Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:07:17.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Diapause in the Eggs of Austroicetes cruciata, Sauss. (Acrididae) with particular Reference to the Influence of Temperature on the Elimination of Diapause

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

H. G. Andrewartha
H. G. Andrewartha
Affiliation:
Waite Agricultural Research Institute, Adelaide.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Diapause should not be confused with simple inhibition of growth due to cold.

The embryo of the grasshopper, Austroicetes cruciata, enters a state of diapause a few days after the egg is laid. The diapause is obligate like that found in the eggs of Circotettix, rather than facultative like that found in the larvae of Platyedra. These types of diapause should be regarded as two extremes of the one phenomenon rather than two distinct phenomena.

Diapause was eliminated when the egg was exposed to adequate low temperature for an adequate period when the embryo was at a suitable stage of development. If the period at low temperature was inadequate, or if the embryo was not at a suitable stage of development when the exposure to low temperature occurred, diapause was only partially eliminated. In such cases, the exposure to low temperature resulted in an abnormal growth by the embryo when the egg was returned to a favourable high temperature, but development was not completed.

The influence of low temperature on the elimination of diapause was due chiefly to changes which occurred in the yolk during exposure to low temperature. Thus yolk which had been modified in this way became suitable for the nourishment of the embryo, and it no longer obstructed katatrepsis. This explanation of the nature of the obligate diapause in the eggs of Austroicetes brings this phenomenon into line with the facultative diapause in the larvae of Platyedra, which has been shown to be associated with the nourishment of the larva.

Diapause was eliminated most rapidly at temperatures between 6°C. and 13°C. The embryo grew most rapidly at about 30°C. ; below 13°C. growth practically ceased. The absence of overlapping of the temperature ranges for these two processes may explain the presence of diapause in Austroicetes. The occurrence of a less pronounced diapause in the eggs of Melanoplus may be due to a partial overlapping of the temperature range for the two processes. Similarly the absence of diapause in the eggs of Locusta may be explained on the assumption that in this species the two processes proceed over the same temperature range.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , April 1943 , pp. 1 - 17
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1943

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

Andrewartha, H. G. (1940). J. Dep. Agric. S. Aust., 43, p. 99.Google Scholar
Baumberger, J. R. (1917). Ann. ent. Soc. Amer., 10, p. 179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birch, L. C. (1942). Aust. J. exp. Biol. med. Sci., 20, p. 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birch, L. C. & Andrewartha, H. G. (1942). Aust. J. exp. Biol. med. Sci., 20, p. 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodine, J. H. (1929). Physiol. Zool., 2, p. 459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodine, J. H. (1932). Physiol. Zool., 5, p. 549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burdick, H. C. (1937). Physiol. Zool., 10, p. 156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carothers, E. E. (1923). Trans. Amer. ent. Soc., 49, p. 7.Google Scholar
Cousin, G. (1932). Bull. Biol., Suppl., 15, p. 341.Google Scholar
Hamilton, A. G. (1936). Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond., 85, p. 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henneguy, L. F. (1904). Les Insectes, p. 424.Google Scholar
Parker, J. R. (1930). Bull. Mont. agric. Exp. Sta., no. 223.Google Scholar
Slifer, E. H. (1932). J. Morph., 53, p. 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slifer, E. H. (1932 a). Biol. Zbl., 52, p. 223.Google Scholar
Squire, F. A. (1940). Bull.ent. Res., 30, p. 475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steele, H. V. (1941). Trans. roy. Soc. S. Aust., 65, p. 329.Google Scholar
Steinberg, D. M. & Kamensky, S. A. (1936). Bull. Biol., 70, p. 145.Google Scholar
Umeya, Y. (1926). Bull. sericult. Exp. Sta. Chosen, no. 1. (Quoted from Wigglesworth : “ Principles of Insect Physiology, p. 9.)Google Scholar
Uvarov, B. P. (1928). Locusts and Grasshoppers, p. 229.Google Scholar
Wheeler, W. M. (1893). J. Morph., 8, p. 141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wigglesworth, V. B. (1933). Quart. J. micr. Sci., 76, p. 269.Google Scholar