4.5 Article

Feeding responses and food preferences in the tropical, fruit-feeding butterfly, Bicyclus anynana

期刊

JOURNAL OF INSECT PHYSIOLOGY
卷 54, 期 9, 页码 1363-1370

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinsphys.2008.07.008

关键词

Adult diet; Feeding stimuli; Income breeding; Nutritional resources; Reproductive resource allocation

资金

  1. German Research Foundation [Fi 846/1-3, 846/1-4]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the tropical butterfly Bicyclus anynana (Nymphalidae) essential Components Of fitness (such as fecundity and longevity) depend to a large degree on exogenous adult-derived nutrients, particularly carbohydrates. We investigated which of the nutrients/compounds found in the adult diet act as feeding stimuli, and whether butterflies show preferences for particular nutrients or combinations. Only sugars and alcohols acted as feeding stimuli, the highest responses being found for sucrose, glucose, ethanol, butanol and propanol. Various other compounds (e.g. amino acids, acetic acid, vitamins, lipids, salts, and yeast) did not elicit my probing or feeding responses. Behavioural tests revealed a clear preference hierarchy for sugars (Sucrose > glucose > fructose > maltose), hot not for alcohol. Butterflies did not discriminate between sucrose solutions enriched with different nutrients and plain sucrose solutions, although they showed a preference for acetic acid and an aversion to salts and ascorbic acid when offered in combination with sucrose. Throughout, both sexes showed very similar patterns. We conclude that locating carbohydrate Sources seems Sufficient to cover all the butterflies' nutritional needs, while alcohols function primarily as long range signals, guiding the butterflies to food sources. Thus, fruit-feeding butterflies, in contrast to nectar-feeding butterflies, appear not to have distinctive preferences for e.g. amino acids or salts, but do share a common primary preference for sucrose. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据