Loading…

Host Plant Selection by Romalea microptera (Orthoptera: Romaleidae)

The eastern lubber grasshopper, Romalea microptera (Palisot de Beauvois) (Orthoptera: Romaleidae)[also known as R. guttata (Houttuyn)], is known to be polyphagous, but little else is known about its diet. Choice and no-choice tests were conducted to determine plant preference. In choice tests, 104 d...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Florida entomologist 2014-03, Vol.97 (1), p.38-49
Main Author: Capinera, John L
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b417t-6c031420981757c74f88ffa7ff89bd3b6fb19945c5441bd3057ac04d7dfd72353
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b417t-6c031420981757c74f88ffa7ff89bd3b6fb19945c5441bd3057ac04d7dfd72353
container_end_page 49
container_issue 1
container_start_page 38
container_title The Florida entomologist
container_volume 97
creator Capinera, John L
description The eastern lubber grasshopper, Romalea microptera (Palisot de Beauvois) (Orthoptera: Romaleidae)[also known as R. guttata (Houttuyn)], is known to be polyphagous, but little else is known about its diet. Choice and no-choice tests were conducted to determine plant preference. In choice tests, 104 different plants were presented and relative preference was determined using ‘Romaine’ lettuce (Lactuca sativa L. var. longifolia; Asteraceae) as a standard. These included representative plants from several categories, including ornamental plants, weeds, shrubs, trees, vines, aquatic or semiaquatic plants, and vegetable crops. The grasshoppers did not display a statistically significant difference in selection, relative to ‘Romaine’ lettuce, for 20% of the plants evaluated; these should be considered very susceptible to injury because lettuce is a readily accepted plant. A few plants (3%) were more preferred than lettuce, and of course would also be at high risk for consumption. The majority of plants tested (77%) were significantly less preferred, but even some of these are at risk because, like other polyphagous insects, lubbers sometimes will feed on less acceptable plants when preferred plants are not available. A subset of these (n = 25) was also presented in no-choice tests, and the choice and no-choice responses compared. Plant preference in choice and no-choice tests was significantly correlated. A selection of ornamental plants (n = 10) that scored least-preferred in choice tests was assessed in no-choice ‘starvation’ tests, and 9 of the 10 proved to be quite resistant to grasshopper feeding. Several plants (n = 5) that produce foliage asynchronously were assessed in choice tests, with the grasshoppers preferring young foliage relative to old foliage. In field cage studies, the acceptability of plants significantly affected the efficacy of insecticide-containing baits, with significantly higher mortality found in cages containing non-preferred plants. Thus, host plant selection affects damage directly by regulating the amount of feeding, and indirectly by influencing acceptance of bait.
doi_str_mv 10.1653/024.097.0105
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1523670448</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A369319857</galeid><jstor_id>24362433</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>A369319857</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b417t-6c031420981757c74f88ffa7ff89bd3b6fb19945c5441bd3057ac04d7dfd72353</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kUtLxDAUhYMoOD52bsWCGxU73jRJ07iTwRcIiqPrkLbJ2GGmGZMM6L_3SkVwIyEk3PPdR3IIOaAwpqVgF1DwMSg5Bgpig4yoYlUuKBSbZARARc6BwzbZiXEOAKoQYkQmdz6m7Glh-pRN7cI2qfN9Vn9mz35pFtZky64JfpVsMNnJY0hvw_3yR-9aY0_3yJYzi2j3f85d8npz_TK5yx8eb-8nVw95zalMedkAo7wAVVEpZCO5qyrnjHSuUnXL6tLVVCkuGsE5xQAIaRrgrWxdKwsm2C45Huqugn9f25j03K9Djy01FQUrJXBeITUeqBnOp7ve-RRMg6u1-BbfW9dh_IqVilFVCYkJp38SkEn2I83MOkZ9P33-y54PLH5KjME6vQrd0oRPTUF_e6DRA40e6G8PED8c8HlMPvyyBWclbob60aA747WZhS7q12kBtITBIEDibCDqzuPs_7f7AlyBlTE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1523670448</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Host Plant Selection by Romalea microptera (Orthoptera: Romaleidae)</title><source>Publicly Available Content (ProQuest)</source><source>JSTOR</source><creator>Capinera, John L</creator><creatorcontrib>Capinera, John L</creatorcontrib><description>The eastern lubber grasshopper, Romalea microptera (Palisot de Beauvois) (Orthoptera: Romaleidae)[also known as R. guttata (Houttuyn)], is known to be polyphagous, but little else is known about its diet. Choice and no-choice tests were conducted to determine plant preference. In choice tests, 104 different plants were presented and relative preference was determined using ‘Romaine’ lettuce (Lactuca sativa L. var. longifolia; Asteraceae) as a standard. These included representative plants from several categories, including ornamental plants, weeds, shrubs, trees, vines, aquatic or semiaquatic plants, and vegetable crops. The grasshoppers did not display a statistically significant difference in selection, relative to ‘Romaine’ lettuce, for 20% of the plants evaluated; these should be considered very susceptible to injury because lettuce is a readily accepted plant. A few plants (3%) were more preferred than lettuce, and of course would also be at high risk for consumption. The majority of plants tested (77%) were significantly less preferred, but even some of these are at risk because, like other polyphagous insects, lubbers sometimes will feed on less acceptable plants when preferred plants are not available. A subset of these (n = 25) was also presented in no-choice tests, and the choice and no-choice responses compared. Plant preference in choice and no-choice tests was significantly correlated. A selection of ornamental plants (n = 10) that scored least-preferred in choice tests was assessed in no-choice ‘starvation’ tests, and 9 of the 10 proved to be quite resistant to grasshopper feeding. Several plants (n = 5) that produce foliage asynchronously were assessed in choice tests, with the grasshoppers preferring young foliage relative to old foliage. In field cage studies, the acceptability of plants significantly affected the efficacy of insecticide-containing baits, with significantly higher mortality found in cages containing non-preferred plants. Thus, host plant selection affects damage directly by regulating the amount of feeding, and indirectly by influencing acceptance of bait.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0015-4040</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1938-5102</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1653/024.097.0105</identifier><identifier>CODEN: FETMAC</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Lutz: Florida Entomological Society</publisher><subject>baits ; cages ; cebos insecticidas ; Diet ; dietas ; diets ; Entomology ; Grasses ; grasshoppers ; Herbivores ; Host plants ; Insect-plant relationships ; insecticide baits ; Insecticides ; Lactuca sativa var. longifolia ; Leaves ; Lettuce ; lettuces ; lubber grasshopper ; mortality ; Ornamental plants ; plant preference ; Plants ; preferencia de la planta ; RESEARCH PAPERS ; risk ; Romalea guttata ; saltamontes torpes ; shrubs ; starvation ; testing ; trees ; vegetable crops ; vines ; weeds ; Zoological research</subject><ispartof>The Florida entomologist, 2014-03, Vol.97 (1), p.38-49</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2014 Florida Entomological Society</rights><rights>Copyright Florida Entomological Society Mar 2014</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b417t-6c031420981757c74f88ffa7ff89bd3b6fb19945c5441bd3057ac04d7dfd72353</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b417t-6c031420981757c74f88ffa7ff89bd3b6fb19945c5441bd3057ac04d7dfd72353</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1523670448/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1523670448?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,25731,27901,27902,36989,44566,58213,58446,74869</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Capinera, John L</creatorcontrib><title>Host Plant Selection by Romalea microptera (Orthoptera: Romaleidae)</title><title>The Florida entomologist</title><description>The eastern lubber grasshopper, Romalea microptera (Palisot de Beauvois) (Orthoptera: Romaleidae)[also known as R. guttata (Houttuyn)], is known to be polyphagous, but little else is known about its diet. Choice and no-choice tests were conducted to determine plant preference. In choice tests, 104 different plants were presented and relative preference was determined using ‘Romaine’ lettuce (Lactuca sativa L. var. longifolia; Asteraceae) as a standard. These included representative plants from several categories, including ornamental plants, weeds, shrubs, trees, vines, aquatic or semiaquatic plants, and vegetable crops. The grasshoppers did not display a statistically significant difference in selection, relative to ‘Romaine’ lettuce, for 20% of the plants evaluated; these should be considered very susceptible to injury because lettuce is a readily accepted plant. A few plants (3%) were more preferred than lettuce, and of course would also be at high risk for consumption. The majority of plants tested (77%) were significantly less preferred, but even some of these are at risk because, like other polyphagous insects, lubbers sometimes will feed on less acceptable plants when preferred plants are not available. A subset of these (n = 25) was also presented in no-choice tests, and the choice and no-choice responses compared. Plant preference in choice and no-choice tests was significantly correlated. A selection of ornamental plants (n = 10) that scored least-preferred in choice tests was assessed in no-choice ‘starvation’ tests, and 9 of the 10 proved to be quite resistant to grasshopper feeding. Several plants (n = 5) that produce foliage asynchronously were assessed in choice tests, with the grasshoppers preferring young foliage relative to old foliage. In field cage studies, the acceptability of plants significantly affected the efficacy of insecticide-containing baits, with significantly higher mortality found in cages containing non-preferred plants. Thus, host plant selection affects damage directly by regulating the amount of feeding, and indirectly by influencing acceptance of bait.</description><subject>baits</subject><subject>cages</subject><subject>cebos insecticidas</subject><subject>Diet</subject><subject>dietas</subject><subject>diets</subject><subject>Entomology</subject><subject>Grasses</subject><subject>grasshoppers</subject><subject>Herbivores</subject><subject>Host plants</subject><subject>Insect-plant relationships</subject><subject>insecticide baits</subject><subject>Insecticides</subject><subject>Lactuca sativa var. longifolia</subject><subject>Leaves</subject><subject>Lettuce</subject><subject>lettuces</subject><subject>lubber grasshopper</subject><subject>mortality</subject><subject>Ornamental plants</subject><subject>plant preference</subject><subject>Plants</subject><subject>preferencia de la planta</subject><subject>RESEARCH PAPERS</subject><subject>risk</subject><subject>Romalea guttata</subject><subject>saltamontes torpes</subject><subject>shrubs</subject><subject>starvation</subject><subject>testing</subject><subject>trees</subject><subject>vegetable crops</subject><subject>vines</subject><subject>weeds</subject><subject>Zoological research</subject><issn>0015-4040</issn><issn>1938-5102</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kUtLxDAUhYMoOD52bsWCGxU73jRJ07iTwRcIiqPrkLbJ2GGmGZMM6L_3SkVwIyEk3PPdR3IIOaAwpqVgF1DwMSg5Bgpig4yoYlUuKBSbZARARc6BwzbZiXEOAKoQYkQmdz6m7Glh-pRN7cI2qfN9Vn9mz35pFtZky64JfpVsMNnJY0hvw_3yR-9aY0_3yJYzi2j3f85d8npz_TK5yx8eb-8nVw95zalMedkAo7wAVVEpZCO5qyrnjHSuUnXL6tLVVCkuGsE5xQAIaRrgrWxdKwsm2C45Huqugn9f25j03K9Djy01FQUrJXBeITUeqBnOp7ve-RRMg6u1-BbfW9dh_IqVilFVCYkJp38SkEn2I83MOkZ9P33-y54PLH5KjME6vQrd0oRPTUF_e6DRA40e6G8PED8c8HlMPvyyBWclbob60aA747WZhS7q12kBtITBIEDibCDqzuPs_7f7AlyBlTE</recordid><startdate>20140301</startdate><enddate>20140301</enddate><creator>Capinera, John L</creator><general>Florida Entomological Society</general><general>The Florida Entomological Society</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QR</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20140301</creationdate><title>Host Plant Selection by Romalea microptera (Orthoptera: Romaleidae)</title><author>Capinera, John L</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b417t-6c031420981757c74f88ffa7ff89bd3b6fb19945c5441bd3057ac04d7dfd72353</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>baits</topic><topic>cages</topic><topic>cebos insecticidas</topic><topic>Diet</topic><topic>dietas</topic><topic>diets</topic><topic>Entomology</topic><topic>Grasses</topic><topic>grasshoppers</topic><topic>Herbivores</topic><topic>Host plants</topic><topic>Insect-plant relationships</topic><topic>insecticide baits</topic><topic>Insecticides</topic><topic>Lactuca sativa var. longifolia</topic><topic>Leaves</topic><topic>Lettuce</topic><topic>lettuces</topic><topic>lubber grasshopper</topic><topic>mortality</topic><topic>Ornamental plants</topic><topic>plant preference</topic><topic>Plants</topic><topic>preferencia de la planta</topic><topic>RESEARCH PAPERS</topic><topic>risk</topic><topic>Romalea guttata</topic><topic>saltamontes torpes</topic><topic>shrubs</topic><topic>starvation</topic><topic>testing</topic><topic>trees</topic><topic>vegetable crops</topic><topic>vines</topic><topic>weeds</topic><topic>Zoological research</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Capinera, John L</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Chemoreception Abstracts</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Agriculture &amp; Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences &amp; Living Resources</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Biological Sciences</collection><collection>Agriculture Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest research library</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>The Florida entomologist</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Capinera, John L</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Host Plant Selection by Romalea microptera (Orthoptera: Romaleidae)</atitle><jtitle>The Florida entomologist</jtitle><date>2014-03-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>97</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>38</spage><epage>49</epage><pages>38-49</pages><issn>0015-4040</issn><eissn>1938-5102</eissn><coden>FETMAC</coden><abstract>The eastern lubber grasshopper, Romalea microptera (Palisot de Beauvois) (Orthoptera: Romaleidae)[also known as R. guttata (Houttuyn)], is known to be polyphagous, but little else is known about its diet. Choice and no-choice tests were conducted to determine plant preference. In choice tests, 104 different plants were presented and relative preference was determined using ‘Romaine’ lettuce (Lactuca sativa L. var. longifolia; Asteraceae) as a standard. These included representative plants from several categories, including ornamental plants, weeds, shrubs, trees, vines, aquatic or semiaquatic plants, and vegetable crops. The grasshoppers did not display a statistically significant difference in selection, relative to ‘Romaine’ lettuce, for 20% of the plants evaluated; these should be considered very susceptible to injury because lettuce is a readily accepted plant. A few plants (3%) were more preferred than lettuce, and of course would also be at high risk for consumption. The majority of plants tested (77%) were significantly less preferred, but even some of these are at risk because, like other polyphagous insects, lubbers sometimes will feed on less acceptable plants when preferred plants are not available. A subset of these (n = 25) was also presented in no-choice tests, and the choice and no-choice responses compared. Plant preference in choice and no-choice tests was significantly correlated. A selection of ornamental plants (n = 10) that scored least-preferred in choice tests was assessed in no-choice ‘starvation’ tests, and 9 of the 10 proved to be quite resistant to grasshopper feeding. Several plants (n = 5) that produce foliage asynchronously were assessed in choice tests, with the grasshoppers preferring young foliage relative to old foliage. In field cage studies, the acceptability of plants significantly affected the efficacy of insecticide-containing baits, with significantly higher mortality found in cages containing non-preferred plants. Thus, host plant selection affects damage directly by regulating the amount of feeding, and indirectly by influencing acceptance of bait.</abstract><cop>Lutz</cop><pub>Florida Entomological Society</pub><doi>10.1653/024.097.0105</doi><tpages>12</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0015-4040
ispartof The Florida entomologist, 2014-03, Vol.97 (1), p.38-49
issn 0015-4040
1938-5102
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1523670448
source Publicly Available Content (ProQuest); JSTOR
subjects baits
cages
cebos insecticidas
Diet
dietas
diets
Entomology
Grasses
grasshoppers
Herbivores
Host plants
Insect-plant relationships
insecticide baits
Insecticides
Lactuca sativa var. longifolia
Leaves
Lettuce
lettuces
lubber grasshopper
mortality
Ornamental plants
plant preference
Plants
preferencia de la planta
RESEARCH PAPERS
risk
Romalea guttata
saltamontes torpes
shrubs
starvation
testing
trees
vegetable crops
vines
weeds
Zoological research
title Host Plant Selection by Romalea microptera (Orthoptera: Romaleidae)
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-29T08%3A13%3A52IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Host%20Plant%20Selection%20by%20Romalea%20microptera%20(Orthoptera:%20Romaleidae)&rft.jtitle=The%20Florida%20entomologist&rft.au=Capinera,%20John%20L&rft.date=2014-03-01&rft.volume=97&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=38&rft.epage=49&rft.pages=38-49&rft.issn=0015-4040&rft.eissn=1938-5102&rft.coden=FETMAC&rft_id=info:doi/10.1653/024.097.0105&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA369319857%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b417t-6c031420981757c74f88ffa7ff89bd3b6fb19945c5441bd3057ac04d7dfd72353%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1523670448&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A369319857&rft_jstor_id=24362433&rfr_iscdi=true