Effects of Photoperiod on Boll Weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) Development, Survival, and Reproduction

Abstract

Effects of photoperiod on development, survival, feeding, and oviposition of boll weevils, Anthonomus grandis grandis Boheman, were assessed under five different photophases (24, 14, 12, 10, and 0 h) at a constant 27 degrees C temperature and 65% RH in the laboratory. Analyses of our results detected positive relationships between photoperiod and puncturing (mean numbers of oviposition and feeding punctures per day), and oviposition (oviposition punctures/oviposition+feeding punctures) activities, and the proportion of squares attacked by boll weevil females. When boll weevil females developed in light:darkness cycles, they produced a significantly higher percentage of eggs developing to adulthood than those developed in 24-h light or dark conditions. In long photoperiod (24:0 and 14:10 h), the number of female progeny was significantly higher and their development time was significantly shorter than those developed in short photoperiod (0:24 and 10:14 h). Lifetime oviposition was significantly highest at 12- and 14-h photophase, lowest at 0- and 10-h photophase, and intermediate at 24 h of light. Life table calculations indicated that boll weevil populations developed in a photoperiod of 14:10 and 12:12 (L:D) h will increase an average of two-fold each generation (Ro) compared with boll weevils developed in 24:0- and 10:14-h photoperiods and 15-fold compared with those at 0:24 h. Knowledge of the photoperiod-dependent population growth potential is critical for understanding population dynamics to better develop sampling protocols and timing insecticide applications.

Biology of Anthonomus testaceosquamosus Linell, 1897 (Coleoptera: Curculionidae): A New Pest of Tropical Hibiscus

“…Our measurements of HBW head capsule width and length indicated the presence of three larval instars (Table 1), which agrees with other Anthonomus species such as A. grandis [7,9] and A. eugenii [10,21]. Due to the various challenges and the labor required to maintain a laboratory colony with hibiscus buds, we also evaluated an alternative, artificial diet for rearing HBW.…”

“…HBW oviposition did not differ between flower buds and artificial diet and was similar to values reported for A. grandis [6,7] and A. eugenii [10,24,25]. However, unlike these two and other congeneric weevil species [26,27], HBW oviposits multiple eggs per flower bud.…”

“…At 27 • C, population growth and net reproductive rate of HBW (Table 4) were higher than that of A. grandis [6,7,9] and A. eugenii [10] reared at a similar temperature and photoperiod. Moreover, HBW generation time and doubling time were much shorter in comparison to these other two important agricultural pests [7,10]. These results suggest that if left unmanaged, HBW has the potential to cause significant economic damage to the hibiscus industry.…”

“…However, a comprehensive understanding of a pest's biology is critical for the development of such a program. Although close relatives of HBW such as the cotton boll weevil, A. grandis, and the pepper weevil, A. eugenii, have been studied extensively [6][7][8][9][10], little information is available for the HBW aside from an initial FDACS-DPI Pest Alert [4] and a University of Florida Fact Sheet [11]. Consequently, we investigated important biological parameters regarding the HBW life cycle.…”

Responses of holocyclic and anholocyclic Rhopalosiphum padi populations to low‐temperature and short‐photoperiod induction

“…The influence of temperature on the development time and longevity of insects has been described, with insects exposed to higher temperatures having a shorter life span (Ismaeil et al., 2013; Mironidis & Savopoulou‐Soultani, 2008) and those exposed to longer photoperiods having a longer developmental period, greater longevity, and increased fecundity. The age at first reproduction is also influenced by the photoperiod (Greenberg, Sappington, Adamczyk, Liu, & Setamou, 2008; Malaquias et al., 2010; Reznik & Vaghina, 2013). Maternal heat stress was also shown to negatively affect the developmental time and nymphal birthweight of the G1 progeny (Ismaeil et al., 2013; Jeffs & Leather, 2014).…”