Premium
Altered mating behaviour in a Cry1Ac‐resistant strain of Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)
Author(s) -
Zhao X. C.,
Wu K. M.,
Liang G. M.,
Guo Y. Y.
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
journal of applied entomology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.795
H-Index - 60
eISSN - 1439-0418
pISSN - 0931-2048
DOI - 10.1111/j.1439-0418.2008.01268.x
Subject(s) - biology , helicoverpa armigera , lepidoptera genitalia , mating , heterogametic sex , noctuidae , cry1ac , spermatophore , pyralidae , mating type , zoology , strain (injury) , genetics , botany , anatomy , chromosome , gene , genetically modified crops , transgene
Randomness of mating between susceptible and resistant individuals is a major factor that closely relates to the refuge strategy of resistance management for Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) to Bacillus thuringiensis cotton. The mating behaviour of Cry1Ac‐susceptible and Cry1Ac‐resistant strains of H. armigera was compared to investigate the randomness of their mating. The percentage of mating was lower for Cry1Ac‐resistant H. armigera compared with that of the susceptible strain under both no‐choice and multiple‐choice conditions. The low percentage of mating in the resistant strain indicates a reduced incidence of successful mating. The percentage of spermatophore‐containing mated female H. armigera in the crossing of susceptible females × resistant males was significantly lower than in the crossing of resistant females × susceptible males, but the observed mating frequencies of these two types of cross were similar to each other. This indicates that resistant males reduce the incidence of mating paternity more than they do their mating frequency. The percentages of heterogametic matings (susceptible females × resistant males, resistant females × susceptible males) in the multiple‐choice experiment were lower than those of homogametic matings (susceptible × susceptible, resistant × resistant) on peak mating nights. However, the difference between heterogametic and homogametic mating was not significant, indicating that there was a random mating between susceptible and resistant strains. The results presented here do not reflect reality in mating associated with Cry1Ac resistance but can provide insight into variable expression.