Printer Friendly

Determination of instars of Bactrocera dorsalis (Diptera: Tephritidae).

The instars of insects are commonly separated based on the frequency distribution of body dimensions, particularly the width of the head capsule (Chen & Seybold 2013). In previous studies, researchers generally used histograms to estimate measurements. The number of instars was determined by the number of peaks in the histogram, and class limits for each instar were determined by visual inspection, followed by the application of the Brooks (Dyar) rule and the Crosby growth rule to verify the results (Crosby 1973; Loerch & Cameron 1983; Deng et al. 2015). Commonly, however, there are overlaps in the measurement distribution between adjacent instars (Cen et al. 2015; Deng et al. 2015; Li et al. 2015). In such situations, it is difficult to estimate the number of instar stages because the peaks of successive instars blend together in the histogram, and the boundaries between instars are indistinct.

The oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) (Diptera: Tephritidae), is one of the most damaging and widespread economic pests in agricultural systems worldwide. It is able to attack over 250 host plants, including many commercial fruits, such as carambola, citrus, mandarin, and mango, as well as a large variety of agricultural products such as coffee and chili pepper (Jin et al. 2011; Hsu et al. 2014). Studies found that much of the damage that this pest inflicts occurs through oviposition punctures and subsequent larval development in fruits (Hsu et al. 2014), which can easily destroy the marketability of fruits and cause huge economic losses. However, no research on the separation of instars of B. dorsalis has been reported. Determination of instars is important for pest control and entomological studies. For example, determination of instars can be used to estimate development times and predict when oviposition occurs, which can be incorporated into timing of management measures. It could also be used to measure the quality of various host fruits, using development rate of larvae as a criterion, which could contribute to our understanding of how fly species evolved to utilize plants across taxa.

Several reports on instar determination for Diptera species are available (Petitt 1990; Richardi et al. 2013; Cao et al. 2014; Cen et al. 2015; Deng et al. 2015). Measurement of either mouth hooks or the pharyngeal sclerite showed clear separation between adjacent instars of Liriomyza sativae Blanchard (Diptera: Agromyzidae) (Petitt 1990). Morphological characteristics of the larval pharyngeal sclerite of horn flies and a leafminer can be used to identify larval instars (Cao et al. 2014; Deng et al. 2015). In Austrosimulium tillyardianum Dumbleton (Diptera: Simuli-idae), larvae were separated into 9 instars based on head capsule width or head capsule length (Cen et al. 2015). Morphometry of the antennae, mandibles, mentum, and ventromental plates was used to discriminate among the 4 instars of Chironomus sancticaroli Strixino & Strixino (Diptera: Chironomidae) (Richardi et al. 2013). The objective of this study was to find a scientific, accurate, simple, and fast method that can be used as a classification criterion of instars of B. dorsalis, and we measured larval body length, the length and width of mouth hooks, and the length and width of the pharyngeal sclerite of B. dorsalis.

Materials and Methods

INSECTS

The laboratory colony of B. dorsalis (taxon identifier: 27457) was originally collected from fields in Hainan, China, in 2008. To obtain the required number of individuals, newly emerged larvae were fed an artificial diet consisting of corn flour, wheat germ flour, yeast powder, agar, sugar, sorbic acid, vitamin C, and linoleic acid on filter paper. After eclosing, the adults were fed on an artificial diet consisting of yeast powder, honey, sugar, vitamin C, and water in rearing boxes (Wang et al. 2013). All life stages of B. dorsalis were reared in a temperature-controlled incubator at 27 [+ or -] 0.5 [degrees]C and 70 [+ or -] 5% relative humidity with a photoperiod of 14:10 h L:D.

LARVAE COLLECTION AND MEASUREMENTS

Eggs were collected from B. dorsalis females by inducing oviposition through perforated parafilm coated with orange juice for 1 h, then placed on moist fabric and maintained at 27 [+ or -] 0.5 [degrees]C and 70 [+ or -] 5% relative humidity. The first batch of larvae was collected after 36 h. Afterwards, larvae were collected once every 8 h with 3 collections conducted in 1 d. Thirty larvae were collected each time, with 20 larvae used for measurements and 10 preserved as voucher specimens. All larvae were preserved in 70% alcohol. The examined specimens were macerated in 10% NaOH and measured in glycerin jelly with a Leica[R] M205A stereomicroscope (Leica Microsystems Ltd., Wetzlar, Germany). All drawings were made with the aid of Adobe[R] Photoshop[R] CS5 software (Adobe, San Jose, California). Voucher specimens were deposited in the insect collection of Southwest University, Chongqing, China.

STATISTICAL ANALYSES

All statistical analyses were performed with SPSS[R] 20.0 for Windows[R] (IBM, Chicago, Illinois), and graphs were plotted with Microsoft[R] Office Excel 2016 for Windows[R] (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Washington). Based on the larval body length, the length and width of mouth hooks, and the length and width of the pharyngeal sclerite of B. dorsalis (Fig. 1), a frequency distribution analysis was performed and a histogram of frequency distribution for each measured variable was drawn. Subsequently, the mean, standard deviation, and coefficient of variation for each variable were computed. Combined with the Crosby growth rule and regression analysis, the differences in the 5 morphological variables between successive instars were compared, and the best criteria of instar division were determined (Crosby 1973). When the value of the Crosby index is greater than 10%, it shows that it is unreasonable to determine instars by this variable (Loerch & Cameron 1983). The formula is as follows:

Brooks index = [X.sub.n] - [X.sub.n-1]; Crosby index = ([b.sub.n] - [b.sub.n-1]) / [b.sub.n-1]

In the formula, [X.sub.n] and [X.sub.n-1] represent the average values of n and n-1 instar for each variable; [b.sub.n] and [b.sub.n-1] represent the Brooks index of n and n-1 instar, respectively.

Results

DETERMINATION OF THE CRITERIA FOR DIVIDING THE INSTARS OF B. DORSALIS

In total, 321 individual larvae were used for the measurements. For each morphological variable, we performed a frequency distribution analysis and drew a histogram. A concentrated area of frequency distribution represented an instar. The results showed that the length and width of mouth hooks and of the pharyngeal sclerite exhibited 3 distinct distribution areas (Fig. 2B-E). In contrast, the larval body length was concentrated in a large area, which could be divided into only 2 undefined areas (Fig. 2A). Based on pairwise combinations of 4 variables (the length and width of mouth hooks and of the pharyngeal sclerite), we drew scatter plot distributions (Fig. 2F-K). Generally, morphological measurements from enough samples are scattered normally, hence the peaks likely represented distinct instars. Combined with the histogram and scatter plot, the results suggested that the larvae of B. dorsalis can be divided into 3 instars.

Based on the mean, range, standard deviation, coefficient of variation, in combination with Brooks index and Crosby index, of the 5 measured variables (Table 1), our results indicated a significant difference between the mean of the 5 variables between instars (P < 0.01). There was no overlap in the length and width of the pharyngeal sclerite and mouth hooks between instars of B. dorsalis. Thus, these 4 morphological features are useful variables for the division of the instars. There was an overlap in the range of body length between the adjacent instars of B. dorsalis, wherefore this variable cannot be used to separate the instars accurately.

THE MATHEMATICAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CRITERIA OF INSTAR DIVISION AND INSTARS

In previous studies, linear and modified exponential relationships between the logarithm of the length for skeleton structures and instars were determined (Chen & Pang 1988; Chowdhury et al. 2009). Using SPSS[R] 20.0 software, we performed linear and exponential regression analyses using the logarithm ([log.sub.10]) of the 5 variables for instars. The results indicated that there was a significant correlation between the logarithm of the length and width of mouth hooks and of the pharyngeal sclerite and instars. However, a poor correlation existed between the logarithm of larval body length and instars (Table 2). These results reconfirmed that it was reasonable to determine the instars of B. dorsalis by the length and width of mouth hooks and of the pharyngeal sclerite, and verified that the body length cannot be used to separate the instars accurately.

The results for the 5 variables showed that the coefficients of determination ([R.sup.2]) of the regression equations were high. The [R.sup.2] was highest for the length of the pharyngeal sclerite and instars in all fitted models (cubic equation: [R.sup.2] = 0.993; quadratic equation: [R.sup.2] = 0.992; exponential equation: [R.sup.2] = 0.991). Therefore, the length of the pharyngeal sclerite is better to use than the length of mouth hooks for dividing the instars. The 3 variables of width of pharyngeal sclerite, width of mouth hooks, and length of mouth hooks can be used as auxiliary and verification standards.

MORPHOLOGICAL FEATURES OF EACH INSTAR OF B. DORSALIS

The duration of the 1st instar at 27 [degrees]C was 2 d. The pharyngeal sclerite was developing and lightly sclerotized with a stick-like shape. The mouth hooks were tiny, symmetrical, and lightly sclerotized. Apically, each mouth hook formed a conspicuously down-curved, sharply pointed hook. A pair of posterior spiracles had a columnar shape. However, it was difficult to see the anterior spiracles (Fig. 3A, B).

The duration of the 2nd instar at 27 [degrees]C was 2 d. The pharyngeal sclerite was further sclerotized with a more defined shape than that of the 1st instar. The mouth hooks were further sclerotized, and apically each mouth hook formed a conspicuous down-curved, sharply pointed hook. The 2 anterior spiracles were lobe-like shaped. The posterior spiracles were C-shaped and symmetrical, with a flat surface and incomplete annulus (Fig. 3C, D).

The duration of the 3rd instar at 27 [degrees]C was 6 d. The pharyngeal sclerite was well sclerotized. The mouth hooks were massive, symmetrical, and strongly sclerotized. The apical part of each mouth hook had the form of a down-curved, pointed hook, which was lighter in curvature than in the other instars. Each hook was considerably thicker compared with counterparts in the other instars. The structures of anterior and posterior spiracles were similar to those in the 2nd instar (Fig. 3E, F).

Discussion

Although the bodies of larvae regularly grow and continually increase in length, the sizes of certain sclerotized body parts, such as the head capsule, mouthparts, antennae, and mandible, display discontinuous growth rates because the growth of these sclerotized parts occurs only when an insect molts and a new, soft cuticle is produced and expanded (Chapman 1998). The process of molting is the most direct and reliable way to observe the situation of larvae molting for dividing the instars of insects. However, it is difficult to observe the process of molting for insects that are hidden in fruit or other plant or animal tissues. Based on the Dyar rule, most researchers believe that the growth of sclerotized parts proceeds in a regular geometric progression between successive instars (Crosby 1973; Irigaray et al. 2006; Gomez et al. 2015). One of the most commonly used features is the width of the larval head capsule (Hammack et al. 2003; Delbac et al. 2010; Wu et al. 2012). Body length of most insects increases according to the rule that growth of body length is continuous under normal circumstances (Chen & Pang 1988; Deng et al. 2015); therefore, we can only roughly estimate larval instar by the body length.

The pharyngeal sclerite is a sclerotized structure of fly larvae, which has often been used as a morphological variable to divide the instars. Many studies have focused on the instar division of Tephritidae, Agromyzidae, and Muscidae (Petitt 1990; Cao et al. 2014; Deng et al. 2015). The measurements of the pharyngeal sclerite and mouth hooks are often used as characteristic indicators of larval instars. Our results suggested that the larvae of B. dorsalis can be divided into 3 instars. Because of the body length amplitude overlapping between adjacent instars, the body length cannot be applied to accurately determine an instar. However, the body length of adjacent instars did significantly differ (P < 0.01). The morphological characteristics of the mouth hooks, pharyngeal sclerite, anterior spiracles, and posterior spiracles are key features for dividing the instars of a sarcophagid flesh fly (Vairo et al. 2015). For determination of the instars of B. dorsalis, we have described the morphology of the pharyngeal sclerite, mouth hooks, anterior spiracles, and posterior spiracles in this research. The results indicate that we can quickly determine the instar by these morphological characteristics.

Acknowledgments

This work was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation (31672030), the Chongqing Research Program of Basic Research and Frontier Technology (CSTC, 2015jcyjBX0061), and the earmarked fund for the Modern Agro-industry (Citrus) Technology Research System (CARS-27).

References Cited

Cao LJ, Gong YJ, Zhu L, Shi BC, Chen M, Wei SJ. 2014. Morphological study of preimaginal stages of the leafminer Chromatomyia horticola (Goureau) (Diptera: Agromyzidae). Acta Entomologica Sinica 57: 594-600.

Cen GJ, Yu YH, Zeng XR, Long XZ, Wei DW, Gao XY, Zeng T. 2015. An adaptive kernel smoothing method for classifying Austrosimulium tillyardianum (Diptera: Simuliidae) larval instars. Journal of Insect Science 15: 159.

Chapman RF. 1998. Chapter 15: from Larval development, pp. 376-380, The Insects: Structure and Function. Fourth Edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Chen Y, Pang T. 1988. About the growth law of feeding ability and head capsule width of insect larvae. Entomological Knowledge 25: 235-240.

Chen Y, Seybold SJ. 2013. Application of a frequency distribution method for determining instars of the beet armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) from widths of cast head capsules. Journal of Economic Entomology 106: 800-806.

Chowdhury N, Chatterjee SK, Laskar S, Chandra G. 2009. Larvicidal activity of Solanum villosum Mill. (Solanaceae: Solanales) leaves to Anopheles subpictus Grassi (Diptera: Culicidae) with effect on non-target Chironomus circumdatus Kieffer (Diptera: Chironomidae). Journal of Pest Science 82: 13-18.

Crosby TK. 1973. Dyar's rule predated by Brooks' rule. New Zealand Entomologist 5: 175-176.

Delbac L, Lecharpentier P, Thiery D. 2010. Larval instars determination for the European grapevine moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) based on the frequency distribution of head-capsule widths. Crop Protection 29: 623-630.

Deng Q, Yang LR, Yang XY, Wang R, Shi HL, Zheng WQ, Li JY, Yang B. 2015. Determination of larval instars of horn flies Haematobia irritans and H. titillans

(Diptera: Muscidae), the vectors of camel parabronemosis. Acta Entomologica Sinica 58: 341-350.

Gomez J, Chavez BY, Castillo A, Valle FJ, Vega FE. 2015. The coffee berry borer (Coleoptera: Curculionidae): How many instars are there? Annals of the Entomological Society of America 108: 311-315.

Hammack L, Ellsbury MM, Roehrdanz RL, Pikul Jr JP. 2003. Larval sampling and instar determination in field populations of northern and western corn rootworm (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 96: 1153-1159.

Hsu JC, Huang LH, Feng HT, Su WY. 2014. Do organophosphate-based traps reduce control efficiency of resistant tephritid flies? Journal of Pest Science 88: 181-190.

Irigaray FJSC, Moreno F, Perez-moreno I, Marco V. 2006. Larval growth and the effect of temperature on head capsule size in Lobesia botrana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Environmental Entomology 35: 189-193.

Jin T, Zeng L, Lin YY, Lu YY, Liang GW. 2011. Insecticide resistance of the oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) (Diptera: Tephritidae), in mainland China. Pest Management Science 67: 370-376.

Li ZW, He LH, Xia J, Ma L, Zeng AP. 2015. Determination of larval instars of the camellia weevil, Curculio chinensis (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Acta Entomologica Sinica 58: 181-189.

Loerch CR, Cameron EA. 1983. Determination of larval instars of the bronze birch borer, Agrilus anxius (Coleoptera: Buprestidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 76: 948-952.

Petitt FL. 1990. Distinguishing larval instars of the vegetable leafminer, Liriomyza sativae (Diptera: Agromyzidae). Florida Entomologist 73: 280-286.

Richardi VS, Rebechi D, Aranha JMR, Navarro-Silva MA. 2013. Determination of larval instars in Chironomus sancticaroli (Diptera: Chironomidae) using novel head capsule structures. Zoologia 30: 211-216.

Vairo KP, Queiroz MMC, Mendonga PM, Barbosa RR, Carvalho CJB. 2015. Description of immature stages of the flesh fly Peckia (Sarcodexia) lambens (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Sarcophagidae) provides better resolution for taxonomy and forensics. Tropical Zoology 28: 114-125.

Wang JJ, Wei D, Dou W, Hu F, Liu WF, Wang JJ. 2013. Toxicities and synergistic effects of several insecticides against the oriental fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 106: 970-978.

Wu LH, Wang CP, Wu WJ. 2012. Description and differentiation of the four larval instars of Acanthoscelides macrophthalmus (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Bruchinae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 105: 259-267.

Yan Shi (1), Lei Wang (1), Wei Dou (1), Hong-Bo Jiang (1), Dan-Dan Wei (1), Dong Wei (1), Jin-Zhi Niu (1), and Jin-Jun Wang (1,*)

(1) Southwest University, College of Plant Protection, Key Laboratory of Entomology and Pest Control Engineering, Chongqing 400716, China; E-mail: shiyanyuanyi@aliyun.com (Y. S.), 371283848@qq.com (L. W.), douwei80@swu.edu.cn (W. D.), jhb8342@swu.edu.cn (H.-B. J.), weidndande@163.com (D.-D. W.), dong_wei1988@yahoo.com (D. W.), jinzhiniu@swu.edu.cn (J.-Z. N.), wangjinjun@swu.edu.cn. (J.-J. W.)

(*) Corresponding author; E-mail: jjwang7008@yahoo.com or wangjinjun@swu.edu.cn. (J.-J. W.)

Caption: Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the measurements for Bactrocera dorsalis larvae. A: Body length of B. dorsalis larvae (L); B: pharyngeal sclerite length (X) and width (Y); C: mouth hook length (Z) and width (K).

Caption: Fig. 2. Frequency histograms and scatter plots of measurements of 5 morphological variables for Bactrocera dorsalis larvae.

Caption: Fig. 3. Morphological characteristics of the pharyngeal sclerite, mouth hooks, anterior spiracles, and posterior spiracles of Bactrocera dorsalis larvae in three instars. A, C, E: Pharyngeal sclerite and mouth hook of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd instar, respectively; B, D, F: posterior spiracles of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd instar, respectively; red arrows indicate the anterior spiracles of the 2nd and 3rd instar in C and E, respectively.

Please Note: Illustration(s) are not available due to copyright restrictions.
Table 1. Measurements and statistics of 5 morphological variables for
the determination of instars of Bactrocera dorsalis.

Morphological        Instar   Sample size (n)   Mean [+ or -] SE (mm)
variable

Body length          1st       61               1.2449 [+ or -] 0.0532a
                     2nd       58               3.1835 [+ or -] 0.0945b
                     3rd      144               6.8954 [+ or -] 0.0579c
Pharyngeal           1st       61               0.1456 [+ or -] 0.0012a
sclerite length      2nd       58               0.3394 [+ or -] 0.0020b
                     3rd      144               0.6036 [+ or -] 0.0023c
Pharyngeal           1st       61               0.0613 [+ or -] 0.0009a
sclerite width       2nd       58               0.1538 [+ or -] 0.0016b
                     3rd      144               0.2849 [+ or -] 0.0019c
Mouth hook length    1st       61               0.0626 [+ or -] 0.0009a
                     2nd       58               0.1151 [+ or -] 0.0006b
                     3rd      144               0.2242 [+ or -] 0.0009c
Mouth hook width     1st       61               0.0379 [+ or -] 0.0007a
                     2nd       58               0.0683 [+ or -] 0.0006b
                     3rd      144               0.1251 [+ or -] 0.0010c

Morphological       Range (mm)      Variable      Brooks ratio   Crosby
variable                            coefficient                  ratio

Body length         0.5640-2.0750   0.3335
                    1.6470-4.5000   0.2261        2.5572         -0.1530
                    4.6290-7.9350   0.1007        2.1660
Pharyngeal          0.1260-0.1650   0.0654
sclerite length     0.3050-0.3720   0.0446        2.3307         -0.2370
                    0.5310-0.6860   0.0458        1.7784
Pharyngeal          0.0420-0.0740   0.1110
sclerite width      0.1130-0.1740   0.0803        2.5070         -0.2612
                    0.2180-0.3880   0.0795        1.8522
Mouth hook length   0.0500-0.0750   0.1094
                    0.1050-0.1260   0.0402        1.8393          0.0589
                    0.1940-0.2520   0.0487        1.9475
Mouth hook width    0.0250-0.0470   0.1355
                    0.0600-0.0780   0.0619        1.8023          0.0162
                    0.0990-0.1650   0.0968        1.8315

Data are mean [+ or -] SE, and different lowercase letters following
the data indicate significant difference in the same variable between
instars of B. dorsalis at the 0.01 level by Fisher LSD test.

Table 2. Regression between instar numbers and morphological variables
for the determination of the number of instars of Bactrocera dorsalis.

Morphological variable          Fitted model

Body length                     Linear
                                Quadratic
                                Cubic
                                Exponential
Pharyngeal sclerite length      Linear
                                Quadratic
                                Cubic
                                Exponential
Pharyngeal sclerite width       Linear
                                Quadratic
                                Cubic
                                Exponential
Mouth hook length               Linear
                                Quadratic
                                Cubic
                                Exponential
Mouth hook width                Linear
                                Quadratic
                                Cubic
                                Exponential

Morphological variable          Regression equation

Body length                      y = 2.392x - 0.924
                                 y = 1.486[x.sup.2] + 1.107x + 1.008
                                y = -2.804[x.sup.3] + 4.535[x.sup.2] +
                                     0.631x + 0.913
                                 y = 1.006[e.sup.1.287]x
Pharyngeal sclerite length       y = 3.247x + 3.673
                                 y = 1.845[x.sup.2] + 5.168x + 4.037
                                y = -1.252[x.sup.3] + 4.389x + 3.943
                                 y = 4.434[e.sup.1.758]x
Pharyngeal sclerite width        y = 2.966x + 4.572
                                 y = 1.437[x.sup.2] + 5.476x + 5.542
                                y = -0.590[x.sup.3] + 4.387x + 5.282
                                 y = 7.216[e.sup.1.606]x
Mouth hook length                y = 3.524x + 5.285
                                 y = 0.145[x.sup.2] + 3.790x + 5.398
                                y = -0.091[x.sup.3] + 3.760x + 5.417
                                y = 10.359[e.sup.1.879]x
Mouth hook width                 y = 3.685x + 6.307
                                 y = 0.046[x.sup.2] + 3.792x + 6.366
                                y = -0.070[x.sup.3] + 3.972x + 6.517
                                y = 17.950[e.sup.1.969]x

Morphological variable            Coefficient of determination

Body length                       0.909
                                  0.937
                                  0.946
                                  0.905
Pharyngeal sclerite length        0.984
                                  0.992
                                  0.992
                                  0.991
Pharyngeal sclerite width         0.971
                                  0.979
                                  0.980
                                  0.980
Mouth hook length                 0.984
                                  0.984
                                  0.984
                                  0.962
Mouth hook width                  0.960
                                  0.960
                                  0.960
                                  0.943
COPYRIGHT 2017 Florida Entomological Society
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2017 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Shi, Yan; Wang, Lei; Dou, Wei; Jiang, Hong-Bo; Wei, Dan-Dan; Wei, Dong; Niu, Jin-Zhi; Wang, Jin-Jun
Publication:Florida Entomologist
Article Type:Report
Date:Jun 1, 2017
Words:3641
Previous Article:Reproductive partitioning in Vespula squamosa (Hymenoptera: Vespidae).
Next Article:Identity of the citrus leaf mining flea beetle in northeast India and nomenclatural changes in Amphimela (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Galerucinae:...
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters