information is available on Vetiver grass volatiles, e.g. it has been reported that they contain many terpenoids (Huang et al., Reference Huang, Li, Yang, Chen, Liu, Li and Nie2004).

Plant morphology is also an important factor in host plant selection and recognition (Ampofo, Reference Ampofo1985; Khan et al., Reference Khan, Midega, Hutter, Wilkins and Wadhams2006; Van den Berg, Reference Van den Berg2006b). For moths in general, plant surface texture is crucial in the evaluation of potential oviposition sites (Ramaswamy, Reference Ramaswamy1988). Unlike other moth species, C. partellus prefers smooth surfaces for oviposition (Ampofo, Reference Ampofo1985; Kumar & Saxena, Reference Kumar and Saxena1985). The smooth surface of Vetiver leaves may be a factor that can explain the high preference of moths for Vetiver grass. Mabuda (Reference Mabuda2001) determined the number of trichomes cm−2 for Vetiver leaves, which was 20 and 90 for the adaxial and abaxial sides, respectively, while for maize leaves it was 120 trichomes cm−2 and 600 trichomes cm−2 on the adaxial and abaxial sides, respectively. It has been suggested that C. partellus selects oviposition sites for egg survival rather than for a suitable host for the larvae as larvae are able to disperse (Roome et al., Reference Roome, Chadha and Padgham1977). Further studies are required to determine whether chances for egg survival are higher on Vetiver grass than on maize.

A second hypothesis to explain the strong preference of C. partellus for Vetiver grass is the possible existence of an old association between this insect and Vetiver grass as they both originated in Asia. Vetiver grass seldom flowers outside tropical areas, but produces flowering stems in its area of origin, in which Chilo sp. are able to survive once they enter these stems, although at very low levels (Van den Berg, Reference Van den Berg2006a). Since it is known that the preference-performance relationship can vary under different ecological conditions and is influenced by geographic variation in host use (Thompson, Reference Thompson1988), the behaviour of C. partellus in this study may be explained by this effect of geography on the growth of the host plant.

Further studies are required to investigate whether natural enemies of C. partellus are attracted to Vetiver grass in order to test the ‘enemy-free space hypothesis’, which suggests that host preference is influenced by the occurrence of natural enemies on the host plant (Thompson, Reference Thompson1988).

In this study, the ovipositional response of C. partellus moths to maize and Vetiver plants was determined. Even with an oviposition experience on maize and in the presence of this suitable host plant, females still preferred to lay their eggs on Vetiver grass. This finding may have important implications for the efficacy of Vetiver grass as a trap crop. Currently, field studies are being conducted in Malawi, where the Vetiver grass technology is already widely applied for soil and water conservation by small-scale farmers (Carr, Reference Carr2000), to investigate the effectiveness of Vetiver grass as a trap plant for C. partellus. Such studies are required to point out whether female moths show the same attractiveness to Vetiver in the field as observed in this laboratory study. Absence of learning in C. partellus moths would mean that the most abundant host in the field (e.g. the major crop) does not necessarily have to become the most preferred crop, as in the case of H. armigera, where learning is hypothesized to result in higher oviposition percentages on host species that are locally most abundant (Cunningham et al., Reference Cunningham, Zalucki and West1999; Jallow et al., Reference Jallow, Cunningham and Zalucki2004). The absence of learning in C. partellus, thus, gives opportunities to control this pest through trap cropping.

Results from a simulation study by Potting et al. (Reference Potting, Perry and Powell2005) indicate that diversification strategies like trap cropping have the potential to control insect species, such as moths, because they are generally highly mobile insects having the ability of directed flights and good sensory abilities that enable orientated movements. Plants with a strong behaviour-altering effect (like Vetiver grass), which are employed in an optimal spatial arrangement, can result in good control effects for these type of herbivores (Potting et al., Reference Potting, Perry and Powell2005).

Conclusion

The results of this study show that the preference of C. partellus females for Vetiver grass does not change after having experienced oviposition on either maize or on this grass. The absence of learning in C. partellus means that trap cropping could have potential as a control method for this insect pest. Further long-term studies are required to evaluate the effect of Vetiver grass as a trap plant for C. partellus under field conditions. The observed differences between field-collected and laboratory-reared moths indicate the need to test field-collected specimens in laboratory studies.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Willem Krüger for his assistance in the catching of the moths, and Bradley Brummel for his help with the statistical analyses.

References

Ampofo, J.K.O. (1985) Chilo partellus (Swinhoe) oviposition on susceptible and resistant maize genotypes. Insect Science and its Application 6, 323330.Google Scholar
Birkett, M.A., Chamberlain, K., Khan, Z.R., Pickett, J.A., Toshova, T., Wadhams, L.J. & Woodcock, C.M. (2006) Electrophysiological responses of the lepidopterous stemborers Chilo partellus and Busseola fusca to volatiles from wild and cultivated host plants. Journal of Chemical Ecology 32, 24752487.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carr, S. (2000) The use of Vetiver for soil and water conservation by small-scale farmers in Malawi. pp. 161163 in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Vetiver. Bangkok, Office of the Royal Development Projects Board.Google Scholar
Cunningham, J.P., Jallow, M.F.A., Wright, D.J. & Zalucki, M.P. (1998) Learning in host selection in Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Animal Behaviour 55, 227234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cunningham, J.P., Zalucki, M.P. & West, S.A. (1999) Learning in Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae): a new look at the behaviour and control of this polyphagous pest. Bulletin of Entomological Research 89, 201207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firempong, S. & Zalucki, M.P. (1991) Host plant selection by Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae): the role of some herbivore attributes. Australian Journal of Zoology 39, 343350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, K.M. (1990) Bioecology of Chilo species. Insect Science and its Application 11, 467477.Google Scholar
Hokkanen, H.M.T. (1991) Trap cropping in pest management. Annual Review of Entomology 36, 119138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, J., Li, H., Yang, J., Chen, Y., Liu, Y., Li, N. & Nie, C. (2004) Chemical components of Vetiveria zizanioides volatiles. Yingyong-Shengtai-Xuebao 15, 170172 (abstract in English).Google ScholarPubMed
Ingram, W.R. (1958) The lepidopterous stalk-borers associated with Gramineae in Uganda. Bulletin of Entomological Research 49, 367383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jallow, M.F.A., Cunningham, J.P. & Zalucki, M.P. (2004) Intra-specific variation for host plant use in Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae): implications for management. Crop Protection 23, 955964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kfir, R. (1992) A simple artificial diet for mass rearing the stem borer Chilo partellus (Swinhoe) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Journal of the Entomological Society of southern Africa 55, 283284.Google Scholar
Kfir, R., Overholt, W.A., Khan, Z.R. & Polaszek, A. (2002) Biology and management of economically important lepidopteran cereal stem borers in Africa. Annual Review of Entomology 47, 701731.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khan, Z.R., Chiliswa, P., Ampong-Nyarko, K., Smart, L.E., Polaszek, A., Wandera, J. & Mulaa, M.A. (1997) Utilisation of wild gramineous plants for the management of cereal stemborers in Africa. Insect Science and its Application 17, 143150.Google Scholar
Khan, Z.R., Pickett, J.A., Van den Berg, J., Wadhams, L.J. & Woodcock, C.M. (2000) Exploiting chemical ecology and species diversity: Stem borer and striga control for maize and sorghum in Africa. Pest Management Science 56, 957962.3.0.CO;2-T>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khan, Z.R., Pickett, J.A., Wadhams, L.J. & Muyekho, F. (2001) Habitat management strategies for the control of cereal stemborers and striga in maize in Kenya. Insect Science and its Application 21, 375380.Google Scholar
Khan, Z.R., Midega, C.A.O., Hutter, N.J., Wilkins, R.M. & Wadhams, L.J. (2006) Assessment of the potential of Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum) varieties as trap plants for management of Chilo partellus. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 119, 1522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, H. & Saxena, K.N. (1985) Oviposition by Chilo partellus (Swinhoe) in relation to its mating, diurnal cycle and certain non-plant surfaces. Applied Entomology and Zoology 20, 218221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mabuda, K. (2001) Effect of soil moisture and host plants on behaviour and survival of the common cutworm, Agrotis segetum (Denis & Schiffermüller) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). MSc thesis, Department of Zoology and Entomology, University of the Orange Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa, 67 pp.Google Scholar
Overholt, W.A. (1998) Biological control. pp. 349362in Polaszek, A. (Ed.) African Cereal Stemborers: Economic Importance, Taxonomy, Natural Enemies and Control. Wallingford, CAB International.Google Scholar
Papaj, D.R. & Lewis, A.C. (1993) Insect learning: ecological and evolutionary perspectives. 398 pp. New York, Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papaj, D.R. & Prokopy, R.J. (1989) Ecological and evolutionary aspects of learning in phytophagous insects. Annual Review of Entomology 34, 315350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Päts, P. (1990) Activity of Chilo partellus (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae): eclosion, mating and oviposition time. Bulletin of Entomological Research 81, 9396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polaszek, A. & Khan, Z.R. (1998) Host plants. pp. 310in Polaszek, A. (Ed.) African Cereal Stemborers: Economic Importance, Taxonomy, Natural Enemies and Control. Wallingford, CAB International.Google Scholar
Potting, R.P.J., Perry, J.N. & Powell, W. (2005) Insect behavioural ecology and other factors affecting the control efficacy of agro-ecosystem diversification strategies. Ecological Modelling 182, 199216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramaswamy, S.B. (1988) Host finding by moths: sensory modalities and behaviours. Journal of Insect Physiology 34, 235249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rebe, M., Van den Berg, J. & McGeoch, M.A. (2004) Growth and development of Chilo partellus (Swinhoe) (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) on cultivated and indigenous graminaceous host plants. African Entomology 12, 253258.Google Scholar
Roome, R.E., Chadha, G.K. & Padgham, D. (1977) Choice of oviposition site by Chilo, the sorghum stem-borer. Bulletin International Organisation for Biological Control of Noxious Animals and Plants/West Palearctic Regional Section 3, 115121.Google Scholar
Schoonhoven, L.M., Jermy, T. & Van Loon, J.J.A. (1998) Experience-induced changes in host-plant preference. pp. 204214in Schoonhoven, L.M. (Ed.) Insect-Plant Biology: From Physiology to Evolution. London, Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seshu Reddy, K.V. (1983) Sorghum stem borers in Eastern Africa. Insect Science and its Application 4, 3339.Google Scholar
Shelton, A.M. & Badenes-Perez, F.R. (2006) Concepts and applications of trap cropping in pest management. Annual Review of Entomology 51, 285308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, G. & Sandhu, G.S. (1978) Oviposition behaviour of maize borer, Chilo partellus (Swinhoe), in the field. Indian Journal of Entomology 40, 191196.Google Scholar
Tams, W.H.T. (1932) New species of African Heterocera. Entomologist 65, 12411249.Google Scholar
Thompson, J.N. (1988) Evolutionary ecology of the relationship between oviposition preference and performance of offspring in phytophagous insects. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 47, 314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van den Berg, J. (2006a) Vetiver grass (Vetiveria zizanioides (L.) Nash) as trap plant for Chilo partellus (Swinhoe) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) and Busseola fusca (Fuller) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Annales de la Société Entomologique de France 42, 449454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van den Berg, J. (2006b) Oviposition preference and larval survival of Chilo partellus (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) on Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum) trap crops. International Journal of Pest Management 52, 3944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van den Berg, J., Rebe, M., De Bruyn, J. & Van Hamburg, H. (2001) Developing habitat management systems for gramineous stemborers in South Africa. Insect Science and its Application 21, 381388.Google Scholar
Van den Berg, J., Midega, C., Wadhams, L.J. & Khan, Z.R. (2003) Can Vetiver grass be used to manage crop pests? pp. 262273 in Vetiver grass–a world technology and its impact on water. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Vetiver and Exhibition. Guangzhou, October 2003, Beijing, China, Agriculture press.Google Scholar
Zhang, P.-J. & Liu, S.-S. (2006) Experience induces phytophagous insect to lay eggs on a nonhost plant. Journal of Chemical Ecology 32, 745753.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Table 1. Average number of egg batches (±SE) and total number of eggs (±SE) laid on maize and Vetiver grass in the no-choice experiment by naïve laboratory-reared C. partellus female moths.

Figure 1

Table 2. Average number of egg batches (±SE) laid on maize (M) and Vetiver grass (VG) by (a) field-collected and (b) laboratory-reared C. partellus female moths in the two-choice experiment.(a)

Figure 2

Table 3. Average number of egg batches (±SE) and total number of eggs (±SE) laid by field-collected and laboratory-reared C. partellus females on both maize and Vetiver plants in the two-choice experiment.