Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-26T12:32:53.666Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Re-analysis of pheromone-mediated aggregation behaviour of European earwigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2012

Gagandeep Hehar ,
Regine Gries  and
Gerhard Gries
Gagandeep Hehar
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada V5A 1S6
Regine Gries
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada V5A 1S6
Gerhard Gries*
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada V5A 1S6
*
1Corresponding author (e-mail: gries@sfu.ca).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aggregation of the European earwig, Forficula auricularia L. (Dermaptera: Forficulidae), is known to be, in part, a response to aggregation pheromone. However, many aspects of pheromone biology remain unknown or controversial. In two-choice experiments with field-collected specimens in a still-air olfactometer, we determined that female, male, and juvenile F. auricularia all produce and respond to aggregation pheromone and that the pheromone is perceived by means of olfaction. Various sources (or extracts thereof) reportedly containing or emitting pheromone (including the insects’ integument, tibiae, or fecal excreta) did not induce significant responses. Our data suggest that none of these sources contains all or any of the essential pheromone components. These controversial results may be due to differences in (i) experimental procedures, such as single- or grouped-insect bioassays, or (ii) developmental stages of the bioassay insects. It is conceivable that juveniles and adults produce and respond to different components of aggregation pheromone.

Résumé

Les forficules européens, Forficula auricularia L. (Dermaptera: Forficulidae), forment des rassemblements en partie en réaction à une phéromone d’agrégation. Plusieurs aspects, cependant, de la biologie de cette phéromone restent inconnus ou controversés. Des expériences en air calme dans des olfactomètres à deux choix faites avec des individus récoltés en nature ont montré que les F. auricularia femelles, mâles et jeunes produisent tous une hormone d’agrégation et y réagissent et que l’hormone est perçue par olfaction. Diverses sources (ou extraits de ces sources) présumées contenir ou émettre la phéromone (dont le tégument, le tibia et les fèces des insectes) n’ont élicité aucune réaction significative dans les expériences dans l’olfactomètre. Nos données laissent croire qu’aucune de ces sources ne contient toutes ou même certaines des composantes essentielles de la phéromone. Ces résultats problématiques peuvent s’expliquer par (i) des protocoles expérimentaux non uniformes, comme des bioessais avec des insectes isolés et des insectes regroupés ou (ii) l’utilisation d’insectes expérimentaux de stades de développement différents. Il est possible que les jeunes et les adultes produisent des composantes différentes de la phéromone d’agrégation et y réagissent de façon particulière.

[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 140 , Issue 6 , December 2008 , pp. 674 - 681
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anonymous. 2004 a. Earwigs (Forficula auricularia) [online]. Available from http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/cropprot/tfipm/earwigs.htm [accessed 1 June 2007].Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2004 b. Effective control of earwigs [online]. Available from http://www.pmra-arla.gc.ca/english/consum/earwigs-e.html [accessed 1 June 2007].Google Scholar
Brousse-Gaury, P. 1983. Sur l'existence d'une glande tibiale chez Labidura riparia Pallas et Forficula auricularia L. (Insectes: Dermapteres). Comptes Rendus de l Academie des Sciences Paris, 297: 203–208.Google Scholar
Burnip, G.M., Daly, J.M., Hackett, J.K., and Suckling, D.M. 2002. European earwig phenology and effect of understorey management on population estimation. New Zealand Plant Protection, 55: 390–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buxton, J.H. 1974. The biology of the European earwig Forficula auricularia L. with reference to its predatory activities on the damson-hop aphid Phorodon humuli (Schrank). Ph.D. dissertation, Wye College, University of London, London, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Carroll, D.P., and Hoyt, S.C. 1984. Augmentation of European earwigs (Dermaptera: Forficulidae) for biological control of apple aphid (Homoptera: Aphididae) in an apple orchard. Journal of Economic Entomology, 77: 738–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chant, D.A., and McLeod, J.H. 1952. Effects of certain climatic factors on the daily abundance of the European earwig, Forficula auricularia L. (Dermaptera: Forficulidae), in Vancouver, British Columbia. The Canadian Entomologist, 34: 174–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cranshaw, W.S. 2000. European earwig: habits and management. Pest Alert, 17: 4–5.Google Scholar
Cranshaw, W.S. 2007. European earwigs. Colorado State University Extension-Horticulture [online]. Available from http://www.ext.colostate.edu/Pubs/insect/055333.html [accessed 1 June 2007[.Google Scholar
Duthie, B., Gries, G., Gries, R., Krupke, C., and Derksen, S. 2003. Does pheromone-based aggregation of codling moth larvae help procure future mates? Journal of Chemical Ecology, 29: 425–436.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flint, M.L. 2002. Earwigs: integrated pest management for home gardeners. Pest Notes No. 74102 (Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program, Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California, Davis, California).Google Scholar
Glen, D.M. 1975. The effects of predators on the eggs of codling moth, Cydia pomonella, in a ciderapple orchard in south-west England. Annals of Applied Biology, 80: 115–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ishii, S., and Kuwahara, Y. 1967. An aggregation pheromone of the German cockroach Blattella germanica L. (Orthoptera: Blattellidae). I. Site of the pheromone production. Applied Entomology and Zoology, 2: 203–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ishii, S., and Kuwahara, Y. 1968. Aggregation of German cockroach (Blattella germanica) nymphs. Experientia, 24: 88–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lamb, R.J. 1974. Earwig travel in relation to habitat. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia.Google Scholar
Lamb, R.J. 1975. Effects of dispersion, travel and environmental heterogeneity on populations of the earwig, Forficula auricularia L. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 53: 1855–1867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamb, R.J. 1976. Parental behaviour in the Dermaptera with special reference to Forficula auricularia (Dermaptera: Forficulidae). The Canadian Entomologist, 108: 609–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamb, R.J., and Wellington, W.G. 1974. Techniques for studying the behaviour and ecology of the European earwig, Forficula auricularia (Dermaptera: Forficulidae). The Canadian Entomologist, 106: 881–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, S. 2000. Earwigs prove to be more than a nuisance [online]. Available from http://web.extension.uiuc.edu/champaign/homeowners/000701.html [accessed 1 June 2007].Google Scholar
Morallo-Rejesus, B., Navasero, M., Javier, P., and Camarao, G. 2001. Mass rearing of earwigs [online]. BAR Chronicle, 2(17). Available from http://www.bar.gov.ph/barchronicle/2001/sep01_1-15_massrear.asp [accessed 1 June 2007].Google Scholar
Mueller, T.F., Blommers, L.H.M., and Mols, P.J.M. 1988. Earwig (Forficula auricularia) predation on the woolly apple aphid, Eriosoma lanigerum. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 47: 145–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierce, A.M., Borden, J.H., and Oehlschlager, A.C. 1981. Olfactory response to beetle-produced volatiles and food-attractants by Oryzaephilus surinamensis and O. mercator. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 59: 1980–1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauphanor, B. 1992. Une pheromone d'aggregation chez Forficula auricularia L. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 62: 285–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauphanor, B., and Sureau, F. 1993. Aggregation behaviour and interspecific relationships in Dermaptera. Oecologia, 96: 360–364.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siljander, E., Penman, D., Harlan, H., and Gries, G. 2007. Evidence for male- and juvenile-specific contact pheromones of the common bed bug Cimex lectularius. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 125: 215–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takács, S., and Gries, G. 2001. Communication ecology of webbing clothes moth: evidence for male-produced aggregation signal(s). The Canadian Entomologist, 133: 725–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tremblay, M.N., and Gries, G. 2003. Pheromone-based aggregation behaviour of the firebrat, Thermobia domestica (Packard) (Thysanura: Lepismatidae). Chemoecology, 13: 21–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, K.A., Jones, T.H., and Fell, R.D. 1993. Pheromonal basis of aggregation in European earwig, Forficula auricularia L. (Dermaptera: Forficulidae). Journal of Chemical Ecology, 19: 2029–2038.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wirth, T., Guellec, R.L., Vancassel, M., and Veuille, M., 1998. Molecular and reproductive characterization of sibling species in the European earwig (Forficula auricularia). Evolution, 52: 260–265.Google ScholarPubMed
Woodbury, N., and Gries, G. 2007. Pheromonebased arrestant behavior in the common silverfish Lepisma saccharina and giant silverfish Ctenolepisma longicaudata. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 33: 1351–1358.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zar, J.H. 1999. Biostatistical analysis. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.Google Scholar