Advertisement

Journal of Pest Science

, Volume 89, Issue 2, pp 469–478 | Cite as

Dust to weevils, weevils to dust: maize weevil personality and susceptibility to diatomaceous earth

  • H. A. E. Malia
  • C. A. Rosi-Denadai
  • D. G. Cardoso
  • Raul Narciso C. Guedes
Original Paper

Abstract

The role of behavior in insecticide susceptibility is broadly recognized, in addition to the physiological effects of insecticides. Curiously, the recognition of the importance of behavior does not extend to the control by physical agents, like inert dusts such as diatomaceous earth (DE). Furthermore, behavioral traits are typically regarded as isolated traits and not as suite of traits simultaneously expressed in individual organisms, referred to as personality (or individuality). Because the set of behavioral traits of an individual may play a role in susceptibility to physical control agents, such as DE, a set of six behavioral traits encompassing three personality dimensions (i.e., activity, boldness/shyness, and exploration/avoidance), were assessed in six populations of the maize weevil Sitophilus zeamais. The (average) behavioral types varied among populations (Wilks´ lambda = 0.09, F 45/674 = 10.72, P < 0.001), as did the susceptibility to DE (χ2 = 11.0, df = 5, P = 0.05), with median survival times (95 % CL) ranging from 144.00 (119.69–168.31) h to 216.00 (179.10–252.90) h. These different behavioral types were not recognized when individual-based analysis was performed, although the individual hierarchical level represented over 63 % of the variance in the behavioral traits. Weevil activity was successfully used to describe survival time and, therefore, the susceptibility to diatomaceous earth, but the population-based response was crudely oversimplified. Therefore, to disregard the inter-individual behavioral variation, even when simple behavioral traits suitably describe the susceptibility to DE, in favor of interpopulation variation is temerary and may lead to management shortcomings.

Keywords

Diatomaceous earth Inert dusts Stored products Storage pests Behavioral types Insect behavior 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The technical assistance provided by N. Guedes was greatly appreciated, as was the financial support provided by the PEC-PG Program of the CAPES Foundation (Brazilian Ministry of Education), the National Council of Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq; Brazilian Ministry of Science and Technology), and the Minas Gerais State Foundation for Research Aid (FAPEMIG).

References

  1. Banks JH, Fields PG (1995) Physical methods for insect control in stored-grain ecosystems. In: Jayas DS, White NDG, Muir WE (eds) Stored-grain ecosystems. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 353–409Google Scholar
  2. Bayley M (2002) Basic behavior: the use of animal locomotion in behavioural ecotoxicology. In: Dell`Omo G (ed) Behavioural ecotoxicology. Wiley, Chichester, pp 211–230Google Scholar
  3. Braga LS (2011) Face or flee? Fenitrothion resistance and behavioral response in populations of the maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais. J Stored Prod Res 47:161–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Budaev SV (2010) Using principal components and factor analysis in animal behavior research: caveats and guidelines. Ethology 116:472–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carvalho GA, Vieira JL, Haro MM, Corrêa AS, Ribon AOB, Oliveira LO, Guedes RNC (2014) Pleiotropic impacto f endosymbiont load and co-occurrence in the maize weevil Sitophilus zeamais. PLoS One 9(10):e111396CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Casida JE, Durkin KA (2013) Neuroactive insecticides: targets, selectivity, resistance, and secondary effects. Annu Rev Entomol 58:99–117CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Cook DA, Armitage DM (1999) The efficacy of Dryacide, an inert dust, against two species of Astigmatid mites, Glycyphagus destructor and Acarus siro, at nine temperature and moisture content combinations on stored grain. Exp Appl Acarol 23:51–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Corrêa AS, Pereira EJG, Cordeiro EMG, Braga LS, Guedes RNC (2011) Insecticide resistance, mixture potentiation and fitness in populations of the maize weevil (Sitophilus zeamais). Crop Prot 30:1655–1666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cruz CD (2001) Programa GENES versão Windows: aplicativo computacional em Genética e Estatística. Universidade Federal de Viçosa, ViçosaGoogle Scholar
  10. Dingemanse NJ, Reále D (2005) Natural selection and animal personality. Behaviour 142:1165–1190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ebeling W (1971) Sorptive dust for pest control. Annu Rev Entomol 16:123–158CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Eisele I, Meyhöfer R (2015) Adding “personality” to biocontrol: characterization and suitability of microsatellites for sibship reconstruction in the aphid parasitoid Diaeretiella rapae. Biocontrol 60:189–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Excoffier L, Smouse PE, Quattro JM (1992) Analysis of molecular variance inferred from metric distances among DNA haplotypes: application to human mitochondrial DNA restriction data. Genetics 131:479–491PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Fields PG, Muir WE (1996) Physical control. In: Subramanyam Bh, Hagstrum DW (eds) Integrated management of insects in stored products. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 195–221Google Scholar
  15. Gilbert LI, Gill SS (2010) Insect control: biological and synthetic agents. Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Gosling SD (2001) From mice to man: what can we learn about personality from animal research? Psychol Bull 127:45–86CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Gosling SD, Mehta PH (2013) Personalities in a comparative perspective: what do human psychologists glean from animal personality studies? In: Carere C, Maestripieri D (eds) Animal personalities: behavior, physiology, and evolution. University of Chicago, Chicago, pp 124–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gould F (1984) Role of behavior in the evolution of insect adaptation to insecticides and resistant host plants. Bull Entomol Soc Am 30:34–40Google Scholar
  19. Guedes NMP, Guedes RNC, Ferreira GH, Silva LB (2009a) Flight take-off and walking behavior of insecticide-susceptible and—resistant strains of Sitophilus zeamais exposed to deltamethrin. Bull Entomol Res 99:393–400CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Guedes NMP, Guedes RNC, Silva LB, Cordeiro EMG (2009b) Deltamethrin-induced feeding plasticity in pyrethroid-susceptible and –resistant strains of the maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais. J Appl Entomol 133:524–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Guedes NMP, Braga LS, Rosi-Denadai CA, Guedes RNC (2015) Desiccation resistance and water balance in populations of the maize weevil Sitophilus zeamais. J Stored Prod Res 64B:146–153. doi: 10.1016/j.jspr.2014.09.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Guedes RNC, Smagghe G, Stark JD, Desneux N (2016) Pesticidal stress in arthropod pests for optimized integrated pest management programs. Annu Rev Entomol 61. doi: 10.1146/annurev-ento-010715-023646
  23. Haynes KF (1988) Sublethal effects of neurotoxic insecticides on insect behavior. Annu Rev Entomol 33:149–168CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Headlee TJ (1924) Certain dusts as agents for the protection of stored seeds from insect infestation. J Econ Entomol 17:298–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hellou J (2011) Behavioural ecotoxicology, an “early warning” signal to assess environmental quality. Environ Sci Pollut Res 18:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Institute SAS (2009) SAS/STAT user’s guide, vol 9. SAS, CaryGoogle Scholar
  27. Keller SR (1993) Values and perceptions of invertebrates. Conserv Biol 7:845–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kralj-Fišer S, Schuett W (2014) Studying personality variation I invertebrates: why bother? Anim Behav 91:41–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Maltby L (1999) Studying stress: the importance of organism-level reponses. Ecol Appl 9:431–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mather JA, Logue DM (2013) The bold and the spineless: invertebrate personalities. In: Carere C, Maestripieri D (eds) Animal personalities: behavior, physiology, and evolution. University of Chicago, Chicago, pp 13–35Google Scholar
  31. Miyatake T, Tabuchi K, Sasaki K, Okada K, Katayama K, Noryiya S (2008) Pleiotropic antipredator strategies, fleeing and feigning death, correlated with dopamine levels in Tribolium castaneum. Anim Behav 75:113–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Modlmeier AP, Keiser CN, Wright CM, Lichtenstein JLL, Pruitt JN (2015) Integrating animal personality into insect population and community ecology. Cur Op Insect Sci 9:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Morales JA, Cardoso DG, Della Lucia TMC, Guedes RNC (2013) Weevil x insecticide: does ‘personality’ matter? PLoS One 8(6):e67283CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Ohno T, Miyatake T (2007) Drop or fly? Negative genetic correlation between death-feigning intensity and flying ability as alternative anti-predator strategies. Proc R Soc B 274:555–560CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Phillips TW, Throne JE (2010) Biorational approaches to managing stored-product insects. Annu Rev Entomol 55:375–397CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Reále D, Reader SM, Sol D, McDouglas PT, Dingemanse NJ (2007) Integrating animal temperament within ecology and evolution. Biol Rev 82:291–318CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Rigaux M, Haubruge E, Fields PG (2001) Mechanisms for tolerance to diatomaceous earth between strains of Tribolium castaneum. Entomol Exp Appl 101:33–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schuett W, Dall SRX, Baeumer J, Kloesener MH, Nakagawa S, Beinlich F, Eggers T (2011) “Personality” variation in a clonal insect: the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum. Dev Psychobiol 53:631–640CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Schuett W, Dall SRX, Kloesener H, Baeumer J, Beinlich F, Eggers T (2015) Life-history trade-offs mediate ‘personality’ variation in two colour morphs of the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum. J Anim Ecol 84:90–101CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Sih A, Bell AM, Johnson JC (2004) Behavioral syndromes: an ecological and evolutionary overview. Trends Ecol Evol 19:372–378CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Sih A, Cote J, Evans M, Fogarty S, Pruitt J (2012) Ecological implications of behavioural syndromes. Ecol Lett 15:278–289CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Subramanyam Bh, Roesli R (2000) Inert dusts. In: Subramanyam Bh, Hagstrum DW (eds) Alternatives to pesticides in stored-product IPM. Kluwer-Academic, Boston, pp 321–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tolpo NC, Morrison EO (1965) Sex determination by snout characteristics of Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky. Texas J Sci 7:122–124Google Scholar
  44. Uher J (2011) Individual behavioral phenotypes: an integrative meta-theoretical framework. Why “behavioral syndromes” are not analogos of “personality”. Dev Psychobiol 53:521–548CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Vayias BJ, Athanassiou CG, Buchelos CTh (2008) Evaluation of resistance development by Tribolium confusum Du Val (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) to diatomaceous earth under laboratory selection. J Stored Prod Res 44:162–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Weinstein TAR, Capitano JP, Gosling SD (2008) Personality in animals. In: John OP, Robins RW, Pervin LA (eds) Handbook of personality: theory and research. Guilford, New York, pp 328–350Google Scholar
  47. Weiss A, Adams MJ (2013) Differential behavioral ecology. In: Carere C, Maestripieri D (eds) Animal personalities: behavior, physiology, and evolution. University of Chicago, Chicago, pp 96–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wolf M, Weissing FJ (2012) Animal personalities: consequences for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 27:452–461CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. A. E. Malia
    • 1
    • 2
  • C. A. Rosi-Denadai
    • 1
  • D. G. Cardoso
    • 1
  • Raul Narciso C. Guedes
    • 1
  1. 1.Departamento de EntomologiaUniversidade Federal de ViçosaViçosaBrazil
  2. 2.Direcção de Agronomia & Recursos Naturais, Instituto de Investigação Agrária de MoçambiqueMaputoMozambique

Personalised recommendations