Advertisement

Journal of Comparative Physiology B

, Volume 154, Issue 1, pp 91–96 | Cite as

Photoperiodic induction of pupal diapause in the flesh fly,Sarcophaga crassipalpis: embryonic sensitivity

  • Ann L. Gnagey
  • David L. Denlinger
Article

Summary

The last two days of embryonic development are crucial in programming pupal diapause in the flesh fly,Sarcophaga crassipalpis. Short daylength (greater than 10 1/2h of darkness) during this interval permits expression of diapause while long daylength during this brief sensitive stage eliminates the potential for diapause. Length of scotophase rather than photophase programs the diapause although three hours of light is needed to separate tandem dark periods. Early in the scotophase, photosensitivity is restricted to blue light (less than 540 nm). The scotophase can be divided into 4 phases according to the effect of light breaks on diapause expression. During Phase I (0–6 h after scotophase onset) embryos are highly sensitive to light interruption and diapause is effectively eliminated. A period of insensitivity to light, Phase II, extends from 6–hh after onset of scotophase. Light breaks at 10–11h coincide with the critical scotophase length and result in a partial reduction of diapause. In Phase IV, the scotophase reaction is complete and diapause competence is preserved even in the presence of light. Although light breaks result in elimination of diapause throughout Phase I, recovery time from a 1 h light break (length of darkness needed to counter the effect of a light break) differs dramatically depending upon when the light break is presented. Early in Phase I (0–3h) recovery from light interruption is rapid, while late in Phase I (4–6h), the effects of light are not readily reversible. The scotophase reaction thus appears to follow a step-wise progression rather than represent a simple linear response. We present a molecular model that could account for the dynamics of the scotophase reaction.

Keywords

Human Physiology Embryonic Development Recovery Time Molecular Model Blue Light 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ankersmit GW, Adkisson PL (1968) Photoperiodic responses of certain geographical strains ofPectinophora gossypiella (Lepidoptera). J Insect Physiol 13:563–564Google Scholar
  2. Beck SD (1962) Photoperiodic induction of diapause in an insect. Biol Bull 122:1–12Google Scholar
  3. Beck SD (1980) Insect photoperiodism. Second ed. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Bell RA, Rasul CG, Joachim FG (1975) Photoperiodic induction of the pupal diapause in the tobacco hornworm,Manduca sexta. J Insect Physiol 21:1471–1480Google Scholar
  5. Bunning E, Joerrens G (1959) Versuche zur photoperiodischen Diapause-Induktion beiPieris brassicae L. Naturwissenschaften 46:518–519Google Scholar
  6. Danilevskii AS (1965) Photoperiodism and seasonal development of insects. Oliver and Boyd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Denlinger DL (1971) Embryonic determination of pupal diapause in the flesh fly,Sarcophaga crassipalpis. J Insect Physiol 17:1815–1822Google Scholar
  8. Denlinger D (1972) Induction and termination of pupal diapause inSarcophaga (Diptera: Sarcophagidae). Biol Bull 142:11–24Google Scholar
  9. Fraenkel G, Hsiao C (1968) Morphological and endocrinological aspects of pupal diapause in a fleshfly,Sarcophaga argyrostoma. J Insect Physiol 14:707–718Google Scholar
  10. Lees AD (1973) Photoperiodic time measurement in the aphidMegoura viciae. J Insect Physiol 19:2279–2316Google Scholar
  11. Lees AD (1981) Action spectra for the photoperiodic control of polymorphism in the aphidMegoura viciae. J Insect Physiol 27:761–771Google Scholar
  12. Saunders DS (1971) The temperature-compensated photoperiodic clock ‘programming’ development and pupal diapause in the flesh-fly,Sarcophaga argyrostoma. J Insect Physiol 17:801–812Google Scholar
  13. Saunders DS (1973) Photoperiodic clock in the flesh-fly,Sarcophaga argyrostoma. J Insect Physiol 19:1941–1954Google Scholar
  14. Saunders DS (1975) Manipulation of the length of the sensitive period, and the induction of pupal diapause in the flesh-fly,Sarcophaga argyrostoma. J Ent (A) 50:107–118Google Scholar
  15. Saunders DS (1978) An experimental and theoretical analysis of photoperiodic induction in the flesh-fly,Sarcophaga argyrostoma. J Comp Physiol 124:75–95Google Scholar
  16. Saunders DS (1979) Internal and external coincidence and the apparent diversity of photoperiodic clocks in the insects. J Comp Physiol 127:197–208Google Scholar
  17. Saunders DS (1982a) Insect clocks. 2nd edn. Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Saunders DS (1982b) Photoperiodic induction of pupal diapause inSarcophaga argyrostoma: temperature effects on circadian resonance. J Insect Physiol 28:305–310Google Scholar
  19. Shropshire W Jr (1977) Photomorphogenesis. In: The science of photobiology. Plenum Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Truman JW (1971) Hour-glass behavior of the circadian clock controlling eclosion of the silkmothAntheraea pernyi. PNAS 68:595–599Google Scholar
  21. VanZon AC, Overmeer WPJ, Veerman A (1981) Carotenoids function in photoperiodic induction of diapause in a predacious mite. Science 213:1131–1133Google Scholar
  22. Veerman A (1980) Functional involvement of carotenoids in photoperiodic induction of diapause in the spider mite,Tetranychus urticae. Physiol Entomol 5:291–300Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ann L. Gnagey
    • 1
  • David L. Denlinger
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EntomologyOhio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations