Response to: Comment on ‘Visual cues override olfactory cues in the host-finding process of the monophagous leaf beetle Altica engstroemi’

2007 ◽  
Vol 126 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-87
Author(s):  
Johan A. Stenberg ◽  
Lars Ericson
2007 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 558-572 ◽  
Author(s):  
Russell F. Mizell ◽  
Frank G. Martin ◽  
W. Louis Tedders

A modified Tilles trap and the pyramidal Tedders trap alone or in combination with 2-way pitfall traps were used in north Florida to determine trap capture efficiency and the roles of visual and olfactory cues in the behavior of 2 species of root-feeding weevils, Hylobius pales (Herbst) and Pachylobius picivorus (Germar) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), and a cerambycid, Xylotrechus sagittatus (Germar) (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). The 3 species responded strongly to olfactory cues provided by a 5:1 ratio of ethanol and turpentine. Visual cues followed olfactory cues in the host finding and selection hierarchy and were important in the trap response of H. pales and X. sagittatus, but less important for P. picivorus. The Tedders trap captured 18% of the total of the P. picivorus, >70% of the H. pales and >80% of the X. sagittatus. Response to odor and visual cues was more directed toward the point source in H. pales when compared with P. picivorus. More than 80% of P. picivorus landed some distance away from the trap and moved toward it. In contrast, less than 30% of H. pales landed away from or failed to enter the Tedders trap. The numbers of X. sagittatus trapped were greater in traps that were elevated off the ground. Response to the modified Tilles trap confirmed and supported the findings in the other trap configurations. Use of this methodology has potential for monitoring populations of these beetles and determining the behavior and biology of other insect species.


1998 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 193-203
Author(s):  
Matthias Laska ◽  
Karin Metzker

Using a conditioned food avoidance learning paradigm, six squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus) and six common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus) were tested for their ability to (1) reliably form associations between visual or olfactory cues of a potential food and its palatability and (2) remember such associations over prolonged periods of time. We found (1) that at the group level both species showed one-trial learning with the visual cues color and shape, whereas only the marmosets were able to do so with the olfactory cue, (2) that all individuals from both species learned to reliably avoid the unpalatable food items within 10 trials, (3) a tendency in both species for quicker acquisition of the association with the visual cues compared with the olfactory cue, (4) a tendency for quicker acquisition and higher reliability of the aversion by the marmosets compared with the squirrel monkeys, and (5) that all individuals from both species were able to reliably remember the significance of the visual cues, color and shape, even after 4 months, whereas only the marmosets showed retention of the significance of the olfactory cues for up to 4 weeks. Furthermore, the results suggest that in both species tested, illness is not a necessary prerequisite for food avoidance learning but that the presumably innate rejection responses toward highly concentrated but nontoxic bitter and sour tastants are sufficient to induce robust learning and retention.


2002 ◽  
Vol 205 (16) ◽  
pp. 2519-2523 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco Bonadonna ◽  
Vincent Bretagnolle

SUMMARY Many burrowing petrels are able to return to their nests in complete darkness. The well-developed anatomy of their olfactory system and the attraction that food-related odour cues have for some petrel species suggest that olfaction may be used to recognize the burrow. In contrast,surface-nesting petrels may rely on visual cues to recognise their nest. We performed experiments on nine species of petrel (with different nesting habits) rendered anosmic either by plugging the nostrils or by injecting zinc sulphate onto the nasal epithelium. Compared with shamtreated control birds,we found that anosmia impaired nest recognition only in species that nest in burrows and that return home in darkness. Therefore, petrels showing nocturnal activity on land may rely on their sense of smell to find their burrows, while petrels showing diurnal activity or surface nesters may disregard olfactory cues in favour of visual guidance.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document