, Volume 97, Issue 2, pp 179–185 | Cite as

Geographic variation in embryonic development time and stage of diapause in a grasshopper

  • Hugh Dingle
  • Timothy A. Mousseau
Original Paper


Embryonic development times and the stage at which embryonic diapause occurs varied dramatically among 23 populations of the Melanoplus sanguinipes/ devastator species complex in California, USA. Grasshoppers were collected from a wide range of latitudes (32°57N to 41°20N) and altitudes (10m to 3031 m), spanning much of the variation in climatic conditions experienced by these insects in California. When reared in a “common garden” in the laboratory, total embryonic development times were positively correlated to the mean annual temperature of the habitat from which the grasshoppers were collected (varying from about 19 days to 32 days when reared at 27°C). These grasshoppers overwinter as diapausing eggs and the proportion of embryonic development completed prior to diapause was significantly higher in populations collected from cool habitats (>70%) than in populations collected from warm environments (<26%). The length of pre-diapause development time is determined by the stage of embryonic development at which diapause occurs, and varies considerably among populations of these grasshoppers; grasshoppers from warmer environments tend to diapause at very early stages of embryogenesis, while grasshoppers from cooler environments diapause at very late stages. The combined effect of variation in embryonic development times and variation in the stage at which diapause occurs results in a dramatic reduction in the time needed to hatch in the spring; populations from warm environments required up to 20 days (at 27°C) to hatch while populations from cool environments required as few as 5 days to complete embryonic development prior to hatching. Egg size also varied significantly among populations, but tended to be larger in populations with shorter embryonic development times. Significant family effects were observed for development time and stage of diapause, suggesting significant heritabilities for these traits, although maternal effects may also contribute to family level variation. We interpret these findings to support the hypothesis that embryonic development time and the stage of embryonic diapause have evolved as adaptations to prevailing season lengths in the study populations.

Key words

Diapause Development Grasshopper Adaptation Geographic variation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barton NH, Hewitt GM (1989) Adaptation, speciation, and hybrid zones. Nature 341:497–503Google Scholar
  2. Bradshaw WE (1986) Pervasive themes in insect life cycle strategies. In Taylor F, Karban R (eds), The Evolution of Insect Life Cycles, Springer-Berlin Heidelberg, New York, pp 261–275Google Scholar
  3. Coyne JA (1992) Genetics and speciation. Nature 355:511–515Google Scholar
  4. Danks HV (1987) Insect dormancy: an ecological perspective. Biological Survey of Canada, Monograph series No. 1Google Scholar
  5. Dingle H (1986) The evolution of insect life cycle syndromes. In Taylor F, Karban R (eds), The Evolution of Insect Life Cycles, Springer-Berlin Heidelberg, New York, pp 187–203Google Scholar
  6. Dingle H, Mousseau TA, Scott SK (1990) Altitudinal variation in life cycle syndromes of the California grasshopper Melanoplus sanguinipes. Oecologia 84:199–206Google Scholar
  7. EarthInfo (1992) NCDC Summary of the Day on CD-ROM. EarthInfo, Inc. Boulder, COGoogle Scholar
  8. Falconer DS (1989) Introduction to Quantitative Genetics, Third Edition. Longman Scientific and Technical, Essex, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  9. Gibbs A, Mousseau TA, Crowe J (1991) Genetic and acclimatory variation in biophysical properties of insect cuticle lipids. Proc Nat Acad Sci 88:7257–7260Google Scholar
  10. Gilbert F (1990) Insect Life Cycles: Genetics, Evolution and Coordination. Springer-Berlin Heidelberg, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Grant A, Hassall M, Willott SJ (1993) An alternative theory of grasshopper life cycles. Oikos 66:263–268Google Scholar
  12. Groeters FR, Shaw DD (1992) Association between latitudinal variation for embryonic development time and chromosome structure in the grasshopper Caledia captiva (Orthoptera: Acrididae). Evolution 46:245–257Google Scholar
  13. Gurney AB, Brooks AR (1959) Grasshoppers of the mexicanus group, genus Melanoplus (Orthoptera: Acrididae). Proc US Nat Mus 110:1–93Google Scholar
  14. Lamb RJ, MacKay PA, Gerber GH (1987) Are development and growth of pea aphids, Acyrthosiphon pisum, in North America adapted to local temperatures? Oecologia 72:170–177Google Scholar
  15. Masaki S, Walker TJ (1987) Cricket life cycles. In: Hecht MK, Wallace B, Prance GT (eds), Evolutionary Biology, Vol 21. Plenum Press, NY, USA, pp 349–423Google Scholar
  16. Mayr E (1942) Systematics and the Origin of Species. Columbia Univ Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Middlekauf WW (1964) Effects of photoperiod upon oogenesis in Melanoplus devastator. J Kan Entomol Soc 37:163–168Google Scholar
  18. Nechols JR, Tauber MJ, Tauber CA (1987) Geographic variability in ecophysiological traits controlling dormancy in Chrosopa oculata (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). J Ins Physiol 33:627–633Google Scholar
  19. Obrycki JJ, Tauber MJ (1982) Thermal requirements for development of Hippodamia convergens (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 75:678–683Google Scholar
  20. Orr MR, Porter AH, Mousseau TA, Dingle H (1993) Molecular and morphological evidence for hybridization between two ecologically distinct grasshoppers (Melanoplus sanguinipes and M. devastator) in California. Heredity (in press)Google Scholar
  21. Richards OW, Waloff N (1954) Studies on the biology and population dynamics of British grasshoppers. Antilocust Bull 17:1–187Google Scholar
  22. Roff DA (1980) Optimizing development time in a seasonal environment: The “ups and downs” of clinal variation. Oecologia 45:202–208Google Scholar
  23. Sibly R, Monk K (1987) A theory of grasshopper life cycles. Oikos 48:186–194Google Scholar
  24. Stroheker HF, Middlekauf WW, Rentz DC (1968) The Grasshoppers of California. Bull Call Insect Survey 10, pp 1–117Google Scholar
  25. Tauber CA, Tauber MJ, Nechols, JR (1987) Thermal requirements for development in Chrysopa oculata: A geographically stable trait. Ecology 68:1479–1487Google Scholar
  26. Tauber MJ, Tauber CA, Masaki S (1986) Seasonal adaptations of insect. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  27. Templeton AR (1989) The meaning of species and speciation: a genetic perspective. In: Otte D, Endler JA (eds) Speciation and Its Consequences. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MAGoogle Scholar
  28. Wall R, Begon M (1987) Population density, phenotype and reproductive output in the grasshopper Chorthippus brunneus. Ecol Entomol 12:331–339Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hugh Dingle
    • 1
  • Timothy A. Mousseau
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept. of EntomologyUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  2. 2.Dept. of Biological SciencesUniversity of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations