Cited by 38Insect-Plant Interactions and ControlInsect Pest Control StrategiesLepidoptera: Biology and Taxonomy

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Rejection of host plant by larvae of cabbage butterfly: Diet-dependent sensitivity to an antifeedant

Renwick, J. A. A., Huang, Xin Pei·1995·Journal of Chemical Ecology

Abstract

Garden nasturtium,Tropaeolum majus (Tropaeolaceae), is an acceptable host plant for the cabbage butterfly,Pieris rapae. Eggs are readily laid on the plant and hatching larvae feed and develop into normal pupae and adults. However, when second- to fifth-instar larvae were transferred from cabbage to nasturtium, they refused to feed and starved to death. Similar results were obtained when larvae were transferred from other host plants to nasturtium. However, larvae that were reared on nasturtium readily accepted cabbage as a new host plant. We have demonstrated the presence of strong antifeedants in nasturtium foliage and identified the most prominent active compound as chlorogenic acid. However, larvae reared on nasturtium had limited sensitivity, and larvae reared on a wheat germ diet were completely insensitive to the antifeedants. Larvae apparently develop sensitivity to the deterrent as a result of feeding on other host plants, whereas continuous exposure to the deterrent causes habituation or suppression of sensitivity development. The results demonstrate that dietary experience can dramatically affect the response of an insect to a potentially antifeedant compound in a plant.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/bf02036743

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Bell, R.A., Owens, C.D., Shapiro, M., andTardif, J.R. 1979. Development of mass rearing technology, pp. 599–633,in C.C. Doane and M.L. McManus (eds.). The Gypsy Moth: Research Toward Integrated Pest Management. USDA-FS Technical Bulletin 1584.
  2. Boodley, J.W., andSheldrake, R. 1977. Cornell peat-lite mixes for commercial plant growing.Cornell Info. Bull. 42:1–8.
  3. Johansson, A.S. 1951. The food plant preference of the larvae ofPieris brassicae L. (Lepid., Pieridae).Norsk Entomol. Tidsskr. 8:187–195.
  4. Schoonhoven, L.M. 1969. Sensitivity changes in some insect chemoreceptors and their effect on food selection behavior.Proc. K. Ned. Akad. Wet. Ser. C. 72:491–498.
  5. Szentesi, A., andJermy, T. 1989. The role of experience in host plant choice by phytophagous insects, pp. 39–74,in E.A. Bernays (ed.). Insect-Plant Interactions, Vol. II. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 38

Metadata

Authors
Renwick, J. A. A., & Huang, X. P.
Affiliations
Boyce Thompson Institute (US)
Venue
Journal of Chemical Ecology
Published
1995-04
Volume
21
Issue
4
Pages
465-475
ISSN
  • 0098-0331 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-1561
OpenAlex
W2009019021
Cited by
38
References
17
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2
FWCI
9.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Chemical Ecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Syracuse University
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Insect-Plant Interactions and Control
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Insect Pest Control Strategies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Lepidoptera: Biology and Taxonomy
Keywords
small white butterfly, Tropaeolum majus, antifeedants, chlorogenic acid, larval nutrition, habituation, plant-insect interactions, host plant acceptance, wheat germ diet

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review