Next Article in Journal
Super-Protective Child-Rearing by Japanese Bess Beetles, Cylindrocaulus patalis: Adults Provide Their Larvae with Chewed and Predigested Wood
Previous Article in Journal
Ectomycota Associated with Arthropods from Bat Hibernacula in Eastern Canada, with Particular Reference to Pseudogymnoascus destructans
Previous Article in Special Issue
Mating Success, Longevity, and Fertility of Diabrotica virgifera virgifera LeConte (Chrysomelidae: Coleoptera) in Relation to Body Size and Cry3Bb1-Resistant and Cry3Bb1-Susceptible Genotypes
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Insects
Volume 7
Issue 2
10.3390/insects7020017
insects-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Pheromone Autodetection: Evidence and Implications

by
Robert Holdcraft
1,*,
Cesar Rodriguez-Saona
1,† and
Lukasz L. Stelinski
2,†
1
Marucci Center for Blueberry and Cranberry Research and Extension, Rutgers University, 125A Lake Oswego Road, Chatsworth, NJ 08019, USA
2
Citrus Research and Education Center, University of Florida, 700 Experiment Station Road, Lake Alfred, FL 33850, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Insects 2016, 7(2), 17; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects7020017
Submission received: 15 December 2015 / Revised: 4 March 2016 / Accepted: 13 April 2016 / Published: 25 April 2016
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sexual Communication in An Evolutionary Context)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Olfactory communication research with insects utilizing sex pheromones has focused on the effects of pheromones on signal receivers. Early pheromone detection studies using the silkworm moth, Bombyx mori L., and Saturniids led to the assumption that emitters, especially females, are unable to detect their own pheromone. Pheromone anosmia, i.e., the inability of females to detect their conspecific sex pheromone, was often assumed, and initially little attention was paid to female behaviors that may result from autodetection, i.e., the ability of females to detect their sex pheromone. Detection of conspecific pheromone plumes from nearby females may provide information to improve chances of mating success and progeny survival. Since the first documented example in 1972, numerous occurrences of autodetection have been observed and verified in field and laboratory studies. We summarize here a significant portion of research relating to autodetection. Electrophysiological and behavioral investigations, as well as expression patterns of proteins involved in pheromone autodetection are included. We discuss problems inherent in defining a boundary between sex and aggregation pheromones considering the occurrence of autodetection, and summarize hypothesized selection pressures favoring autodetection. Importance of including autodetection studies in future work is emphasized by complications arising from a lack of knowledge combined with expanding the use of pheromones in agriculture.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

In the process of describing autodetection, and why it is imperative to expand our understanding of it, some general background concepts should be reviewed. In discussing insect pheromone-mediated sexual communication, long-range pheromone signals can be grouped variously: by which sex produces them, i.e., exclusively by male, female, or both sexes; or grouped by which sex responds to the signal. Generally accepted groups are therefore female- or male-produced sex-pheromones that are detected by and attract exclusively the opposite sex, and female- and/or male-produced aggregation pheromones that are detected by and attract both sexes. Sex pheromones, usually considered to be for the sole purpose of attracting a mate of the opposite sex, are particularly common among the Lepidoptera, and the Coleopteran family Scarabidae. Among both groups, it is frequently (though not always) the female that calls and the male who responds. Aggregation pheromones, found frequently among other families of the Coleoptera, are not as easily delineated as they can be emitted by individuals or groups of either or both sexes, but in all cases result in the attraction of both. Aggregation is also thought to serve multiple functions beyond mate location, such as host plant location or to overcome host defenses, though mating likely remains an important result.
Complications to the above methods for grouping pheromones arise when it is discovered that for some species, traditionally considered to use sex pheromones, members of the same sex as the caller can detect their conspecific pheromone. Such complications have occurred in cases among both the Lepidoptera and Scarabidae, particularly, though not exclusively, among species with female-produced pheromones. In most of these cases, it had been assumed that while males could detect the pheromones, females could not. There is, however, growing evidence that this assumption is not always true. In some cases the pheromone only attracts males, thus operating as a sex pheromone, but may have other behavioral effects on females; for example, a repellent effect, or causing an advance or delay in calling initiation. Additionally, in some rare cases, the pheromone attracts both sexes, thus operating more like an aggregation pheromone (Figure 1). One conundrum is how to categorize a species’ pheromone if it is found to attract both sexes when the pheromones of related species only attract males.
These complications have occurred with sufficient frequency to cause the adoption of the term “autodetection” to describe pheromone-producers that can detect conspecific pheromone, particularly regarding female-produced pheromones. It has been suggested that usage of the term “autodetection” to describe the cases thus far observed may be somewhat flawed, as it suggests individuals are “self-detecting”, as opposed to using conspecific pheromone cues as a form of intrasexual communication. Despite its possible inaccuracy, the term has been readily adopted in discussions regarding the above-described phenomenon. The majority of research on autodetection focuses on Lepidoptera with fewer studies on Coleoptera. Results from electrophysiological work using electroantennograms (EAG) of both male and female moths have provided the basis for the creation and clarification of the terms “pheromone anosmia” and “autodetection”. These are almost entirely used in reference to female-produced sex pheromones of moths, and the response, or lack thereof, from female antennae exposed to those pheromones. “Female antennal anosmia” is defined as the inability of female antennae to detect their conspecific sex pheromone, while “female autodetection” occurs when females can detect their sex pheromone (Figure 1). As noted above, the behavior of female insects that can detect their own pheromone signal can sometimes be similar to the response mediated by aggregation pheromones (Figure 1); however, female behaviors are influenced in many ways (described below) as a result of autodetection.
Additional clarification of the above definitions will likely arise from the expanding work focusing on pheromone-binding proteins (PBP) and pheromone-receptor proteins (PR). These two separate protein groups are crucial in the process of pheromone detection and are readily found in the pheromone receptor-cells of male antennae. Both PBP and PR have been investigated in female antennae as well, and this work has begun to provide some evidence that pheromone autodetection may not be a result of the absence or presence of these proteins in antennal receptors so much as a function of their levels in those receptors. Within this review, we provide a first attempt at analyzing the relationship between quantitative estimates of PBP/PR in female antennae and resulting levels of electrophysiological response to pheromone.

1.2. History of Anosmia vs. Autodetection

Since the first simple tests of sex attractants by Fabre in 1879 using the great peacock moth, Saturnia pyri (Denis and Schiffermüller) (Lepidoptera: Saturniidae), the Saturniid moths with their large antennae have been test subjects in sex-attraction studies. Indeed, they are still commonly referenced in entomology courses and textbooks when sex pheromones are discussed. The obvious sexual dimorphism of their antennae helps to convey the mechanisms and sensitivity of pheromone reception. The similarly endowed gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar (Linnaeus) (Lepidoptera: Erebidae), has also been an important model system since the inability of the females to fly helps conceptualize the role that sex pheromones play in division of risk and parental investment [1]. However, after the identification of the silkworm moth pheromone “bombykol” in the late 1950s [2] and the concurrent development of the electroantennogram (EAG) [3,4], the silkworm moth, Bombyx mori (Linnaeus) (Lepidoptera: Bombycidae), became an established model organism for pheromone research. Well-established rearing methods for silkworm moths likely played a role in the selection of B. mori as a research subject, as they provided researchers with the large numbers of adult females needed for pheromone gland extraction. Additionally, the large antennae of males of that species likely helped in the development of the EAG by providing antennae that were easy to manipulate. Given that female antennae did not show EAG responses to bombykol, compared to obvious responses from males, the EAG became a standard method to assay male response to female-produced sex pheromones [3,4,5]. The choice of B. mori as a model organism contributed to identification of insect pheromones through development of behavioral and electrophysiological methods, but may have led to an initial assumption that most female moths cannot perceive their own pheromones. This assumption was pervasive. For example, Schneider et al. [6] stated that “Female antennae of most moth species are apparently anosmic to their own odour, while autodetection of female pheromones is a less frequently observed phenomenon”.
It was almost two decades after the initial ground breaking advances in insect sex pheromone research of the 1950s that the unpredicted behavior of virgin females of the noctuid moth, Trichoplusia ni (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), was observed; namely, their capture in significant numbers, along with males, in pheromone-baited traps [7]. This observation provided a clue that long-distance pheromone-mediated interactions within some species were not always limited to calling females and responding males. Indeed, two possible causes for such behavior by T. ni females were suggested: male-produced sex pheromones [8,9] or that T. ni females were detecting and responding to the synthetic female sex pheromones used to bait the traps [10]. These more complex interactions have yet to be fully explored.

2. Types of Evidence

2.1. Criterion for Selecting Literature

To locate and select articles for inclusion in this review of the existing evidence for autodetection thus far, an initial literature search was undertaken using the following search engines: Rutgers University Libraries literature search tool, BioOne, CAB Abstracts, Google Scholar, IngentaConnect, JSTOR, Mendeley, PubMed, SpringerLink, and Web of Science. To cast as wide a net as possible, key search terms included an array of applicable subjects and combinations/variations thereof. A partial list of such terms included but was not limited to: “autodetection”, “pheromone autodetection”, “pheromone anosmia”, “female sex pheromone”, “electroantennagram/graph”, “EAG”, “single sensillum recording”, “SSR”, “female electroantennagram/EAG”, “female insect sex pheromone detection”, “female insect pheromone trap capture”, “female response to conspecific sex pheromone”, “pheromone binding protein”, “pheromone receptor protein”, amongst others. This initial search was as inclusive as was feasible in an attempt to locate as many papers as possible that might touch on the subject of autodetection.
The term “autodetection”, when found in the literature, was almost exclusively applied to long-range female-produced sex pheromones, with only two known cases where autodetection was discussed but not directly applied to male-produced compounds [6,11]. Most occurrences of the term were within the Lepidoptera (excluding butterflies) and the Coleopteran family Scarabidae; both groups contain a plethora of published works identifying various species female-produced sex pheromones. Partly due to this innate bias, we limited our review to only those species with female-produced sex pheromones, leaving out male-produced pheromones. This choice was also partially due to the fact that in most, if not all cases, long-range male-produced pheromones result in attraction of both sexes, which make male sex pheromones difficult to distinguish from aggregation pheromones. References to groups commonly found to use aggregation pheromones, particularly male-produced as is often case in the Coleopteran families Curculionidae and Cerambycidae, were excluded entirely. This was done to avoid the redundancy inherent in the phrase “autodetection of aggregation pheromones”, i.e., the ability of a pheromone emitter to detect its own pheromone; although considered novel in the case of autodetection, it is inherent in the very definition of aggregation pheromones.
Full scanning of all remaining papers was required since many did not mention inclusion of females in their titles, and several failed to mention it even in abstracts. After scanning was complete, only those studies that provided some type of data regarding female autodetection remained. Data on female electrophysiological responses to pheromones, and/or detection of pheromone binding and receptor proteins in females, came from sources as variable as side notes in male focused papers to studies dedicated specifically to investigation of these attributes in females. Data sources for female behavioral responses to pheromones were similarly variable, with many dedicated lab studies focused solely on females, but a large portion of available field data coming from side notes or anecdotes about females caught unexpectedly in pheromone-baited traps intended to capture males.

2.2. Sexual Dimorphism of Antennae

To convey the concept of differential pheromone detection abilities between sexes, entry level entomology courses and textbooks include comparisons of gross morphological differences in antennal size and complexity [12,13]. While it is true that extreme sexual dimorphism exits among the Saturniidae, and could be described as having predictive value for general olfactory sensitivity, the morphological differences are not as extreme among many other families such as the Tortricidae and Noctuidae [14]. As a result, gross morphology fails to provide the level of sensitivity required to define the patterns of occurrence of more subtle traits such as pheromone autodetection that can vary between species with little difference in antennal sexual dimorphism. Studies of antennae comparing morphology and pheromone sensitivity among various types of sensilla have provided evidence that gross morphology does not directly link with sex pheromone detection [15,16].
As a result, we decided to abandon the use of antennal morphology as evidence for autodetection, despite its long history of inclusion in textbook discussions of pheromone detection, focusing instead on direct electro-physiological evidence. The majority of studies included in this review focus on two major areas in pheromone communication relevant to autodetection: (1) detection ability; and (2) resulting behaviors. From electrophysiological and behavioral studies, we were able to classify 45 species in the order Lepidoptera, nine in the Coleoptera, two in the Blattodea, and one in the Diptera as either autodetectors or anosmic (Table 1 and Table 2).

2.3. Behavioral Observations

We found 42 reports using the term “autodetection”, or otherwise dealing with the effects of autodetection on insect behavior (Table 1). Of these, 28 cases (67%) involved species in the order Lepidoptera, 12 (29%) in the Coleoptera, one (2%) in the Blattodea, and one (2%) in the Diptera. While behavioral studies seem well represented among the Lepidoptera and scarab beetles, less than a third of them (27%) are from field data (including both field observations and unexpected captures of females in pheromone traps). The lack of dedicated field studies investigating behavior changes from autodetection can be attributed in large part to the difficulty of observing and possibly subtle differences in behaviors under field conditions. Low light levels during the natural calling periods of many species are one example of hurtles that face a researcher desiring to perform detailed observations of behavior in the field. The remaining 73% of behavior studies included in Table 1 are various types of laboratory assays. The increasing prevalence of studies using observation chambers, multi-choice olfactometers, and flight mills have contributed to our understanding of the majority of effects that autodetection has on pre- and post-mating behaviors.
The effects of autodetection may be subtle as to make their documentation via behavioral observation difficult. The possibility exists that detection of a conspecific pheromone may act as a primer signal, resulting in internal physiological changes that would be unapparent to even the most dedicated observer. Physiological effects of autodetection could impact hormonal activity, mating receptivity, the rate of pheromone synthesis, or the component ratios of pheromone blends. The difficulties inherent in documenting such subtle effects do not preclude them from investigation, as is described below, but it does increase the likelihood of false negative or false positive results.
There is a high likelihood that a significant number of “failed” attempts at documenting behavioral effects of autodetection have gone unpublished, and were unable to be included in our review. Therefore, it would be improper to draw conclusions based on the percentage of behavioral studies resulting in verified changes. To further illustrate this point, of those behavioral studies published (Table 1), there were 52 distinct results (including multiple studies per species, and multiple species per study). Of those, 43 showed autodetection, two were unclear, and only seven suggested anosmia. Furthermore, of the seven “negative” results of investigations, only three were published independently of an accompanying positive result (behavioral or physiological). This suggests that results showing anosmia may be unlikely to be published. This could be a bias against “negative results”. Given this possible bias, we have refrained from using Table 1 to make predictions about possible frequencies of behavioral effects among autodetectors. The remainder of this section lists the various behavioral effects that have been confirmed through positive observations or experimental proof, grouped into the three sub-classes within the “responders” described in Figure 1.
Eight lepidopterans displayed increased movement in the presence of pheromone; suggesting females may be repelled or are triggered to disperse. Females of the tortricid, Choristoneura fumiferana (Clemens), increased dispersal following pheromone pre-exposure [17,18]. Females of two noctuids, Heliothis armigera (Hübner) and Helicoverpa zea (Boddie) were repelled by their pheromone to a significant degree in olfactometer tests [19], while females of a third noctuid, Spodoptera littoralis (Boisduval) experienced reduced mating and increased flight activity [20]. Females of the sesiid, Vitacea polistiformis (Harris), increased local movements altering its calling position during exposure [21]. Females of the pyralid, Ephestia kuehniella (Zeller), were repelled, dispersing from an area permeated with pheromone-baited traps [22]. A recent study using a flight mill [23] showed increased movement of both Grapholita molesta (Busck) and Choristoneura rosaceana (Harris) after exposure to pheromone. These behaviors may contribute to fitness of the various species. Computer models suggest repellent behavior and/or movement away from other pheromone sources may increase the likelihood of female mating [24], and dispersal triggered by high local levels of pheromone could drive mated females from areas of high population density, reducing resource competition among progeny [22].
Fourteen lepidopteran species adjusted calling behavior in various ways (see references [25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42] in Table 1). Two tortricids, G. molesta and C. fumiferana advanced the onset of calling up to 2 hours. Several tortricids, Adoxophyes orana (Fischer von Röslerstamm), Adoxophyes honmai (Yasuda), Homona magnanima (Diakonoff), Argyrotaenia velutinana (Walker); one noctuid, Spodoptera exigua (Hübner); and the sesiid V. polistiformis, delayed calling, while C. rosaceana displayed a variety of changes. The tortricid and arctiid moths, Cydia pomonella (Linnaeus) and Utetheisa ornatrix (Linnaeus) respectively, increased calling frequency and intensity, while the noctuid moth, Pseudaletia adultera (Schaus) called more and extended the calling window. Spodoptera littoralis (Boisduval) extended calling late into scotophase. Cydia fagiglandana (Zeller), Cydia splendana (Hübner), and Utetheisa ornatrix (Linnaeus), two tortricids and an arctiid respectively, synchronized calling, a response similar to “female pheromonal chorusing”, suggesting novel communal adaptations that increase group attractiveness.
Kuhns et al. [28] found reduced mating success after exposure to pheromone in both G. molesta and Pandemis pyrusana (Kearfott), though no changes to calling behaviors were observed. Stelinski et al. [23], however, found no effect of pheromone pre-exposure on mating success of either C. rosaceana or G. molesta. These contradictory results from separate studies with G. molesta highlight variation of behavioral responses depending possibly on assay conditions. Three tortricids (Eupoecilia ambiguella (Hübner), Pandemis pyrusana (Kearfott), and Lobesia botrana (Denis and Schiffermüller)) and an arctiid (Euplagia quadripunctaria (Poda)) displayed no observable behavioral responses when exposed to pheromone (Refs [25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42] in Table 1).
Autodetection resulting in attraction or aggregation may be more easily observed than the behaviors listed above, and has often been discovered during field trials when pheromone-baited traps serendipitously capture significant numbers of females. One of the earliest reports suggesting autodetection was capture of T. ni females in monitoring traps [7] and the behavior was later verified with further field trapping [10]. Similar attraction behavior is assumed to have resulted in increased larval density near pheromone traps targeting the sesiid, Melittia cucurbitae (Harris), because of increased density of females near these sources of pheromone [42]. So far only one lepidopteran species has verified attraction to conspecific pheromone in the lab. Gravid females of the noctuid moth, Sesamia nonagrioides (Lefebvre), were attracted to pheromone sources in dual-choice olfactometer assays [36].
Behavioral evidence of autodetection among the Scarabidae (order: Coleoptera) (Refs [43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54] in Table 1) was similarly observed given attraction or aggregation to pheromone sources. Females of Anomala orientalis (Waterhouse) [43], Anomala rufocuprea (Motschulsky) [45,46], Cotinis nitida (Linnaeus) [47,48], Holotrichia consanguinea (Blanchard) [49], and Maladera (matrida) insanabilis (Brenske) [53,54] were all caught in traps baited with female-produced sex pheromones, originally thought to be only attractive to males. Attraction to pheromone sources was later confirmed by field observations for three of these species: A. orientalis [44], H. consanguinea [49], and M. insanabilis [53]. Grouped females of two additional scarabs, Holotrichia loochooana loochooana (Sawada), and Holotrichia serrata (Fabricius) were observed calling simultaneously in the field [50,52], which may be an aggregative behavior. Yarden and Shani [53] found female M. insanabilis in pheromone traps and then confirmed female attraction to conspecific pheromone with lab-based olfactometers. In addition, Yasui et al. [51] verified attraction of H. loochooana loochooana females to calling females and pheromone lures.
Beyond Lepidoptera and Coleoptera, there were only two species wherein female behaviors, in response to female-produced sex pheromones, were reported in our literature review (Table 1). Baker and Longhurst [56] reported captures of female olive fruit fly, Bactrocera (Dacus) oleae (Rossi) (Diptera: Tephritidae) in pheromone-baited traps; however, attraction to visual cues could have played a role. It has been shown in olfactometer studies done by Ross and Tignor [55] that German cockroach, Blattella germanica (Linnaeus) (Blatodea: Blatellidae), females respond to the pheromone produced by female conspecifics.

2.4. Electroantennogram (EAG) and Single-Sensillum Recording (SSR)

To date, EAG/SSR of female antennae have been examined in 11 families of Lepidoptera, of which, seven families (Tortricidae, Noctuidae, Arctiidae, Cossidae, Sesiidae, Yponomeuta, and Pyralidae) exhibited positive responses in at least one, and often multiple species within a given family (Table 2). It should be noted that in two species, the presence of a response was reported in the most recent studies of those species but not in earlier works. Overall, these results suggest that, contrary to earlier assumptions, it is not rare among the Lepidoptera for the antennae of females to detect components of the female sex pheromone.
There is a wide range of pheromone loading rates among the studies listed. Amounts tested ranged from picograms to milligrams of pheromone, with additional variation in quality from rough extracts to multiple component blends of synthetic pheromones. These variations combined with different reporting styles make exact comparison of antennal sensitivity difficult, but two general trends emerge. First, female antennae are much less sensitive than those of conspecific males, with reported detection thresholds 50–100× higher than males. Second, female antennal responses have lower amplitudes (EAG) or firing frequencies (SSR) than males at equivalent doses. Only three of the lepidopteran families listed lacked any response to their pheromones: the Saturniidae, Bombycidae, and Geometridae. The sole sphingid reported, the tobacco hornworm, Manduca sexta (Linnaeus), showed mixed results. In one study, M. sexta showed no EAG responses to the two major pheromone components, bombykal and E10,E12,Z14-hexadecatrienal [57], while in a second study an SSR response was reported to one of the minor pheromone components, Z11-hexadecenal [58].
Generally, pheromone sensitivity in females is substantially lower than that recorded in males, as is often noted in the electrophysiological studies included herein. Additionally, documentation of pheromone receptors on female antennae shows a similar relationship, with females exhibiting dramatically fewer than males. For these reasons there is an increased risk of low-level responses being lost in signal noise, and generalist olfactory receptor activity. Further complications can arise from generalist receptors, which can potentially be activated merely by the key functional groups of pheromone components or particularly high doses, such that specialist pheromone receptors may only account for a small portion of an overall response. While these risks and complications do not seem evident in SSR studies, identification of individual pheromone receptors does not provide the same level of support for conclusions about overall antennal pheromone sensitivity. As a result, EAGs are generally considered to be the most definitive tests for pheromone sensitivity of both sexes since they display the summed response of all receptors on a given antenna when activated by the pheromone.
For the non-lepidoptera reported in Table 2 [90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97], four species of scarab beetles, three from the genus Anomala and one Holotrichia, showed confirmed autodetection by females, as did the sole representative of the Blattodea. Similar to the lepidopterans, female autodetection responses to conspecific pheromone in all of these species were significantly lower than that of males at the same pheromone concentrations, with both lower amplitudes and higher detection thresholds occurring in every case.

2.5. Pheromone-Binding- and Pheromone-Receptor- Proteins in Female Antennae

Two separate protein groups, pheromone-binding proteins (PBP) and pheromone-receptor proteins (PR), abundant in the antennal receptor cells of males, are crucial in the process of pheromone detection [98,99], and have been investigated extensively. As inclusion of antennae from both sexes in such studies has become more frequent they have not only provided a greater understanding of the process of pheromone detection by males, but have created a means to expand understanding of autodetection by females.
In 1981, Vogt and Riddiford [100] first described antenna-specific PBPs found in male antennal tissues of three saturniids and one sphingid: Antheraea pernyi (Guerin Meneville), A. polyphemus (Cramer), Hyalophora cecropia (Linnaeus), and M. sexta, respectively. An apparent absence of PBP from female antennae, compared to their abundance in males, provided the basis for defining the activity of these previously undescribed proteins as male-specific pheromone binders. A contrast in PBP levels between highly sensitive males and anosmic females could be considered as physiological proof for the lack of autodetection.
With improvements in technology, the presence of PBPs and/or PRs have been detected in the antennal tissues of B. mori, A. polyphemus and M. sexta females, which were all previously considered to be anosmic [101,102,103,104]. Table 3 provides a summary of all species where PBP and PR expression in females has been investigated. Each of the nine families of Lepidoptera and Coleoptera examined to date has at least one species where these proteins (or precursors) have been detected. Indeed, PBP has been confirmed in females from all 26 species that have been tested for its presence, excluding H. cecropia, which has only been a subject of initial tests conducted in 1981 [100].

3. Relationships and Patterns

All evidence for autodetection in females is summarized in Table 4. The relative expression (F: M) of antennal detection proteins in female antennae, provided in detail in Table 3, were summarized in Table 4 by grouping them into the following categories: High (>66% to 100%), Moderate (>33% to 66%), Low (>0% to 33%), Not Detected (0%), Undetermined = Not Tested. Females showing EAG or SSR responses to pheromone have been assumed to have both PBP and PR present in their antennae for the purposes of this review. However, it is possible that “non-specialist” receptor neurons might also contribute to an EAG response to a pheromone component in the absence of PRs or PBPs. PBP has been detected in 25 out of the 26 species tested, supporting this assumption. When species included in either type of investigation are compared, even with the conservative assumption that absence of PBP is indicated by a lack of EAG/SSR response, 87% of the resulting 54 species still have presence of PBP confirmed. Considering that the Bombycidae and Saturniidae, two families that have never shown EAG/SSR responses, are positive for PBP, the above assumption is likely too conservative. The confirmed presence of PBP in the majority of females from this cross-section of moth species, including examples of both anosmia and autodetection, increases the likelihood that these proteins are present in the antennal receptor cells of females from most families of the Lepidoptera. Further survey of additional families and genera should continue to confirm or reject this tentative hypothesis that the presence of these proteins in female antennae may be ubiquitous in females of moth species. To quote Steinbrecht’s personal communication with Schneider: “If the Bombyx female does possess “autodetective” receptor-cells, pheromone anosmia (or conversely pheromone autodetection) in female moths would not be a qualitative but rather a quantitative sexual distinction” [6].
The presence or absence of autodetection would also likely be a function of the relative levels of PBP and PR proteins in female antennae. Further relationship between PBP/PR expression and antennal response (EAG/SSR) can be examined by going back through the literature summarized in Table 2 and Table 3. Out of the 67 species included in this review (Table 4), only 14 have usable data from both electrophysiological and protein expression studies of female antennae. Fourteen data points are not a very robust sample, and cannot provide a basis for strong conclusions, but they can provide a framework to build upon while revealing preliminary trends. Quantified estimates of protein levels and antennal responses were obtained from appropriate papers. The quantity and magnitude of the estimates were presented relative to their levels in male antennae i.e., ratios (female:male) or percentages ((female/male) × 100). The validity of using characteristics of male antennae to represent the maximum potential for many parameters of pheromone detection should be acceptable since selection pressures of mate location would drive male characteristics toward their maximum. This provided a way to standardize parameter values when comparing multiple species. Standardization was considered desirable for two other reasons: (1) the difference in antennal sensitivity between sexes within a species may be less than that between the males or females of two different species and in such cases the relative sensitivities between males and females could be more uniform between species; and (2) the majority of papers listed in Table 2 and Table 3 reported female parameters as relative to males. Relative protein was almost always reported as a range (e.g., “levels in the female were 40%–50% that of the male”). The minimum and maximum values were used to calculate the average relative value.
The resulting correlations between protein level and antennal sensitivity (relative EAG amplitude in this case) are presented in Figure 2. The linear model in Figure 2A groups all 14 species and results in a low R2 value of 0.66. The model was then adjusted as is seen in Figure 2B; separating out five species with average relative protein expression less than 20% (low). The remaining nine species had levels of protein expression that ranged from 30% to 90% (high), and unsurprisingly, all turn out to be confirmed autodetectors (Table 3). The R2 value for this adjusted model improved significantly to 0.87 for the nine species of particular interest. Based on Figure 2B, all five species with protein levels below 20% could be considered anosmic. This division is a rough first approximation of a threshold for detection below which females are unresponsive, and above which they become more likely to autodetect. Figure 2D shows a theoretical relationship between relative levels of pheromone-binding or pheromone-receptor proteins in female antennae and relative antennal response. In this model, species traditionally considered anosmic should fall in the gray areas below either of two thresholds, while autodetecting females should fall somewhere on the linear portion of the curve. Although the linear models presented in Figure 2 should not be considered reliable until more species can be added (as they were only created with nine data points), they are presented as examples for predictions for future research.

4. Selection Pressures Favoring Autodetection

Unless a female gains some benefit from autodetection, the cost of producing pheromone-binding and receptor proteins should favor anosmia. Females can still gain some information about pheromone levels in their immediate vicinity without the level of sensitivity found in males. This lower sensitivity may balance the costs of maintaining the ability to autodetect with the potentially small or sporadic benefits gained by females from this additional information. The observed behavioral responses discussed in Section 2.2 match theoretical strategies that could improve chances of mating or progeny survival that have often been the subject of speculation [1,136,137,138,139]. Models of some behaviors have provided evidence of possible benefits [24]. The ability of females to autodetect, has also been proposed as a primitive precursor to dimorphic male sex pheromone systems in S. littoralis and H. virescens [16,140]. The physiological requirements for antennae to detect female pheromones, already in place in females with autodetection ability, could have allowed for an expansion of the role of female antennae into mate recognition. While not a direct benefit of autodetection, mate recognition and evaluation using male sex pheromones provides a benefit to females by preventing cross-species mating, and allowing them to determine suitable mates by pheromone quality. Overall, evidence from various areas of research lend support to the idea that beneficial behaviors could result from autodetection that would conserve resources, avoid competition, improve a female’s chances for successful mating, improve progeny survival, and even for avoiding predation.

4.1. Resource Limitation and Plume Competition

Pheromone production may be limited by available resources, especially in species where adults do little to no feeding. Harari et al. [139] described a cost of pheromone production and release that decreased a female’s total fecundity. If pheromone production utilizes limited resources that could otherwise be used for egg production, then behaviors that improve efficiency of pheromones for mate attraction should result in increased fitness. In cases where adult females do feed readily; however, pheromone production has not been shown to be resource limited [141]. Species that do limited feeding after maturation may therefore be more likely to exhibit behaviors resulting from autodetection that have this potential for improving mating efficiency.
The effects of “plume competition”, described as interference between the pheromone plumes of different females lowering mating success at high population densities, was modeled by Lundberg and Löfstedt [138]. They concluded that there should be selection pressure for “individually distinguishable pheromone plumes”, which may allow detection of competing plumes for avoidance—a beneficial trait. In the field, lowered mating success was found to occur in two separate lepidopteran forest pests species when they reached high densities [142,143]; the Eastern spruce budworm C. fumiferana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) and the Forest tent caterpillar, Malacosoma disstria (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Lasiocampidae). Competition from upwind pheromone-baited traps interfering with downwind trap-catch was confirmed by Wall and Perry [144,145], further supporting this hypothesis. Similar plume competition among multiple pheromone emitters was documented by Miller et al. [146,147] where point-source based mating disruption was demonstrated to compete with actual females via false trail following. This type of competition was likely the major cause of reduced female mating success, demonstrating potential effects on female fitness. Behaviors observed to result from autodetection by females with the potential to avoid competition can be classified as either temporal adjustments (e.g., initiating calling earlier or extending calling later), or spatial adjustments (e.g., changing position/location locally or dispersing entirely from an area) (see references in Table 2 and Table 4). Many of these behaviors could potentially benefit females through avoidance of plume competition, or other types of competition for mates.
Similar selection pressures to those favoring distinguishable plumes would favor increased sensitivity in detection by either sex, possibly to the level of distinguishing among inter-individual variations in plume quality. The abilities of males to distinguish between variations in pheromone component ratios are well established and suggest that males already exhibit this level of sensitivity. This extreme level of sensitivity has not yet been demonstrated in females, though the EAG/SSR studies included in Table 2 do show that females have variable sensitivity to different pheromone components; no females were able to match male sensitivity to low pheromone dosages, i.e., female detection thresholds were usually more than 50× higher than those of their conspecific males. Interestingly, antennal sensitivity to conspecific sex pheromone has been shown to increase with age in unmated virgin females of one of those same forest pests, C. fumiferana [61]. This suggests that for mature females, the benefits to be gained from improved antennal sensitivity can begin to outweigh the costs as the length of time spent unmated increases.

4.2. Cooperative and Dishonest Strategies in Aggregations

Aggregation and/or synchronization of calling could increase attractiveness of cooperating groups of females over longer ranges. Some cooperative behaviors resulting in highly attractive groups have been dubbed pheromonal chorusing by Lim and Greenfield [39,40], and have been suggested as one reason that scarab species aggregate in response to female sex pheromone [51,148]. A less cooperative strategy that could also result in attraction and apparent aggregations has been observed in some scarabs [51,149]. In those cases, “silent” females that avoid calling occur along with normal females in some aggregations. Once males locate an aggregation, they attempt to mate with any female they encounter regardless of type; silent females could conserve their own pheromone and gain increased fecundity by intercepting males called in by others. Females of a few scarab species have shown reductions in pheromone production and output with age potentially making them less attractive [150,151,152,153,154]. Such older females and with diminished resources would benefit tremendously by intercepting males.
An additional dishonest strategy that could provide “silent” females a completely separate benefit beyond conservation of resources could be at work as well. These females could benefit from a reduction in their risk of predation or parasitism by “illicit receivers” which are parasitoids and predators that eavesdrop on the mating signals of their prey to locate or track them. Predators have been shown to eavesdrop on both auditory signals [155,156] and olfactory signals [157,158,159,160,161] used by insects to locate mates. Specifically among the Lepidoptera, the male-produced sex pheromone of the greater waxmoth, Galleria mellonella (Linnaeus) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) is attractive to the parasitoid, Bracon hebetor (Say) (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) [159], while the female-produced sex pheromones of two tussock moth species, Euproctis pseudoconspersa (Strand) and Euproctis taiwana (Shiraki) (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) and two lepidopteran pests of olives, Prays oleae (Bernard) (Lepidoptera: Yponomeutidae) and Palpita unionalis (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) were attractive to the Hymenopteran parasitoids Telenomus euproctidis (Wilcox) (Hymenoptera: Scelionidae) [160], and Trichogramma oleae (Voegelé and Pointel) (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae) [161], respectively. The above cases are just a few examples of how predators and parasitoids exploit pheromone signals despite an assumed difficulty inherent in exploiting such specialized signals. Direct impacts on fitness from the increased predation risk represented by illicit receivers have been demonstrated in some cases [162,163]. Thus, two separate dishonest strategies can be at play: “silent” females can occupy satellite positions around a calling female to intercept arriving males while the caller bears the dual burdens of resource consumption and predation risk. To employ these dishonest strategies successfully, however, requires that the “cheaters” have an ability to detect and locate their “marks”, i.e., the calling females that they will take advantage of, which is where autodetection plays a role.

4.3. Effect of Movement on Female Fecundity and Progeny Survival

The negative effects of aging on fitness of unmated females can be more direct than reductions in pheromone production. Reduced mating success and fecundity with delays in mating have been found for multiple species [164,165,166,167,168,169] and has been the subject of a recent meta-analysis that showed similar conclusions [170]. An ability to detect and avoid competitors could increase likelihood of mating early. Additionally, modeling work done by Pearson et al. [24] predicts improved mating success in mating disruption plots with increased female movement. This would mean that even if autodetection only stimulates an increase in random movement of unmated females their chances of mating, either early or late, may increase.
Post-mating competition for oviposition sites and progeny resources is another area in which autodetection could be beneficial. Oviposition-deterrent marking pheromones such that of the blueberry maggot fly, Rhagoletis mendax (Curran), deter females from laying more than one egg per berry. Communication between females in this case decreases competition that would be detrimental to progeny [171]. Similarly, sex pheromone detected near a potential host plant could indicate females are already present on that plant [172]. Avoidance of areas of high population density when searching for oviposition sites would reduce competition for resources among progeny. Dispersal behavior triggered by pheromone detection seems to occur with at least two lepidopterans. The tortricid moth, C. fumiferana, and the pyralid flour moth, E. kuehniella, both respond to pheromone-laden air with increased movement and dispersal post-mating [17,18,22].

5. Implications of Autodetection for Pheromone Use in Agriculture

5.1. Pheromone-Baited Monitoring Traps

Increasing use of pheromones as tools in agriculture and some of the unexpected subsequent behavior of females suggests this is a useful area of investigation. The use of pheromone-baited traps for monitoring insect pest populations has been thoroughly established as a crucial tool in Integrated Pest Management (IPM) worldwide [173,174]. Such traps are used extensively for estimating infestation and accurately timing insecticide applications. If, however, males and females are attracted to an area without the majority of them effectively captured and eliminated from the population, the presence of a trap could inadvertently increase the local rate of mating and oviposition. An influx from surrounding areas of many virgin or mated females could result directly in increased crop damage from the resulting larval infestation.
High levels of crop infestation by the squash vine borer, Melittia cucurbitae (Harris), were found in fields monitored with pheromone traps, while much lower infestations were found in nearby control fields without traps. This observation led to electrophysiological research that uncovered the ability of female M. cucurbitae to autodetect [42]. Though attraction was never proven, autodetection could hypothetically increase infestations associated with pheromone traps for certain species. However, such concerns are not generally realized as many insect species, particularly among the weevils (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), are monitored with aggregation pheromone-baited traps without resulting in subsequent infestations [175,176].

5.2. Pheromone Mating Disruption

The increased use of mating disruption for sustainable and non-toxic control of insect pest populations has added greatly to our reliance on pheromone-based technologies in agriculture. Continuing environmental and health concerns over the use of traditional insecticides will likely call for continued expansion of mating disruption to control more pest species [177] as will the introduction of transgenic crop plants possibly capable of producing and releasing pheromone [178]. However, mixed results from the application of mating disruption over the past few decades have highlighted aspects of pheromone communication that are incompletely understood, including female autodetection. Initial hypotheses regarding the failures of mating disruption focused almost exclusively on the effect of mating disruption on male behaviors [174,179]. Economic interest for the efficacy of this technology makes it important to complete our understanding of these complex behaviors and their possible effects. As a result, previously neglected subjects, such as the electrophysiological responses and behaviors of females are being included more frequently in new research on pheromone perception [177,180].
Mating disruption has shown mixed results particularly when applied to species that are known autodetectors [147]. Many behaviors exhibited by autodetectors have been hypothesized to help females avoid competition for mates as noted previously. Those same behaviors could account for that variation in the success of mating disruption since competition has proven to be a major mechanism of common methods of disruption [146,147,181]. As discussed previously, increases in local population density have been associated with attraction to pheromone-baited traps in at least one case. If attraction acts in disrupted fields in the same way, population density could increase to a point where random mating still takes place. It is also possible that aggregation of both sexes adjacent to disruption point sources could reduce overall disruption efficacy in a similar manner. Multiple mating pairs and individuals of the oriental beetle, A. orientalis, were found in close proximity to pheromone point sources in plots treated with pheromone for mating disruption [44]. As long as mated females do not move into disrupted fields, this type of aggregation should not reduce efficacy. Theoretical results of repellent reactions are dependent on whether virgin and mated females are affected similarly. If dispersive behavior is not common to both virgin and mated females, emigrating virgin females could conceivably mate beyond the disruptive border and return to oviposit in the unprotected crop. Only a small number of the studies that found repellent or dispersive behavior included mating status as a variable [17,18,19,21,22]. The results from those studies suggest that repellent behaviors are common to both virgin and mated females or are more likely after mating. In either scenario, there is little chance of a mated female returning to a disrupted area, but a reliable conclusion cannot be reached with such limited data. On the other hand, if both virgin and mated females are similarly repelled from disrupted fields, the effect is likely to improve disruption efficacy. However, this may be at the expense of neighboring farms, which could be infested with emigrating females and their resulting progeny.

6. Conclusions

The term “autodetection” may not be restricted exclusively to long-range female-produced sex pheromones; it could also apply to male-produced sex pheromones among Coleoptera. The term has been used in connection to male-produced hair-pencil and contact (aphrodisiac) pheromones [182,183,184,185], but male ability in this area is not surprising [1]. Male-produced pheromones that result in aggregations occur frequently in coleopteran families such as the Cerambycidae and Curculionidae [186,187,188,189,190,191,192,193,194,195]. While attraction/aggregation could result from males eavesdropping on each other’s sex pheromone signals, thus fitting the description of autodetection, such a result would be indistinguishable from male responses to aggregation pheromones. Additionally, observations with the Curculionidae suggest that pheromones produced by both sexes function to concentrate populations on suitable host plants [188,191,195] often in order to overwhelm host plant defenses [186]. In any case, it is evident that the term “autodetection” as currently defined applies most to detection of female-produced sex pheromone by conspecific females.
Herein, we reviewed 126 research papers that investigated some aspect of female autodetection among the Lepidoptera and the coleopteran family Scarabidae. Additionally, more than sixty papers have been incorporated that provide evidence supporting the possible theoretical benefits gained from autodetection. Research has focused, in large part, on species that damage crops or affect human health since development of technologies for agricultural and urban pest control provide an economic incentive for research, and this trend is not likely to change in the future. For example, adoption of mating disruption is likely to increase, as use of conventional pesticides is further restricted (US Environmental Protection Agency, Food Quality Protection Act) and as public demand for pesticide-free homes and produce rises [177]. However, mating disruption is a much more complex method of pest control than conventional insecticides and many factors remain undefined that might influence its success or failure.
Better understanding of the frequency and distribution of autodetection ability across the insect orders and families that use sex pheromones is needed, which can be gained by more thorough sampling, using a targeted phylogenetic approach. From the articles included in the electrophysiological and behavioral portions of this review, it is possible to confirm autodetection in 43 of 57 species in 11 of the 16 families thus far sampled (75.4% and 68.7%, respectively). A selection bias must certainly exist that favors inclusion of females suspected of such ability in these studies, so this cannot be considered a representative sample. However, many important pest species are included in this sample, and the clear majority displays this ability. For example, two lepidopteran families, the Tortricidae and Noctuidae, represent 46% of those species tested, and 22 of those 26 (84.6%) were confirmed autodetectors. In contrast, none of the six species from the family Saturniidae were found to autodetect. This single family represents only 10.5% of species tested (n = 57), but accounts for 42.9% of negative results (n = 14). The tortricid and noctuid families include some of the most important agricultural moth pests, while saturniids contain few if any. A positive trend between autodetection ability and pest-status thus far suggested may be invalid due to those same sampling biases, but its confirmation in over two thirds of the families and 75% of species tested thus far means the ability does not seem rare.
When female autodetection is included, modeling mating disruption mechanisms will increase in complexity. The various ways in which competing pheromone plumes from disruptors, monitoring traps, and actual females may interact, and how female behaviors might affect the results of disruption were discussed by Miller et al. [146]. They conclude that movement of female moths “is likely to diminish rather than enhance mating disruption” and that “disruption efficacy could be dramatically inferior to that predicted… if virgin females were repelled or deterred from calling”. The actual effects of various female behaviors on disruption remain largely untested, however. Once potential responses are defined and verified, predictions resulting from the improved models should be much stronger. The complex interactions collectively labeled “mating disruption” need to be further dissected. Improved models of disruption mechanisms could prove useful for evaluating this technology’s potential for control of various pests before expending money and time on field trials.
The high frequency of autodetection in moth families most often considered for control via mating disruption, and our lack of knowledge about how females respond to mating disruption practices is why further research is needed. When evaluating new applications of pheromone-based technologies, behavioral and electrophysiological studies should be done for both females and males along with methods for estimating essential antennal proteins like PBP and PR. In 1977, Birch [10] suggested that “the role of the sexes in response to pheromone should be investigated further, particularly if a sex pheromone actually acts as an aggregation pheromone, which may change the whole strategy for the application of pheromone in a pest management system”. Taking this suggestion, applying thorough investigation as pheromone use expands will improve our ability to avoid unexpected negative outcomes while turning pheromones that elicit attraction from both sexes to our advantage by using them in methods such as attract-and-kill or mass trapping.

Acknowledgments

We thank Elvira de Lange, and four anonymous reviewers, for valuable comments and suggestions on an earlier draft. Cesar Rodriguez-Saona thanks the hatch project No. NJ08192.

Author Contributions

Robert Holdcraft, Lukasz Stelinski, and Cesar Rodriguez-Saona wrote the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
EAGElectroantennogram
SSRSingle-sensillum recording
CRCardiac response
GRGlomerular response
PBPPheromone-binding protein
PRPheromone receptor protein

References

  1. Cardé, R.; Baker, T. Sexual communication with pheromones. In Chemical Ecology of Insects; Bell, W., Cardé, R., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1984; pp. 355–383. [Google Scholar]
  2. Butenandt, A.; Beckmann, R.; Stamm, D.; Hecker, E. über den sexuallockstoff des seidenspinners Bombyx mori, Reindarstellung and konstitution. Z. Naturforsc. 1959, 14b, 283–284. (In German) [Google Scholar]
  3. Schneider, D. Electrophysiological investigation on the antennal receptors of the silk moth during chemical and mechanical stimulation. Experientia 1957, 13, 89–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Schneider, D. Electrophysiological investigation on the olfactory specificity of sexual attracting substances in different species of moths. J. Insect Physiol. 1962, 8, 15–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Roelofs, W. Electroantennogram assays: Rapid and convenient screening procedures for pheromones. In Techniques in Pheromone Research; Hummel, H., Miller, T., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1984; pp. 131–159. [Google Scholar]
  6. Schneider, D.; Schulz, S.; Priesner, E.; Ziesmann, J.; Francke, W. Autodetection and chemistry of female and male pheromone in both sexes of the tiger moth Panaxia. quadripunctaria. J. Comp. Physiol. A 1998, 182, 153–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Mitchell, E.R.; Webb, J.C.; Hines, R.W. Capture of male and female cabbage loopers in field traps baited with synthetic sex pheromone. Environ. Entomol. 1972, 4, 525–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Landolt, P.J.; Heath, R.R. Sexual role reversal in mate-finding strategies of the cabbage looper moth. Science 1990, 249, 1026–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Heath, R.R.; Landolt, P.J.; Dueben, B.D.; Murphy, R.E.; Schneider, R.E. Identification of male cabbage looper sex pheromone attractive to females. J. Chem. Ecol. 1992, 18, 441–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Birch, M.C. Response of both sexes of Trichoplusia ni (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to virgin females and to synthetic pheromone. Ecol. Entomol. 1977, 2, 99–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Larsdotter-Mellström, H.; Eriksson, K.; Janz, N.; Nylin, S.; Carlsson, M.A. Male butterflies use an anti-aphrodisiac pheromone to tailor ejaculates. Funct. Ecol. 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Cuperus, P.L.; Thomas, G.; Den Otter, C.J. Interspecific variation and sexual dimorphism of antennal receptor morphology, in European Yponomeuta (Latreille) (Lepidoptera: Yponomeutidae). Int. J. Insect Morphol. Embryol. 1983, 12, 67–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Symonds, M.R.E.; Johnson, T.L.; Elgar, M.A. Pheromone production, male abundance, body size, and the evolution of elaborate antennae in moths. Ecol. Evol. 2012, 2, 227–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Jefferson, R.N.; Rubin, R.E.; Mcfarland, S.U.; Shorey, H.H. Sex pheromones of noctuid moths. XXII. The external morphology of the antennae of Trichoplusia ni, Heliothis zea, Prodenia ornithogalli, and Spodoptera exigua. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 1970, 63, 1227–1238. [Google Scholar]
  15. Hillier, N.K.; Kleineidam, C.; Vickers, N.J. Physiology and glomerular projections of olfactory receptor neurons on the antenna of female Heliothis virescens (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) responsive to behaviorally relevant odors. J. Comp. Physiol. A 2006, 192, 199–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Hillier, N.K.; Kavanagh, R.M.B. Differential octopaminergic modulation of olfactory receptor neuron responses to sex pheromones in Heliothis virescens. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0143179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Palaniswamy, P.; Seabrook, W.D. Behavioral responses of the female eastern spruce budworm Choristoneura fumiferana (Lepidoptera, Tortricidae) to the sex pheromone of her own species. J. Chem. Ecol. 1978, 4, 649–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Sanders, C.J. Flight and copulation of female spruce budworm in pheromone-permeated air. J. Chem. Ecol. 1987, 13, 1749–1758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Saad, A.D.; Scott, D.R. Repellency of pheromones released by females of Heliothis armigera and H. zea to females of both species. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 1981, 30, 123–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ellis, P.E.; Brimacombe, L.C.; Mcveigh, L.J.; Dignan, A. Laboratory experiments on the disruption of mating in the Egyptian cotton leafworm Spodoptera littoralis (Boisduval) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) by excesses of female pheromones. Bull. Entomol. Res. 1980, 70, 673–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Pearson, G.A. Pheromone Effects on Mating Success and Female Behavior in the Grape Root Borer. Ph.D. Thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  22. Trematerra, P.; Battaini, F. Control of Ephestia kuehniella (Zeller) by mass-trapping. J. Appl. Entomol. 1987, 104, 336–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Stelinski, L.; Holdcraft, R.; Rodriguez-Saona, C. Female moth calling and flight behavior are altered hours following pheromone autodetection: Possible implications for practical management with mating disruption. Insects 2014, 5, 459–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Pearson, G.A.; Dillery, S.; Meyer, J.R. Modeling intra-sexual competition in a sex pheromone system: How much can female movement affect female mating success? J. Theor. Biol. 2004, 231, 549–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Noguchi, H.; Tamaki, Y. Conspecific female-sex pheromone delays calling behavior of Adoxophyes sp. and Homona magnanima (Ledipoptera: Tortricidae). Jpn. J. Appl. Entomol. Zool. 1985, 29, 113–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Gokce, A.; Stelinski, L.L.; Gut, L.J.; Whalon, M.E. Comparative behavioral and EAG responses of female obliquebanded and redbanded leafroller moths (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) to their sex pheromone components. Eur. J. Entomol. 2007, 104, 187–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Palaniswamy, P.; Seabrook, W.D. The alteration of calling behaviour by female Choristoneura fumiferana when exposed to synthetic sex pheromone. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 1985, 37, 13–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kuhns, E.; Pelz-Stelinski, K.; Stelinski, L. Reduced mating success of female tortricid moths following intense pheromone auto-exposure varies with sophistication of mating system. J. Chem. Ecol. 2012, 38, 168–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Den Otter, C.J.; de Cristofaro, A.; Voskamp, K.E.; Rotundo, G. Electrophysiological and behavioural responses of chestnut moths, Cydia fagiglandana and C. splendana (Lep., Tortricidae), to sex attractants and odours of host plants. J. Appl. Entomol. 1996, 120, 413–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Weissling, T.J.; Knight, A.L. Oviposition and calling behavior of codling moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in the presence of codlemone. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 1996, 89, 142–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. El-Sayed, A.M.; Suckling, D.M. Behavioural observations of mating disruption in three lepidopteran pests. Behaviour 2005, 142, 717–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Stelinski, L.L.; Il’ichev, A.L.; Gut, L.J. Antennal and behavioral responses of virgin and mated oriental fruit moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) females to their sex pheromone. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 2006, 99, 898–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. DeLury, N.C.; Judd, G.J.R.; Gardiner, M.G.T. Antennal detection of sex pheromone by female Pandemis limitata (Robinson) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) and its impact on their calling behaviour. J. Entmol. Soc. B. C. 2005, 102, 3–12. [Google Scholar]
  34. Groot, A.T.; Classen, A.; Staudacher, A.; Schal, C.; Heckel, D.G. Phenotypic plasticity in sexual communication signal of a noctuid moth. J. Evol. Biol. 2010, 23, 2731–2738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Rehermann, G.; Altesor, P.; McNeil, J.N.; González, A. Conspecific females promote calling behaviour in the noctuid moth, Pseudaletia adultera. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2016, in press. [Google Scholar]
  36. Cruz, D.; Eizaguirre, M. Response to conspecific and heterospecific semiochemicals by Sesamia nonagrioides (L.) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) gravid females. Bull. Entomol. Res. 2015, 105, 347–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Yang, M.-W.; Dong, S.-L.; Chen, L. Electrophysiological and behavioral responses of female beet armyworm Spodoptera exigua (Hübner) to the conspecific female sex pheromone. J. Insect Behav. 2009, 22, 153–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Sadek, M.M.; Von Wowern, G.; Löfstedt, C.; Rosén, W.-Q.; Anderson, P. Modulation of the temporal pattern of calling behavior of female Spodoptera littoralis by exposure to sex pheromone. J. Insect Physiol. 2012, 58, 61–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Lim, H.; Greenfield, M.D. Female pheromonal chorusing in an arctiid moth, Utetheisa ornatrix. Behav. Ecol. 2007, 18, 165–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lim, H.; Greenfield, M.D. Female arctiid moths, Utetheisa ornatrix, orient towards and join pheromonal choruses. Anim. Behav. 2008, 75, 673–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lim, H.; Park, K.; Baker, T.; Greenfield, M. Perception of conspecific female pheromone stimulates female calling in an Arctiid moth, Utetheisa ornatrix. J. Chem. Ecol. 2007, 33, 1257–1271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Pearson, G.A. Sesiid pheromone increases squash vine borer (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae) infestation. Environ. Entomol. 1995, 24, 1627–1632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Leal, W.; Hasegawa, M.; Sawada, M.; Ono, M. Sex pheromone of oriental beetle, Exomala orientalis: Identification and field evaluation. J. Chem. Ecol. 1994, 20, 1705–1718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Holdcraft, R.; Rodriguez-Saona, C.; Marucci Center for Blueberry and Cranberry Research and Extension, Rutgers University, Chatsworth, NJ 08019, USA. Unpublished data. 2011.
  45. Tamaki, Y.; Sugie, H.; Noguchi, H. Methyl (Z)-5-Tetradecenoate: Sex-Attractant Pheromone of the Soybean Beetle, Anomala rufocuprea (Motschulsky) (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Appl. Entomol. Zool. 1985, 20, 359–361. [Google Scholar]
  46. Imai, T.; Tsuchiya, S.; Maekawa, M.; Fujimori, T.; Leal, S.W. Methyl anthranilate, a novel attractant for the soybean beetle, Anomala rufocuprea (Motschulsky) (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Appl. Entomol. Zool. 1997, 32, 45–48. [Google Scholar]
  47. Domek, J.M.; Johnson, D.T. Evidence of a sex pheromone in the green June beetle, Cotinis nitida (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). J. Entomol. Sci. 1987, 22, 264–267. [Google Scholar]
  48. Domek, J.M.; Johnson, D.T. Demonstration of semiochemically induced aggregation in the green June beetle, Cotinis nitida (L.) (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Environ. Entomol. 1988, 17, 147–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Leal, W.; Yadava, C.S.; Vijayvergia, J. Aggregation of the scarab beetle Holotrichia consanguinea in response to female-released pheromone suggests secondary function hypothesis for semiochemical. J. Chem. Ecol. 1996, 22, 1557–1566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Arakaki, N.; Wakamura, S.; Yasui, H.; Sadoyama, Y.; Kishita, M. Sexually differentiated functions of female-produced pheromone of the black chafer Holotrichia loochooana loochooana (Sawada) (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Chemoecology 2003, 13, 183–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Yasui, H.; Fukaya, M.; Wakamura, S.; Akino, T.; Yasuda, T.; Kobayashi, A.; Arakaki, N. Aggregation of the black chafer Holotrichia loochooana loochooana (Sawada) (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae): Function of female pheromone and possible adaptive significance. Appl. Entomol. Zool. 2007, 42, 507–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ganeshaiah, K.N.; Kumar, A.R.V. Self organization and chemically mediated aggregation of adults in the whitegrub, Holotichia serrata. In Chemical Ecology of Phytophagous Insects; Ananthakrishnan, T.N., Raman, A., Eds.; Oxford and IBH Publishing Co.: New Delhi, India, 1993; pp. 167–178. [Google Scholar]
  53. Yarden, G.; Shani, A. Evidence for volatile chemical attractants in the beetle Maladera matrida (argaman) (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). J. Chem. Ecol. 1994, 20, 2673–2685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Falach, L.; Shani, A. Trapping efficiency and sex ratio of Maladera matrida beetles in yellow and black Traps. J. Chem. Ecol. 2000, 26, 2619–2624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Baker, R.; Longhurst, C. Chemical control of insect behaviour. Philos. T. Roy. Soc. B 1981, 295, 73–82. [Google Scholar]
  56. Ross, M.H.; Tignor, K.R. Response of German cockroaches to a dispersant and other substances secreted by crowded adults and nymphs (Blattodea: Blattelidae). Proc. Entomol. Soc. Wash. 1986, 88, 25–29. [Google Scholar]
  57. Shields, V.D.C.; Hildebrand, J.G. Responses of a population of antennal olfactory receptor cells in the female moth Manduca sexta to plant-associated volatile organic compounds. J. Comp. Physiol. A 2001, 186, 1135–1151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Kalinová, B.; Hoskovec, M.; Liblikas, I.; Unelius, C.R.; Hansson, B.S. Detection of sex pheromone components in Manduca sexta (L.). Chem. Senses 2001, 26, 1175–1186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Den Otter, C.J.; Schuil, H.A.; Oosten, A.S.-V. Reception of host-plant odours and female sex pheromone in Adoxophyes orana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae): Electrophysiology and morphology. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 1978, 24, 570–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Roelofs, W.L.; Comeau, A. Sex pheromone perception: Electroantennogram responses of the red-banded leaf roller moth. J. Insect Physiol. 1971, 17, 1969–1982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Palaniswamy, P.; Sivasubramanian, P.; Seabrook, W.D. Modulation of sex pheromone perception in female moths of the eastern spruce budworm, Choristoneura fumiferana by altosid. J. Insect Physiol. 1979, 25, 571–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ross, R.J.; Palaniswamy, P.; Seabrook, W.D. Electroantennograms from spruce budworm moths (Choristoneura fumiferana) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) of different ages and for various pheromone concentrations. Can. Entomol. 1979, 111, 807–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Ansebo, L.; Coracini, M.D.A.; Bengtsson, M.; Liblikas, I.; Ramírez, M.; Borg-Karlson, A.K.; Tasin, M.; Witzgall, P. Antennal and behavioural response of codling moth Cydia pomonella to plant volatiles. J. Appl. Entomol. 2004, 128, 488–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Ansebo, L.; Ignell, R.; Löfqvist, J.; Hansson, B.S. Responses to sex pheromone and plant odours by olfactory receptor neurons housed in sensilla auricillica of the codling moth, Cydia pomonella (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). J. Insect Physiol. 2005, 51, 1066–1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Hansson, B.S.; Pers, J.N.C.V.D.; Löfqvist, J.N. Comparison of male and female olfactory cell response to pheromone compounds and plant volatiles in the turnip moth, Agrotis. segetum. Physiol. Entomol. 1989, 14, 147–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Nesbitt, B.F.; Beevor, P.S.; Cole, R.A.; Lestor, R.; Poppi, R.G. Sex pheromones of two noctuid moths. Nat. New Biol. 1973, 244, 208–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Zhang, S.-G.; Maida, R.; Steinbrecht, R.A. Immunolocalization of odorant-binding proteins in noctuid moths (Insecta, Lepidoptera). Chem. Senses 2001, 26, 885–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Christensen, T.A.; Geoffrion, S.C.; Hildebrand, J.G. Physiology of interspecific chemical communication in Heliothis moths. Physiol. Entomol. 1990, 15, 275–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Groot, A.; Gemeno, C.; Brownie, C.; Gould, F.; Schal, C. Male and female antennal responses in Heliothis virescens and H. subflexa to conspecific and heterospecific sex pheromone compounds. Environ. Entomol. 2005, 34, 256–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Almaas, T.; Mustaparta, H. Heliothis virescens: Response characteristics of receptor neurons in sensilla trichodea type 1 and type 2. J. Chem. Ecol. 1991, 17, 953–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Angioy, A.M.L.; Desogus, A.; Hansson, B.S. Importance of sex pheromone autodetection in female moths. Soc. Neurosci. Abstr. 2001, 308, 9. [Google Scholar]
  72. Acín, P.; Carrascal, M.; Abián, J.; Guerrero, A.; Quero, C. Expression of differential antennal proteins in males and females of an important crop pest, Sesamia nonagrioides. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2009, 39, 11–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Dickens, J.C.; Visser, J.H.; van der Pers, J.N.C. Detection and deactivation of pheromone and plant odor components by the beet armyworm, Spodoptera exigua (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J. Insect Physiol. 1993, 39, 503–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Malo, E.A.; Castrej, N.G.; Mez, V.R.; Cruz, L.; Pez, L.; Rojas, J.C. Antennal sensilla and electrophysiological response of male and female Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to conspecific sex pheromone and plant odors. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 2004, 97, 1273–1284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Ljungberg, H.; Anderson, P.; Hansson, B.S. Physiology and morphology of pheromone-specific sensilla on the antennae of male and female Spodoptera littoralis (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J. Insect Physiol. 1993, 39, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Anderson, P.; Hansson, B.S.; Löfqvist, J. Plant-odour-specific receptor neurones on the antennae of female and male Spodoptera. littoralis. Physiol. Entomol. 1995, 20, 189–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Light, D.M.; Birch, M.C. Electrophysiological basis for the behavioural response of male and female Trichoplusia ni to synthetic female pheromone. J. Insect Physiol. 1979, 25, 161–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Seabrook, W.D.; Linn, C.E.; Dyer, L.J.; Shorey, H.H. Comparison of electroantennograms from female and male cabbage looper moths (Trichoplusia ni) of different ages and for various pheromone concentrations. J. Chem. Ecol. 1987, 13, 1443–1453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Todd, J.L.; Baker, T.C. Response of single antennal neurons of female cabbage loopers to behaviorally active attractants. Naturwissenschaften 1993, 80, 183–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Grant, A.J.; Connell, R.J. Responses of olfactory receptor neurons in Utetheisa ornatrix to gender-specific odors. J. Comp. Physiol. A 2000, 186, 535–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Bouwer, M.C.; Slippers, B.; Degefu, D.; Wingfield, M.J.; Lawson, S.; Rohwer, E.R. Identification of the sex pheromone of the tree infesting Cossid moth Coryphodema tristis (Lepidoptera: Cossidae). PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0118575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Pearson, G.A.; Schal, C. Electroantennogram responses of both sexes of grape root borer (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae) to synthetic female sex pheromone. Environ. Entomol. 1999, 28, 943–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Van der Pers, J.N.C.; den Otter, C.J. Single cell responses from olfactory receptors of small ermine moths to sex-attractants. J. Insect Physiol. 1978, 24, 337–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Pophof, B.; Stange, G.; Abrell, L. Volatile organic compounds as signals in a plant–herbivore System: Electrophysiological responses in olfactory sensilla of the moth Cactoblastis cactorum. Chem. Senses 2005, 30, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Schweitzer, E.S.; Sanes, J.R.; Hildebrand, J.G. Ontogeny of electroantennogram responses in the moth, Manduca sexta. J. Insect Physiol. 1976, 22, 955–960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. De Silva, E.C.A.; Silk, P.J.; Mayo, P.; Hillier, N.K.; Magee, D.; Cutler, G.C. Identification of sex pheromone components of blueberry spanworm Itame argillacearia (Lepidoptera: Geometridae). J. Chem. Ecol. 2013, 39, 1169–1181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Daimon, T.; Fujii, T.; Fujii, T.; Yokoyama, T.; Katsuma, S.; Shinoda, T.; Shimada, T.; Ishikawa, Y. Reinvestigation of the sex pheromone of the wild silkmoth Bombyx mandarina: The effects of bombykal and bombykyl acetate. J. Chem. Ecol. 2012, 38, 1031–1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Boeckh, J.; Kaissling, K.E.; Schneider, D. Insect olfactory receptors. Cold Spring Harbor Symp. Quant. Biol. 1965, 30, 263–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Maida, R.; Ziesmann, J. Female Attacus atlas respond to pheromones of Antheraea polyphemus: A comparative electrophysiological and biochemical study. Chem. Senses 2001, 26, 17–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Leal, W.; Mochizuki, F.; Wakamura, S.; Yasuda, T. Electroantennographic detection of Anomala cuprea (Hope) (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) sex pheromone. Appl. Entomol. Zool. 1992, 27, 289–291. [Google Scholar]
  91. Larsson, M.C.; Leal, W.S.; Hansson, B.S. Olfactory receptor neurons specific to chiral sex pheromone components in male and female Anomala cuprea beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). J. Comp. Physiol. A 1999, 184, 353–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Larsson, M.C.; Leal, W.S.; Hansson, B.S. Olfactory receptor neurons detecting plant odours and male volatiles in Anomala cuprea beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). J. Insect Physiol. 2001, 47, 1065–1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Leal, W.; Hasegawa, M.; Sawada, M.; Ono, M.; Ueda, Y. Identification and field evaluation of Anomala octiescostata (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) sex pheromone. J. Chem. Ecol. 1994, 20, 1643–1655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Nikonov, A.A.; Peng, G.; Tsurupa, G.; Leal, W.S. Unisex pheromone detectors and pheromone-binding proteins in scarab beetles. Chem. Senses 2002, 27, 495–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Subaharan, K.; Kumar, A.R.V.; Ganiger, P. Electrophysiological responses of chafer beetle, Holotrichia serrata (F.) (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). J. Saudi Soc. Agric. Sci. 2013, 12, 155–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Washio, H.; Nishino, C.; Bowers, W.S. Antennal receptor response to sex pheromone mimics in the American cockroach. Nature 1976, 262, 487–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Nishino, H.; Iwasaki, M.; Mizunami, M. Pheromone detection by a pheromone emitter: A small sex pheromone-specific processing system in the female American cockroach. Chem. Senses 2011, 36, 261–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Kanaujia, S.; Kaissling, K.E. Interactions of pheromone with moth antennae: Adsorption, desorption and transport. J. Insect Physiol. 1985, 31, 71–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Breer, H. Molecular Mechanisms of Pheromone Reception in Insect Antennae. In Insect Pheromone Research; Cardé, R., Minks, A., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1997; pp. 115–130. [Google Scholar]
  100. Vogt, R.G.; Riddiford, L.M. Pheromone binding and inactivation by moth antennae. Nature 1981, 293, 161–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Györgyi, T.K.; Roby-Shemkovitz, A.J.; Lerner, M.R. Characterization and cDNA cloning of the pheromone-binding protein from the tobacco hornworm, Manduca sexta: A tissue-specific developmentally regulated protein. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 1988, 85, 9851–9855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Steinbrecht, R.A.; Laue, M.; Ziegelberger, G. Immunolocalization of pheromone-binding protein and general odorant-binding protein in olfactory sensilla of the silk moths Antheraea and Bombyx. Cell. Tissue Res. 1995, 282, 203–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Krieger, J.; Große-Wilde, E.; Gohl, T.; Breer, H. Candidate pheromone receptors of the silkmoth Bombyx mori. Eur. J. Neurosci. 2005, 21, 2167–2176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Forstner, M.; Breer, H.; Krieger, J. A receptor and binding protein interplay in the detection of a distinct pheromone component in the silkmoth Antheraea polyphemus. Int. J. Biol. Sci. 2009, 5, 745–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Bengtsson, J.M.; Trona, F.; Montagne, N.; Anfora, G.; Ignell, R.; Witzgall, P.; Jacquin-Joly, E. Putative chemosensory receptors of the codling moth, Cydia pomonella, identified by antennal transcriptome analysis. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e31620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Picimbon, J.F.; Gadenne, C. Evolution of noctuid pheromone binding proteins: Identification of PBP in the black cutworm moth, Agrotis ipsilon. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2002, 32, 839–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Gu, S.-H.; Sun, L.; Yang, R.-N.; Wu, K.-M.; Guo, Y.-Y.; Li, X.-C.; Zhou, J.-J.; Zhang, Y.-J. Molecular characterization and differential expression of olfactory genes in the antennae of the black cutworm moth Agrotis ipsilon. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e103420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Gu, S.-H.; Zhou, J.-J.; Wang, G.-R.; Zhang, Y.-J.; Guo, Y.-Y. Sex pheromone recognition and immunolocalization of three pheromone binding proteins in the black cutworm moth Agrotis ipsilon. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2013, 43, 237–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Steinbrecht, R.A.; Ozaki, M.; Ziegelberger, G. Immunocytochemical localization of pheromone-binding protein in moth antennae. Cell. Tissue Res. 1992, 270, 287–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Zhang, T.; Gu, S.; Wu, K.; Zhang, Y.; Guo, Y. Construction and analysis of cDNA libraries from the antennae of male and female cotton bollworms Helicoverpa. armigera (Hübner) and expression analysis of putative odorant-binding protein genes. Biochem Biophys. Res. Commun. 2011, 407, 393–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Liu, Y.; Gu, S.; Zhang, Y.; Guo, Y.; Wang, G. Candidate olfaction genes identified within the Helicoverpa. armigera antennal transcriptome. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e48260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Callahan, F.E.; Vogt, R.G.; Tucker, M.L.; Dickens, J.C.; Mattoo, A.K. High level expression of “male specific” pheromone binding proteins (PBPs) in the antennae of female noctuiid moths. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2000, 30, 507–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Krieger, J.; Gänβle, H.; Raming, K.; Breer, H. Odorant binding proteins of Heliothis virescens. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 1993, 23, 449–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Krieger, J.; Grosse-Wilde, E.; Gohl, T.; Dewer, Y.M.E.; Raming, K.; Breer, H. Genes encoding candidate pheromone receptors in a moth (Heliothis virescens). Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 2004, 101, 11845–11850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Krieger, J.; Gondesen, I.; Forstner, M.; Gohl, T.; Dewer, Y.; Breer, H. Hr11 and hr13 receptor-expressing neurons are housed together in pheromone-responsive sensilla trichodea of male Heliothis virescens. Chem. Senses 2009, 34, 469–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Nagnan-Le Meillour, P.; Huet, J.-C.; Maibeche, M.; Pernollet, J.-C.; Descoins, C. Purification and characterization of multiple forms of odorant/pheromone binding proteins in the antennae of Mamestra brassicae (Noctuidae). Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 1996, 26, 59–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Maïbèche-Coisne, M.; Sobrio, F.; Delaunay, T.; Lettere, M.; Dubroca, J.; Jacquin-Joly, E.; Meillour, P.N.-L. Pheromone binding proteins of the moth Mamestra brassicae: Specificity of ligand binding. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 1997, 27, 213–221. [Google Scholar]
  118. Mitsuno, H.; Sakurai, T.; Murai, M.; Yasuda, T.; Kugimiya, S.; Ozawa, R.; Toyohara, H.; Takabayashi, J.; Miyoshi, H.; Nishioka, T. Identification of receptors of main sex-pheromone components of three Lepidopteran species. Eur. J. Neurosci. 2008, 28, 893–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. De Santis, F.; François, M.-C.; Merlin, C.; Pelletier, J.; Maïbèche-Coisné, M.; Conti, E.; Jacquin-Joly, E. Molecular cloning and in situ expression patterns of two new pheromone-binding proteins from the corn stemborer Sesamia nonagrioides. J. Chem. Ecol. 2006, 32, 1703–1717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Xiu, W.-M.; Dong, S.-L. Molecular characterization of two pheromone binding proteins and quantitative analysis of their expression in the beet armyworm, Spodoptera exigua (Hübner). J. Chem. Ecol. 2007, 33, 947–961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Legeai, F.; Malpel, S.; Montagne, N.; Monsempes, C.; Cousserans, F.; Merlin, C.; Francois, M.C.; Maibeche-Coisne, M.; Gavory, F.; Poulain, J.; et al. An expressed sequence tag collection from the male antennae of the noctuid moth Spodoptera littoralis: A resource for olfactory and pheromone detection research. BMC Genom. 2011, 12, 1471–2164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  122. Xiu, W.-M.; Zhou, Y.-Z.; Dong, S.-L. Molecular characterization and expression pattern of two pheromone-binding proteins from Spodoptera litura (Fabricius). J. Chem. Ecol. 2008, 34, 487–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Sun, M.; Liu, Y.; Walker, W.B.; Liu, C.; Lin, K.; Gu, S.; Zhang, Y.; Zhou, J.; Wang, G. Identification and characterization of pheromone receptors and interplay between receptors and pheromone binding proteins in the diamondback moth, Plutella xyllostella. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e62098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Gong, Z.J.; Zhou, W.W.; Yu, H.Z.; Mao, C.G.; Zhang, C.X.; Cheng, J.A.; Zhu, Z.R. Cloning, expression and functional analysis of a general odorant-binding protein 2 gene of the rice striped stem borer, Chilo suppressalis (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Insect Mol. Biol. 2009, 18, 405–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Cao, D.; Liu, Y.; Wei, J.; Liao, X.; Walker, W.B.; Li, J.; Wang, G. Identification of candidate olfactory genes in Chilo suppressalis by antennal transcriptome analysis. Int. J. Biol. Sci. 2014, 10, 846–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Zeng, F.-F.; Sun, X.; Dong, H.-B.; Wang, M.-Q. Analysis of a cDNA library from the antenna of Cnaphalocrocis medinalis and the expression pattern of olfactory genes. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2013, 433, 463–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Vogt, R.G.; Rybczynski, R.; Lerner, M.R. Molecular cloning and sequencing of general odorant-binding proteins GOBP1 and GOBP2 from the tobacco hawk moth Manduca sexta: Comparisons with other insect OBPs and their signal peptides. J. Neurosci. 1991, 11, 2972–2984. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  128. Vogt, R.G.; Rogers, M.E.; Franco, M.-D.; Sun, M. A comparative study of odorant binding protein genes: Differential expression of the PBP1-GOBP2 gene cluster in Manduca sexta (Lepidoptera) and the organization of OBP genes in Drosophila melanogaster (Diptera). J. Exper. Biol. 2002, 205, 719–744. [Google Scholar]
  129. Nardi, J.B.; Miller, L.A.; Walden, K.K.; Rovelstad, S.; Wang, L.; Frye, J.C.; Ramsdell, K.; Deem, L.S.; Robertson, H.M. Expression patterns of odorant-binding proteins in antennae of the moth Manduca sexta. Cell Tissue Res. 2003, 313, 321–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Große-Wilde, E.; Stieber, R.; Forstner, M.; Krieger, J.; Wicher, D.; Hansson, B.S. Sex-specific odorant receptors of the tobacco hornworm Manduca sexta. Front. Cell. Neurosci. 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Sakurai, T.; Nakagawa, T.; Mitsuno, H.; Mori, H.; Endo, Y.; Tanoue, S.; Yasukochi, Y.; Touhara, K.; Nishioka, T. Identification and functional characterization of a sex pheromone receptor in the silkmoth Bombyx mori. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 2004, 101, 16653–16658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Maida, R.; Mameli, M.; Müller, B.; Krieger, J.; Steinbrecht, R.A. The expression pattern of four odorant-binding proteins in male and female silk moths, Bombyx. mori. J. Neurocytol. 2005, 34, 149–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Forstner, M.; Gohl, T.; Breer, H.; Krieger, J. Candidate pheromone binding proteins of the silkmoth Bombyx mori. Invertebr. Neurosci. 2006, 6, 177–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Raming, K.; Krieger, J.; Breer, H. Molecular cloning of an insect pheromone-binding protein. FEBS Lett. 1989, 256, 215–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Laue, M.; Steinbrecht, R.A.; Ziegelberger, G. Immunocytochemical localization of general odorant-binding protein in olfactory sensilla of the silkmoth Antheraea polyphemus. Naturwissenschaften 1994, 81, 178–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Greenfield, M.D. Moth Sex Pheromones: An evolutionary perspective. Fla. Entomol. 1981, 64, 4–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Harari, A.R.; Steinitz, H. The evolution of female sex pheromones. Curr. Zool. 2013, 59, 569–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Lundberg, S.; Löfstedt, C. Intra-specific competition in the sex communication channel: A selective force in the evolution of moth pheromones? J. Theor. Biol. 1987, 125, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Harari, A.R.; Zahavi, T.; Thiéry, D. Fitness cost of pheromone production in signaling female moths. Evolution 2011, 65, 1572–1582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  140. Ochieng, S.A.; Anderson, P.; Hansson, B.S. Antennal lobe projection patterns of olfactory receptor neurons involved in sex pheromone detection in Spodoptera littoralis (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Tissue Cell. 1995, 27, 221–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Foster, S.P.; Anderson, K.G. Sex pheromones in mate assessment: Analysis of nutrient cost of sex pheromone production by females of the moth Heliothis virescens. J. Exp. Biol. 2015, 218, 1252–1258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  142. Régnière, J.; Delisle, J.; Pureswaran, D.S.; Trudel, R. Mate-finding allee effect in spruce budworm population dynamics. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2013, 146, 112–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Evenden, M.L.; Mori, B.A.; Sjostrom, D.; Roland, J. Forest tent caterpillar, Malacosoma disstria (Lepidoptera: Lasiocampidae) mate-finding behavior is greatest at intermediate population densities: Implications for interpretation of moth capture in pheromone-baited traps. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Wall, C.; Perry, J.N. Interactions between pheromone traps for the pea moth, Cydia nigricana (F.). Entomol. Exp. Appl. 1978, 24, 155–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Wall, C.; Perry, J.N. Effects of spacing and trap number on interactions between pea moth pheromone traps. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 1980, 28, 313–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Miller, J.R.; Gut, L.J.; Lame, F.M.; Stelinski, L.L. Differentiation of competitive vs. non-competitive mechanisms mediating disruption of moth sexual communication by point sources of sex pheromone (Part 1): Theory. J. Chem. Ecol. 2006, 32, 2089–2114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  147. Miller, J.R.; Gut, L.J.; Lame, F.M.; Stelinski, L.L. Differentiation of competitive vs. non-competitive mechanisms mediating disruption of moth sexual communication by point sources of sex pheromone (Part 2): Case studies. J. Chem. Ecol. 2006, 32, 2115–2143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  148. Harari, A.; Ben-Yakir, D.; Rosen, D. Mechanism of aggregation behavior in Maladera matrida (Argaman)(Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). J. Chem. Ecol. 1994, 20, 361–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  149. Kim, J.; Hasegawa, M.; Leal, W.S. Individual variation in pheromone emission and termination patterns in female Anomala cuprea. Chemoecology 2002, 12, 121–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Shorey, H.H.; Mcfarland, S.U.; Gaston, L.K. Sex pheromones of noctuid moths. XIII. Changes in pheromone quantity, as related to reproductive age and mating history, in females of seven species of Noctuidae (Lepidoptera). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 1968, 61, 372–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Schal, C.; Charlton, R.; Cardé, R. Temporal patterns of sex pheromone titers and release rates in Holomelina lamae (Lepidoptera: Arctiidae). J. Chem. Ecol. 1987, 13, 1115–1129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  152. Delisle, J. Age related changes in the calling behaviour and the attractiveness of obliquebanded leafroller virgin females, Choristoneura rosaceana, under different constant and fluctuating temperature conditions. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 1992, 63, 55–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Knight, A.L.; Turner, J.E. Sexual biology of Pandemis pyrusana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) under laboratory conditions. J. Entomol. Soc. B. C. 1998, 95, 89–94. [Google Scholar]
  154. Gemeno, C.; Haynes, K. Periodical and age-related variation in chemical communication system of black cutworm moth, Agrotis ipsilon. J. Chem. Ecol. 2000, 26, 329–342. [Google Scholar]
  155. Bailey, W.J.; Haythornthwaite, S. Risks of calling by the field cricket Teleogryllus oceanicus; potential predation by Australian long-eared bats. J. Zool. 1998, 244, 505–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Cade, W. Acoustically orienting parasitoids: Fly phonotaxis to cricket song. Science 1975, 190, 1312–1313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Branco, M.; Lettere, M.; Franco, J.; Binazzi, A.; Jactel, H. Kairomonal response of predators to three pine bast scale sex pheromones. J. Chem. Ecol. 2006, 32, 1577–1586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  158. Branco, M.; Franco, J.C.; Dunkelblum, E.; Assael, F.; Protasov, A.; Ofer, D.; Mendel, Z. A common mode of attraction of larvae and adults of insect predators to the sex pheromone of their prey (Hemiptera: Matsucoccidae). Bull. Entomol. Res. 2006, 96, 179–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  159. Dweck, H.K.M.; Svensson, G.P.; Gündüz, E.A.; Anderbrant, O. Kairomonal response of the parasitoid, Bracon hebetor (Say), to the male-produced sex pheromone of its host, the greater waxmoth, Galleria mellonella (L.). J. Chem. Ecol. 2010, 36, 171–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  160. Arakaki, N.; Wakamura, S.; Yasuda, T.; Yamagishi, K. Two regional strains of a phoretic egg parasitoid, Telenomus euproctidis; (Hymenoptera: Scelionidae), that use different sex pheromones of two allopatric tussock moth species as kairomones. J. Chem. Ecol. 1997, 23, 153–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Milonas, P.; Mazomenos, B.E.; Konstantopoulou, M.A. Kairomonal effect of sex pheromone components of two lepidopteran olive pests on Trichogramma wasps. Insect Sci. 2009, 16, 131–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Hissmann, K. Strategies of mate finding in the European field cricket (Gryllus campestris) at different population densities: A field study. Ecol. Entomol. 1990, 15, 281–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Walker, S.E.; Cade, W.H. A simulation model of the effects of frequency dependence, density dependence and parasitoid flies on the fitness of male field crickets. Ecol. Model. 2003, 169, 119–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Outram, I. Aspects of mating in the Spruce budworm, Choristoneura fumiferana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Can. Entomol. 1971, 103, 1121–1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Fraser, H.W.; Trimble, R.M. Effect of delayed mating on reproductive biology of the Oriental fruit moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Can. Entomol. 2001, 133, 219–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Torres-Vila, L.M.; Rodríguez-Molina, M.C.; Stockel, J. Delayed mating reduces reproductive output of female European grapevine moth, Lobesia botrana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Bull. Entomol. Res. 2002, 92, 241–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  167. Jiménez-Pérez, A.; Wang, Q. Effect of mating delay on the reproductive performance of Cnephasia jactatana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2003, 96, 592–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  168. Jones, V.P.; Wiman, N.G.; Brunner, J.F. Comparison of delayed female mating on reproductive biology of codling moth and obliquebanded leafroller. Environ. Entomol. 2008, 37, 679–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  169. Wenninger, E.J.; Averill, A.L. Effects of delayed mating on reproductive output of female oriental beetle Anomala orientalis (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Agric. For. Entomol. 2006, 8, 221–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Mori, B.A.; Evenden, M.L. When mating disruption does not disrupt mating: Fitness consequences of delayed mating in moths. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2013, 146, 50–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Stelinski, L.L.; Rodriguez-Saona, C.; Meyer, W.L. Recognition of foreign oviposition-marking pheromone in a multi-trophic context. Naturwissenschaften 2009, 96, 585–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  172. Noldus, L.P.J.J.; Potting, R.P.J.; Barendregt, H.E. Moth sex pheromone adsorption to leaf surface: Bridge in time for chemical spies. Physiol. Entomol. 1991, 16, 329–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. McNeil, J.N. Behavioral ecology of pheromone-mediated communication in moths and its importance in the use of pheromone traps. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1991, 36, 407–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Cardé, R.T. Utilization of pheromones in the population management of moth pests. Environ. Health Perspec. 1976, 14, 133–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Blight, M.M.; Wadhams, L.J. Male-produced aggregation pheromone in pea and bean weevil, Sitona lineatus (L.). J. Chem. Ecol. 1987, 13, 733–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  176. Merkl, M.E.; Cross, W.H.; Johnson, W.L. Boll weevil: Detection and monitoring of small populations with in-field traps. J. Econ. Entomol. 1978, 71, 29–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Rodriguez-Saona, C.; Stelinski, L. Behavior-modifying strategies in IPM: Theory and practice. In Integrated Pest Management: Innovation-Development Process; Peshin, R., Dhawan, A.K., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2009; Volume 1, pp. 263–315. [Google Scholar]
  178. Ding, B.-J.; Hofvander, P.; Wang, H.-L.; Durrett, T.P.; Stymne, S.; Löfstedt, C. A plant factory for moth pheromone production. Nat. Commun. 2014, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  179. Shorey, H.H.; Mckelvey, J.J. Chemical Control of Insect Behavior: Theory and Application; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar]
  180. Cardé, R.T. Using pheromones to disrupt mating of moth pests. In Perspectives in Ecological Theory and Integrated Pest Management; Kogan, M., Jepson, P., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2007; pp. 122–169. [Google Scholar]
  181. Rodriguez-Saona, C.; Polk, D.; Holdcraft, R.; Chinnasamy, D.; Mafra-Neto, A. SPLAT-OB reveals competitive attraction as a mechanism of mating disruption in oriental beetle. Environ. Entomol. 2010, 39, 1980–1989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  182. Schneider, D.; Seibt, U. Sex pheromone of the queen butterfly: Electroantennogram responses. Science 1969, 164, 1173–1174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  183. Willis, M.A.; Birch, M.C. Male lek formation and female calling in a population of the arctiid moth Estigmene acrea. Science 1982, 218, 168–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  184. Grant, A.; O’Connell, R.; Eisner, T. Pheromone-mediated sexual selection in the moth Utetheisa ornatrix: Olfactory receptor neurons responsive to a male-produced pheromone. J. Insect Behav. 1989, 2, 371–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Andersson, J.; Borg-Karlson, A.K.; Vongvanich, N.; Wiklund, C. Male sex pheromone release and female mate choice in a butterfly. J. Exp. Biol. 2007, 210, 964–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  186. Byers, J. Sex-specific responses to aggregation pheromone: Regulation of colonization density in the bark beetle Ips paraconfusus. J. Chem. Ecol. 1983, 9, 129–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  187. Birch, M.C. Aggregation in bark beetles. In Chemical Ecology of Insects; Bell, W., Cardé, R., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1984; pp. 331–353. [Google Scholar]
  188. Dickens, J. Olfaction in the boll weevil, Anthonomus grandis Boh. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae): Electroantennogram studies. J. Chem. Ecol. 1984, 10, 1759–1785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  189. Iwabuchi, K.; Takahashi, J.; Nakagawa, Y.; Sakai, T. Electroantennogram responses of grape borer Xylotrechus pyrrhoderus (Bates) (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) to its male sex pheromone components. J. Chem. Ecol. 1985, 11, 819–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  190. Gries, G.; Gries, R.; Perez, A.L.; Oehlschlager, A.C.; Gonzales, L.M.; Pierce, H.D., Jr. Aggregation pheromone of the African rhinoceros beetle, Oryctes monoceros (Olivier) (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Z. Naturforsh. C 1994, 49, 363–366. [Google Scholar]
  191. Landolt, P.J. Sex attractant and aggregation pheromones of male phytophagous insects. Am. Entomol. 1997, 43, 12–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Lacey, E.; Ginzel, M.; Millar, J.; Hanks, L. Male-produced aggregation pheromone of the cerambycid beetle Neoclytus acuminatus acuminatus. J. Chem. Ecol. 2004, 30, 1493–1507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  193. Lacey, E.S.; Moreira, J.A.; Millar, J.G.; Ray, A.M.; Hanks, L.M. Male-produced aggregation pheromone of the cerambycid beetle Neoclytus mucronatus mucronatus. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2007, 122, 171–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Blomquist, G.J.; Figueroa-Teran, R.; Aw, M.; Song, M.; Gorzalski, A.; Abbott, N.L.; Chang, E.; Tittiger, C. Pheromone production in bark beetles. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2010, 40, 699–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  195. Hardee, D.D.; Cross, W.H.; Mitchell, E.B. Male boll weevils are more attractive than cotton plants to boll weevils. J. Econ. Entomol. 1969, 62, 165–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Insects 07 00017 g001 1024
Figure 1. Venn diagram of behavioral (repellence, attraction and dispersal, and aggregation) and electrophysiological (electroantennogram (EAG)) responses, and no responses, of females to conspecific-produced sex pheromones.
Figure 1. Venn diagram of behavioral (repellence, attraction and dispersal, and aggregation) and electrophysiological (electroantennogram (EAG)) responses, and no responses, of females to conspecific-produced sex pheromones.
Insects 07 00017 g001
Insects 07 00017 g002 1024
Figure 2. Relationships between relative levels of pheromone-binding (PBR) and pheromone-receptor (PR) proteins in female antennae of 14 species (see Table 4) and their relative antennal response: for all species (A); for species divided into two distinct groups based on levels of protein expression, a group that had little to no protein in their antennae (≤20% = “low”), and thus considered anosmic, and those that had higher levels of protein in their antennae (≥30% = “mod-high”), and thus considered here as autodetectors (B); and a theoretical relationship between relative levels of proteins in female antennae and their relative antennal response (C): species traditionally considered anosmic should fall in the gray areas below thresholds 1 and 2, while autodetecting females should fall somewhere along the linear portion of the curve.
Figure 2. Relationships between relative levels of pheromone-binding (PBR) and pheromone-receptor (PR) proteins in female antennae of 14 species (see Table 4) and their relative antennal response: for all species (A); for species divided into two distinct groups based on levels of protein expression, a group that had little to no protein in their antennae (≤20% = “low”), and thus considered anosmic, and those that had higher levels of protein in their antennae (≥30% = “mod-high”), and thus considered here as autodetectors (B); and a theoretical relationship between relative levels of proteins in female antennae and their relative antennal response (C): species traditionally considered anosmic should fall in the gray areas below thresholds 1 and 2, while autodetecting females should fall somewhere along the linear portion of the curve.
Insects 07 00017 g002
Table
Table 1. Behavioral responses of females to conspecific sex pheromones.
Table 1. Behavioral responses of females to conspecific sex pheromones.
FamilySpeciesStudy TypeResponse 1Dose TestedReference
Lepidoptera 2: TortricidaeAdoxophyes orana (Fischer von Röslerstamm)Observation chamberY0.01–100 µg[25]
Adoxophyes honmai (Yasuda)Observation chamberY0.01–100 µg[25]
Argyrotaenia velutinana (Walker)Observation chamberY [26]
Choristoneura fumiferana (Clemens)Observation chamberY2 mg[27]
Observation chamberY1 pg–1 mg[17]
Faraday cageY(100–200 ng/h)[18]
Choristoneura rosaceana (Harris)Observation chamberY [26]
Observation chamberN255 mg[28]
(0.04 mg/h)
Observation chamberY0.002–0.05 mg[23]
Flight mill
Cydia fagiglandana (Zeller)Observation chamberY10 µg blend[29]
Cydia pomonella (Linnaeus)Observation chamberY100 µg[30]
(0.93 µg/h)
Observation chamberN109 mg[28]
(0.02 mg/h)
Cydia splendana (Hübner)Observation chamberY10 µg blend[29]
Eupoecilia ambiguella (Hübner)Observation chamberN [31]
Grapholita molesta (Busck)Observation chamberY [32]
Observation chamberY238 µg[28]
(0.05 mg/h)
Observation chamber Flight millY0.002–0.05 mg[23]
Homona magnanima (Diakonoff)Observation chamberY0.01–100 µg[25]
Lobesia botrana (Denis and Schiffermüller)Observation chamberN [31]
Pandemis limitata (Robinson)Observation chamberN [33]
Pandemis pyrusana (Kearfott)Observation chamberY255 mg (0.04 mg/h)[28]
Lepidoptera 2: NoctuidaeHelicoverpa armigera (Hübner)OlfactometerY [19]
Helicoverpa zea (Boddie)OlfactometerY [19]
Heliothis subflexa (Guenée)OlfactometerN [34]
Pseudaletia adultera (Schaus)Observation chamberYlive ♀[35]
Sesamia nonagrioides (Lefebvre)OlfactometerY [36]
Spodoptera exigua (Hübner)Observation chamberY10 µg[37]
Spodoptera littoralis (Boisduval)Observation chamberY0.1–5 mg[20]
Observation chamberN [31]
Observation chamberY [38]
Trichoplusia ni (Hübner)Field TrappingY [7]
Field TrappingY [10]
Lepidoptera 2: ArctiidaeEuplagia (Panaxia) quadripunctaria (Poda)Field observation? [6]
Utetheisa ornatrix (Linnaeus)Observation chamberY [39,40]
Observation chamberY [41]
Lepidoptera 2: SesiidaeMelittia cucurbitae (Harris)Field trappingY [42]
Vitacea polistiformis (Harris)Field observationY [21]
Lepidoptera 2: PyralidaeEphestia kuehniella (Zeller)Field trapping Y [22]
Coleoptera 3: ScarabaeidaeAnomala orientalis (Waterhouse)Field trappingY [43]
Field observationY [44]
Anomala rufocuprea (Motschulsky)Field trapping? [45]
Field trappingY [46]
Cotinis nitida (Linnaeus)Field trappingY [47,48]
Holotrichia consanguinea (Blanchard)Field trapping and observationY [49]
Holotrichia loochooana loochooana (Sawada)Field observationY1–10 mg[50]
Field observation and experimentY(800 ng/h)[51]
Holotrichia serrata (Fabricius)Field observationY [52]
Maladera (matrida) insanabilis (Brenske)Field observationYlive ♀[53]
OlfactometerYlive ♀
Field trappingYlive ♀/extract
Field trappingYlive ♀[54]
Blattodea 4: BlattellidaeBlattella germanica (Linnaeus)Observation and OlfactometerY [55]
Diptera 4: TephritidaeBactrocera (Dacus) oleae (Rossi)Field trappingY [56]
1 “Y” = responded in some manner to pheromones; “N” = no observed response; “?” = unclear; 2 Lepidoptera with female-produced sex pheromones; 3 Scarabaeidae with female-produced sex pheromones not currently classified as aggregation pheromones in the literature; 4 Blattodea or Diptera with female-produced pheromones sometimes referred to as aggregation pheromones in the literature.
Table
Table 2. Electro-physiological responses of females to conspecific sex pheromones.
Table 2. Electro-physiological responses of females to conspecific sex pheromones.
Order: FamilySpeciesTest/Result 1AD 2Threshold 3Reference
Lepidoptera: TortricidaeAdoxophyes orana (Fischer von Röslerstamm)SSR++ [59]
Argyrotaenia velutinana (Walker)EAG−+ [60]
EAG+≤2 µg[26]
Choristoneura fumiferana (Clemens)EAG++<0.1 µg[61]
EAG+0.9 µg[62]
Choristoneura rosaceana (Harris)EAG++≤2 µg[26]
Cydia fagiglandana (Zeller)EAG++~0.1 µg[29]
Cydia pomonella (Linnaeus)EAG++≤100 ng[63]
SSR+ [64]
Cydia splendana (Hübner)EAG++~0.1 µg[29]
Grapholita molesta (Busck)EAG++≤2 µg[32]
Pandemis limitata (Robinson)EAG++≤10 µg[33]
Lepidoptera: NoctuidaeAgrotis segetum (Denis and Schiffermüller)EAG−− [65]
SSR−
Diparopsis castanea (Hampson)EAG−− [66]
Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner)SSR−− [67] 4
Helicoverpa zea (Boddie)EAG−− [68]
Heliothis subflexa (Guenée)EAG++ [69]
Heliothis virescens (Fabricius)EAG++≤10 µg[70]
SSR+1 µg
CR+≤12 µg[71]
EAG+ [69]
EAG+ [15]
SSR+
Pseudaletia adultera (Schaus)EAG++10 ng[35]
Sesamia nonagrioides (Lefebvre)EAG−+ [72]
EAG+[36]
Spodoptera exigua (Hübner)EAG−+ [73]
EAG+0.01 µg[37]
Spodoptera frugiperda (Smith)EAG++10 µg[74]
Spodoptera littoralis (Boisduval)EAG++ [66]
EAG+ [75]
SSR+
SSR+10–100 ng[76]
Trichoplusia ni (Hübner)EAG++2–10 ng[77]
EAG+0.1 µg[78]
SSR+5 ng[79]
Lepidoptera: ArctiidaeEuplagia (Panaxia) quadripunctaria (Poda)EAG++0.01–1.0 µg[6]
Utetheisa ornatrix (Linnaeus)SSR++ [80]
Lepidoptera: CossidaeCoryphodema tristis (Drury)EAG++ [81]
Lepidoptera: SesiidaeMelittia cucurbitae (Harris)EAG++0.1 µg[42]
Vitacea polistiformis (Harris)EAG++1 µg[82]
Lepidoptera: YponomeutaYponomeuta rorellus (rorrella) (Hübner)SSR++ [83]
Yponomeuta vigintipunctatus (Retzius)SSR++ [83]
Lepidoptera: PyralidaeCactoblastis cactorum (Berg)EAG++ [84]
SSR+
Lepidoptera: SphingidaeManduca sexta (Linnaeus)EAG−? [85]
EAG− [57]
SSR+ [58]
Lepidoptera: GeometridaeItame argillacearia (Packard)EAG−− [86]
Lepidoptera: BombycidaeBombyx mandarina (Moore)EAG−− [87]
Bombyx mori (Moore)EAG−− [4]
SSR− [88]
Lepidoptera: SaturniidaeAntheraea pernyi (Guerin Meneville)EAG−− [4]
Antheraea polyphemus (Cramer)EAG−− [89]
Attacus atlas (Linnaeus)EAG−− [89]
Callosamia promethea (Drury)EAG−− [4]
Eupackardia calleta (Westwood)EAG−− [4]
Hyalophora cecropia (Linnaeus)EAG−− [4]
Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae 4Anomala cuprea (Hope)EAG−+ [90]
SSR+ [91]
SSR+10−100 ng[92]
Anomala octiescostata (Burmeister)EAG++ [93]
EAG+0.1−10 µg[94]
Anomala orientalis (Waterhouse)EAG++30 µg[44]
Holotrichia serrata (Fabricius)EAG++ [95]
Blattodea: Blattidae 5Periplaneta americana (Linnaeus)EAG++ [96]
GR+ [97]
1 EAG = Electroantennagraph, SSR = single-sensillum recording, CR = cardiac response, GR = glomerular response; 2 AD = autodetection ability; “+” = verified; “−“ = not observed. (summary of all separate results for a species); 3 reported thresholds are for detection of major component unless noted; 4 Stranden and Mustaparta, unpublished, mentioned in [67]. 5 Scarabaeidae with female-produced sex pheromones not currently classified as aggregation pheromones in literature; 6 Blattodea with female-produced pheromones sometimes referred to as aggregation pheromones in literature.
Table
Table 3. Expression of pheromone-binding and pheromone-receptor proteins in female antennae to conspecific sex pheromones.
Table 3. Expression of pheromone-binding and pheromone-receptor proteins in female antennae to conspecific sex pheromones.
Order: FamilySpeciesPBP 1 Present FemalePBP 1 Expression in Female 2PR 3 Present FemalePR 3,4 Expression in Female 2Reference
Lepidoptera: TortricidaeCydia pomonella (Linnaeus) Ymoderate, similar to male[105]
Lepidoptera: NoctuidaeAgrotis ipsilon (Hufnagel)Ymoderate, similar to male [106]
moderate, ~33% of male [107]
Agrotis segetum (Denis + Schiffermüller)YmoderateY [67]
moderate, 30%–50% of male [108]
moderate, similar to malelow, less than male[107]
Autographa gamma (Linnaeus)Ymoderate, similar to male [109]
moderate [67]
Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner)YhighY [110]
moderate-high, 37%–79% of male [67]
moderate, less than male[111]
Helicoverpa zea (Boddie)Ymoderate, 40%–50% of male [112]
Heliothis virescens (Fabricius)Ylow, weakly expressedY [113]
moderate, 40%–50% of male [112]
moderate [67]
not found[114]
found[115]
Mamestra brassicae (Linnaeus)Yunclear [116]
present [117]
Mythimna separata (Walker)Yhigh?not found (0:1)[118]
Sesamia nonagrioides (Lefebvre)Yabundant [119]
moderate, 15%–47% of male [72]
Spodoptera exigua (Hübner)Ymoderate-high, 39%–73% of male [120]
Spodoptera frugiperda (Smith)Ymoderate, 40%–50% of male [112]
Spodoptera littoralis (Boisduval)YhighY [102] 5
high [67]
moderate, 30%–90% of male[121]
Spodoptera litura (Fabricius)Ylow, 2%–7% of male [122]
Lepidoptera: PlutellidaePlutella xylostella (Linnaeus)YhighYnot found (0:1)[117]
low, 1% of male[123]
Lepidoptera: PyralidaeChilo suppressalis (Walker)Ymoderate, similar to maleY [124]
moderate, similar to male[125]
Orthaga achatina (Butler)Ymoderate, ~25%–33% [111]
Lepidoptera: CrambidaeCnaphalocrocis medinalis (Guenée)Ylow, 1%–32% [126]
Diaphania indica (Saunders)Ymoderate?not found (0:1)[118]
Lepidoptera: SphingidaeManduca sexta (Linnaeus)Ynot detectedN [100]
low, 14% of male [101]
low [127]
low [128]
present [129]
not found (0:2)[130]
Lepidoptera: BombycidaeBombyx mori (Moore)YlowY [109]
rare [102]
not found (0:1)[131]
found (4:6)[103]
rare [132]
low [133]
Lepidoptera: SaturniidaeAntheraea pernyi (Guerin Meneville)Ynot detected [100]
not detected [134]
rare [102]
Antheraea polyphemus (Cramer)Ynot detectedN [100]
not detected [109]
very rare [135]
rare [102]
extremely low[104]
Hyalophora cecropia (Linnaeus)Nnot detected [100]
Coleoptera: ScarabaeidaeAnomala cuprea (Hope)Ymoderate, similar to male [94]
Anomala octiescostata (Burmeister)Ymoderate, similar to male [94]
1 PBP = pheromone-binding proteins; relative estimates include PBP proteins or PBP mRNA; 2 when no numerical estimate was provided, statements such as “levels similar to males” were categorized as “moderate”; 3 PR = pheromone-receptor proteins; relative estimates include PR proteins or PR mRNA; 4 numbers in parenthesis are ratios of no. PR proteins “found” versus no. PR proteins “tested for” (found: tested for); 5 Steinbrecht, unpublished, mentioned in [102].
Table
Table 4. Summary of autodetection in females.
Table 4. Summary of autodetection in females.
Order: FamilySpeciesBehavioral Response 2Electro-Physiological Response 1PBP/PR Presence 3,4Expression of Antennal Detection Proteins 5
PBP 3PR 3
Lepidoptera: TortricidaeAdoxophyes oranaY++
Adoxophyes honmaiY
Argyrotaenia velutinanaY++
Choristoneura fumiferanaY++
Choristoneura rosaceanaY++
Cydia fagiglandanaY++
Cydia pomonella 6Y++••
Cydia splendanaY++
Eupoecilia ambiguellaN
Grapholita molestaY++
Homona magnanimaY
Lobesia botranaN
Pandemis limitataN++
Pandemis pyrusanaY
Lepidoptera: NoctuidaeAgrotis ipsilon +〇
Agrotis segetum 6 -+•Ø
Autographa gamma +〇
Diparopsis castanea -
Helicoverpa armigeraY-+•〇
Helicoverpa zea 6Y-+〇
Heliothis subflexaN++
Heliothis virescens 6 ++〇〇
Mamestra brassicae +Ø
Mythimna separate +•?
Pseudaletia adulteraY+
Sesamia nonagrioides 6Y++〇
Spodoptera exigua 6Y++•
Spodoptera frugiperda ++〇
Spodoptera littoralis 6Y++•〇
Spodoptera litura +Ø
Trichoplusia niY++
Lepidoptera: ArctiidaeEuplagia quadripunctaria?++
Utetheisa ornatrixY++
Lepidoptera: CossidaeCoryphodema tristis +
Lepidoptera: SesiidaeMelittia cucurbitaeY++
Vitacea polistiformisY++
Lepidoptera: YponomeutaYponomeuta rorellus ++
Yponomeuta vigintipunctatus ++
Lepidoptera: PlutellidaePlutella xylostella +•Ø
Lepidoptera: PyralidaeCactoblastis cactorum ++
Chilo suppressalis +〇〇
Ephestia kuehniellaY
Orthaga achatina +〇
Lepidoptera: CrambidaeCnaphalocrocis medinalis +Ø
Diaphania indica +〇?
Lepidoptera: SphingidaeManduca sexta 6 + *+ØX
Lepidoptera: GeometridaeItame argillacearia -
Lepidoptera: BombycidaeBombyx mandarina -
Bombyx mori 6 -+ØØ
Lepidoptera: SaturniidaeAntheraea pernyi 6 -+Ø
Antheraea Polyphemus 6 -+ØX
Attacus atlas -
Callosamia promethean -
Eupackardia calleta -
Hyalophora cecropia 6 - X
Coleoptera: ScarabaeidaeAnomala cuprea 6 ++〇
Anomala octiescostata 6 ++〇
Anomala orientalisY++
Anomala rufocupreaY
Cotinis nitidaY
Holotrichia consanguineaY
Holotrichia loochooana loochooanaY
Holotrichia serrataY++
Maladera insanabilisY
Blattodea: Periplaneta Americana ++
Blattella germanicaY
Diptera: TephritidaeBactrocera oleaeY++
1 Electro-physiological response: (+) verified, (−) not detected, (?) unclear, (+*) response to minor component only; 2 behavior response: (Y) verified, (N) not observed, (?) unclear; 3 PBP = Pheromone-Binding Protein, PR = Pheromone-Receptor Protein; 4 PBP/PR Presence: (+) confirmed present or assumed from EAG/SSR response, (−) undetected; 5 PBP/PR Expression: • = high (>66%–100%), 〇 = moderate (>33%–66%), Ø = low (0%–33%), X = not detected, ? = undetermined; 6 species used in Figure 2A–C.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Holdcraft, R.; Rodriguez-Saona, C.; Stelinski, L.L. Pheromone Autodetection: Evidence and Implications. Insects 2016, 7, 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects7020017

AMA Style

Holdcraft R, Rodriguez-Saona C, Stelinski LL. Pheromone Autodetection: Evidence and Implications. Insects. 2016; 7(2):17. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects7020017

Chicago/Turabian Style

Holdcraft, Robert, Cesar Rodriguez-Saona, and Lukasz L. Stelinski. 2016. "Pheromone Autodetection: Evidence and Implications" Insects 7, no. 2: 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects7020017

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop