Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T00:02:27.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Physiological Conditions of Cold-hardiness in Insects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

I. W. Kozhantshikov
I. W. Kozhantshikov
Affiliation:
Leningrad Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The results of the present investigation can be summarized as follows:—

1. Cold-hardiness in insects depends on the physiological state of the organism; the most resistant are the phases in diapause (prepupae of Croesus septentrionalis, eggs of Lymantria dispar, pupae of Acronyctinae); not so hardy are the caterpillars of Lasiocampa quercus stopped in their development and prepupae of Agrotis segetum; practically non cold-hardy are developing (or growing) insects, viz., the full-grown larvae of Calliphora erythrocephala, the growing caterpillars of Loxostege sticticalis and Agrotis segetum.

2. The difference in the cold-hardiness of these three groups depends on the specificity of their cellular respiration. Growing insects show in their cellular respiration the prevalence of oxydases, the activity of which is connected with characteristics of their cellular structures; in cold-hardy insects the cellular respiration is closely connected with the anoxybiotic processes caused by the dehydrases; their activity is not bound up with the structural elements of the cells, but is closely connected with the presence of non-saturated fat-acids (Dixon, 1929; Meldrum, 1934) peculiar to insect fats.

3. The respiration of growing or developing insects is entirely and rapidly destroyed by narcotics, cyanide and low temperatures; the effect of these agents is due to the destruction of the cellular structures. The respiration of cold-hardy insects is characterised by its definite thermostable part and is also resistant to narcotics (or cyanide, Bodine, 1934). Destroying the cellular structures does not affect that respiration. Cold-hardiness increases with the increase of the percentage of thermostable respiration.

4. Freezing of the protoplasmic water causes the death of an insect only in the absence of thermostable respiration. Many insects in diapause (characterised by a high percentage of thermostable respiration) can be frozen without any lethal effect (Pyrausta nubilalis, Croesus septentrionalis, Lasiocampa quercus). It is clear that the freezing of the free protoplasmic water cannot be considered as an obligatory cause of “ anabiosis.”

5. The quantity of fat does not show any direct connection with thermostable respiration and cold-hardiness in insects. It is probable that the important factor is the quality of the fats, namely, the rôle of non-saturated fat-acids. The increase of cold-hardiness in insects after dehydration can be connected with the changes in cellular respiration; the same can be said regarding the general connection of the water content of the protoplasm and cold-hardiness.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 29 , Issue 3 , October 1938 , pp. 253 - 262
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1938

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

Bachmetjev, P. (1901). Temperaturverhältnisse bei Insekten. Leipzig.Google Scholar
Belehradek, J. (1928). La relentissement des réactions biologiques par le froid est causé par une augmentation de la viscosité du protplasme.—Protoplasma, 3, pp. 317–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belehradek, J. & Mladek, J. (1934). Richesse en eau du bioplasme et la grandeur du coefficient thermique des oxydations.—Protoplasma, 21, pp. 335–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodine, J. (1934). The effect of cyanide on the oxygen consumption of normal and blocked embryonic cells.—J. Cell. & Comp. Physiol., 4, pp. 397–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodine, J. & Boell, E. (1936). The effect of ultra-centrifuging on the respiratory activity of developing and blocked embryonic cells.—J. Cell. & Comp. Physiol., 7, pp. 455–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodine, J. & Thompson, V. (1935). Temperature coefficients and viscosity.—J. Cell. & Comp. Physiol., 6, pp. 256–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, M. (1929). Oxidative mechanisms in animal tissues.—Biol. Rev., 4, pp. 352–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalabuchov, N. (1934). Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Kältestarre bei der Biene.—Zool. Jahrb., 53, pp. 567–601.Google Scholar
Kozhantshikov, I. (1935). Insect metabolism at temperatures below zero.—C. R. Acad. Sci. U.S.S.R., 3, pp. 369–371.Google Scholar
Kozhantshikov, I. (1935). Role of anoxybiotic processes in larval diapause of some Pyralidae.—C. R. Acad. Sci. U.S.S.R., 2, pp. 322–328.Google Scholar
Losina-Losinsky, L. (1937). Cold-hardiness and anabiosis in larvae of Pyrausta nubilalis.—Zool. Journ., 16, p. 642. (In Russian.)Google Scholar
Meldrum, N. (1934). Cellular respiration. London.Google Scholar
Payne, N. (1927). Freezing and survival of insects at low temperatures.—J. Morphol., 43, pp. 521–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, N. (1929). Absolute humidity as a factor in insect cold-hardiness, with a note on the effect of nutrition on cold-hardiness.—Ann. Amer. Ent. Soc., 22, pp. 601–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, W. (1927). Water-binding capacity of colloids a definite factor in winter hardiness of insects.—J. Econ. Ent., 20, pp. 80–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacharov, N. (1930). Studies on the cold-resistance in insects.—Ecology, 11, pp. 505–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spooner, C. (1927). A study of the catalase content of codling moth larvae.—Illin. Stat. Nat. Hist. Surv., Bull. 16, pp. 443–446.Google Scholar
Thompson, V. & Bodine, J. (1936). Oxygen consumption and rates of dehydration of grasshopper eggs.—Physiol. Zool., 9, pp. 455–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warburg, O. (1931). Ueber Nichthemmung der Zellatmung durch Blausäure.—Bioch. Zeitschr., 24, pp. 492–497.Google Scholar