Behavioural and sensory responses to some neem compounds by Pieris brassicae larvae

The efficacy of a commercial product (Margosan‐O) to inhibit feeding in Pieris brassicae L. (Lepidoptera: Pieridae) larvae was compared to that of three pure triterpenoids of botanical origin: azadirachtin and salannin (occurring in Melia azedurach ), and toosendanin (occurring in M. toosendan ). In dual‐choice behaviour tests the order of antifeedant efficacy was: Margosan‐O > toosendanin > salannin > azadirachtin. The ranking order of their capacity to stimulate the deterrent receptor located in the medial sensillum styloconicum appears to be: Margosan‐O = toosendanin > salannin > azadirachtin. In addition to stimulating the medial deterrent cell, toosendanin inhibits the sugar receptor and the glucosinolate receptor, both located in the lateral sensillum styloconicum. The amino acid receptor in this sensillum, however, is not affected. In contrast, neither azadirachtin nor salannin influences the sensitivity of any of the receptor cells in this sensillum. The adaptation rate of the deterrent receptor is low in comparison to that of the two sugar receptors. A significant correlation is found between the antifeedant indices of the four neem compounds tested at three different concentrations, and the responses of the deterrent receptor to these compounds at similar concentrations. It is concluded that when this insect species feeds on its natural foodplant (i.e. cabbage), the deterrent effect of neem compounds is mediated solely via the medial deterrent receptor, whereas inhibitory effects on the sugar and glucosinolate receptors do not play a significant role.