Proceedings: Animal Sciences

, Volume 96, Issue 3, pp 311–316 | Cite as

Impact of chemicals on feeding and reproduction in insects

  • Kumuda Sukumar


Pest control is today an important segment of entomology supported by objective programs of research, education and business management. In the continuous search for newer strategies for pest suppression, certain unique ideas have emerged and concretized to definite principles and practice. The two themes which merit relevance and recognition here are the use of chemicals directed to interfere with feeding and reproduction in insects. The impact of chemicals derived from natural and synthetic sources has been well utilized by entomologists to suppress pests effectively either by inhibiting the gustatory stimulus or the reproductive potential.


Feeding behaviour antifeedants alkylating agents reproductive potential 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ascher K R S and Ishaaya I 1973 Antifeeding and protease and amylase-inhibiting activity of fentin acetate inSpodoptera littoralis larvae;Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 3 326–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ascher K R S, Nemny N E, Eliyahu M, Kirson I, Abraham A and Glotter E 1980 Insect antifeedant properties of withanolides and related steroids from Solanaceae;Experientia 36 998–999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ascher K R S, Schmutterer H, Glotter E and Kirson I 1981 Withanolides and related ergostane-type steroids as antifeedants for larvae ofEpilachna varivestis (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae);Phytoparasitica 9 197–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borkovec 1969 Alkylating agents as insect chemosterilants in Biological effects of alkylating agents;Ann. New York Acad Sci. 163 866–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chamberlain W F and Barrett C C 1968 Incorporation of tritiatea thymidine into the ovarian DNA of stable flies: Effects of treatment with apholate;Nature (London) 218 471–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chapman R F 1974 The chemical inhibition of feeding by phytophagous insects: a review;Bull. Entomol. Res. 64 340–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dethier V G 1937 Gustation and olfaction in lepidopterous larvae;Biol. Bull. Mar. Biol. Lab. Woods Hole 72 7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DeWilde J 1958 Host plant selection in the Colorado beetle larvae;Leptinotarsa decemlineata;Say. Entomol Exp. Appl. 1 14–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goldsmith E D, Tobias E B and Harnly M H 1948 Folic acid antagonists and the development ofDrosophila melanogaster;Anat. Rec. 101 93Google Scholar
  10. Ito T, Horie Y and Fraenkel G 1959 Feeding on cabbage and cherry leaves by maxillectomized silkworm larvae;J. Seric. Sci. Tokyo 28 107–113Google Scholar
  11. Joshi B G, Ramaprasad G and Subrahmanyam M 1971 Effect of fentin acetate as an antifeedant against tobacco, caterpillarProdenia litura Fabricius;Indian J. Agric. Sci. 41 1110–1114Google Scholar
  12. Kennedy J S 1967 Mechanisms of host plant selection;Ann. Appl. Biol. 56 317–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Koul O 1983 Feeding deterrence induced by plant limnoids in the larvae ofSpodoptera litura F. (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae);Z. Ang. Entomol. 95 160Google Scholar
  14. LaBrecque G C 1961 Studies with three alkylating agents as housefly sterilants;J. Econ. Entomol. 54 684–689Google Scholar
  15. LaChance L E and Riemann J G 1964 Cytogenetic investigations on radiation and chemically induced dominant lethal mutations in oocytes and sperm of the screworm fly;Mutat. Res. 1 318–333Google Scholar
  16. Ma W C 1969 Some properties of gustation in the larvae ofPieris brassicae;Entomol. Exp. Appl. 12 584–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ma W C 1972 Dynamics of feeding responses inPieris brassicae Linn as a function of chemosensory input: a behavioural ultrastructural and electrophysiological study;Meded. Landbouwhogesch. Wageningen 72 162Google Scholar
  18. Madhukar B V R, Pillai M K K and Borkovec A B 1971 Chemosterilization of the yellow-fever mosquito. 1 Laboratory evaluation of aziridinyl compounds by larval and pupal treatments;J. Econ. Entomol. 64 1024–1027PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Meisner J, Weissenberg M, Palevitch D and Aharonson N 1981 Phagodeterrency induced by leaves ofCatharanthus roseus in the larva ofSpodoptera littoralis.J. Econ. Entomol. 74 131–135Google Scholar
  20. Painter R R and Kilgore W W 1967 The effect of apholate and thiotepa on nucleic acid synthesis and nucleotide ratios in housefly eggs;J. Insect Physiol. 13 1105–1118CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Rai K 1964 Cytogenetic effects of chemosterilants in mosquitoes. I. Apholate-induced abberrations in the somatic chromosomes ofAedes aegypti L.;Cytologia 29 346–353Google Scholar
  22. Reena C, Afzal J, Das K G and Sukumar K 1983 6,7-Dimethoxy-isochroman-3-one: An antifeedant for castor semilooperAchoea janata L.;Indian J. Farm. Chem. 7 63–65Google Scholar
  23. Raghupathy A 1973 Antifeeding properties of two fentin compounds in the control ofPericallia ricini F. (Arctidae) andSpodoptera litura Boisd (Noctuidae) on castor;Madras Agric. J. 60 32–37Google Scholar
  24. Ross W C J 1962Biological alkylating agents (Butterworth’s and Co. Ltd., London) p 232Google Scholar
  25. Satyanarayana K and Kumuda Sukumar 1985 Sterility and retardation of oocyte growth by penfluron in soapnut bugLeptocoris coimbatorensis (Gross);Z. Angew. Entomol. 100 367–372Google Scholar
  26. Satyanarayana K, Reena C and Kumuda Sukumar 1985 Penfluron induced sterility and ovarian inhibition in adults ofDysdercus cingulatus F.;Int. Pest Control (London) 27 47–48Google Scholar
  27. Waldbauer G P 1962 The growth and reproduction of maxillectomized tobacco horn worm feeding on normally rejected non-solanaceous plant;Entomol. Exp. Appl. 5 147–158Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Academy of Sciences 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kumuda Sukumar
    • 1
  1. 1.Regional Research LaboratoryHyderabadIndia

Personalised recommendations