Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-89wxm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-07T02:45:34.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Physiological age-grading in females of the dung beetle Euoniticellus intermedius (Reiche) (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

Marina Tyndale-Biscoe
Affiliation:
CSIRO, Division of Entomology, Canberra, Australia.

Abstract

Newly emerged females of Euoniticellus intermedius (Reiche) have no differentiated oocytes in their single ovariole. The eggs mature sequentially during the maturation period, and at 27°C the first egg is laid 4–8 days after emergence. The rate of oviposition increases with temperature between 18 and 32°C. The threshold for oviposition is 19·6°C, and one egg is produced for every four day-degrees above this threshold. Most females can be sorted into the nulliparous or one of three parous categories, covering the period from emergence to the time when between 75 and 127 eggs have been deposited, on the basis of the quantity of yellow body in the ovariole. The hardness of the cuticle, the degree of oocyte development, and the presence or absence of fat-body in the abdomen can be used to subdivide the nulliparous category into three parts and to recognise old or ‘spent’ beetles. The degree of wear on the tibial teeth gives an age estimate that is independent of nutritionally induced delays and with which the ovarian age can be compared. Actual age cannot be estimated in field-caught-beetles, however, since many factors besides temperature alter the rate of brood production.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1978

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

Anderson, J. R. (1964). Methods for distinguishing nulliparous from parous flies and for estimating the ages of Fannia canicularis and some other cyclorraphous Diptera.— Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 57, 226236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryan, J. H. D. (1954). Cytological and cytochemical studies of oogenesis of Popilius disjunctus Illiger (Coleoptera-Polyphaga).—Biol. Bull. mar. biol. Lab., Woods Hole Pa 107, 6479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbet, P. S. (1960). Recognition of nulliparous mosquitoes without dissection.—Nature, Lond. 187, 525526.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Detinova, T. S. (1945). Determination of the physiological age of the females of Anopheles by the changes in the tracheal system of the ovaries [in Russian].—Medskaya Parazit. 14, 4549.Google ScholarPubMed
Giglioli, M. E. C. (1965). The problem of age determination in Anopheles melas Theo. 1903 by Polovodova's method.—Cah. off. scient. tech. Outre-Mer (Ent. Méd.) 3–4, 157177.Google Scholar
Halffter, G. & Matthews, E. G. (1966). The natural history of dung beetles of the subfamily Scarabaeinae (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae).—Folia ent. mex. nos. 1214, 1312.Google Scholar
Jackson, C. H. N. (1946). An artificially isolated generation of tsetse flies (Diptera).—Bull. ent. Res. 37, 291299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lineva, V. A. (1953). Physiological age of females of Musca domestica L. (Diptera: Muscidae) [in Russian].—Ent. Obozr. 33, 161173.Google Scholar
Miller, T. A. & Treece, R. E. (1968). Gonadotrophic cycles in the face fly, Musca autumnalis.—Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 61, 690696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, R. L. (1966). A comparison of two techniques for distinguishing parous from nulliparous Culex tarsalis Coquillett.—Mosquito News 26, 1113.Google Scholar
Neville, A. C. (1963). Daily growth layers in locust rubber-like cuticle influenced by an external rhythm.—J. Insect Physiol. 9, 177186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richter, P. O. & Baker, C. W. (1974). Ovariole numbers in Scarabaeoidea (Coleoptera: Lucanidae, Passalidae, Scarabaeidae).—Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 76, 480494.Google Scholar
Sands, P. & Hughes, R. D. (1976). A simulation model of seasonal changes in the value of cattle dung as a food resource for an insect.—Agric. Meteorology 17, 161183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, D. S. (1960). The ovulation cycle in Glossina morsitans Westwood (Diptera: Muscidae) and a possible method of age determination for female tsetse flies by the examination of their ovaries.—Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 112, 221238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, D. S. (1962). Age determination for female tsetse flies aud the age compositions of samples of Glossina pallidipes Aust., G. palpalis fuscipes Newst. and G. brevipalpis Newst.—Bull. ent. Res. 53, 579595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlein, Y. & Gratz, N. G. (1972). Age determination of some flies and mosquitoes by daily growth layers of skeletal apodemes.—Bull. Wld Hlth Org. 47, 7176.Google ScholarPubMed
Smith, T. A. (1968). Comparison of known age with physiological aging in the adult female house fly, Musca domestica L.—J. med. Ent. 5, 14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tyndale-Biscoe, M. & Hughes, R. D. (1969). Changes in the female reproductive system as age indicators in the bushfly Musca vetustissima Wlk.Bull. ent. Res. 59, 129141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyndale-Biscoe, M. & Kitching, R. L. (1974). Cuticular bands as age criteria in the sheep blowfly Lucilia cuprina (Wied.) (Diptera, Calliphoridae).—Bull. ent. Res. 64, 161174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyndale-Biscoe, M. & Watson, J. A. L. (1977). Extra-ovariolar egg resorption in the dung beetle Euoniticellus intermedius.—J. Insect. Physiol. 23, 11631167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogt, W. G., Woodburn, T. L. & Tyndale-Biscoe, M. (1974). A method of age determination in Lucilia cuprina (Wied.) (Diptera, Calliphoridae) using cyclic changes in the female reproductive system.—Bull. ent. Res. 64, 365370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willimzik, E. (1930). Über den Bau der Ovarien verschiedener coprophager Lamellicornier und ihre Beziehung zur Brutpflege.—Z. Morph. Ökol. Tiere 18, 669700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar