Claim · model-written summary
Larvae did not feed on Ipomoea hochstetteri.
- Taxon
- Ipomoea hochstetteri
Ipomoea hochstetterie0 - Interactor
- Acraea acerataTelchinia aceratat0peste0
- Outcome
- larvae did not feede0
Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageSecond interactorSecond interactor roleTreatmentComparatorSettingDirectionValueQualifier
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“larvae did not feed on Ipomoea hochstetteri and Ipomoea indica”
t0“Acraea acerata”
Title
Ferdu Azerefegne; Christer Solbreck Agricultural and Forest Entomology 2009. doi:10.1111/j.1461-9563.2009.00463.x
Other claims from this paper (16)
- Observation Oviposition and larval development succeeded on Ipomoea tenuirostris.
- Observation Oviposition and larval development succeeded on Ipomoea cairica.
- Observation No oviposition occurred on the other three wild Ipomoea species.
- Observation Larvae did not feed on Ipomoea indica.
- Observation Larval survival was extremely low on Ipomoea purpurea.
- Association Sweet potato was preferred for oviposition over I. tenuirostris and I. cairica.
- Association Larval survival was better on sweet potato than on the two wild species.
- Association Pupal size was better on sweet potato than on the two wild species.
- Mechanism Larger pupae from sweet potato produced more fecund female butterflies.
- Observation Wild butterfly populations were abundant on I. tenuirostris.
- Observation Wild butterfly populations were absent on I. cairica.
- Association Females tended to prefer I. tenuirostris for oviposition over I. cairica.
- Association Larval performance did not differ significantly between I. tenuirostris and I. cairica.
- Observation Wild A. acerata populations also occurred on Ipomoea obscura.
- Association Wild Ipomoea butterfly populations were judged too sparse to affect sweet potato populations.
- Mechanism Wild populations may serve as reservoirs after butterfly population bottlenecks on sweet potato.