Examination of Parental Effect on the Progeny Diapause by Reciprocal Cross Test in the Cabbage Beetle, Colaphellus Bowringi.

Cong-Hui Ma,Nan Ding,Xiao-Ping Wang,Chao-Liang Lei
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1673/031.011.14501
2011-01-01
Journal of Insect Science
Abstract:Abstract The cabbage beetle, Colaphellus bowringi Baly (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), a serious pest of crucifers in China, undergoes summer or winter diapause in the soil as an adult. In the present study, the incidence of diapause were measured in reciprocal crosses between a high—diapause strain (HD strain) and a laboratory—selected nondiapausing strain (ND strain) under different photoperiods and temperatures, to explore parental influences on the progeny diapause. Sensitivity to photoperiod in the selected nondiapausing strain was nearly eliminated at 25 °C, whereas sensitivity to temperature of the selected nondiapausing strain was retained under continuous darkness at 20 and 22 °C. Reciprocal crosses between the HD strain and the ND strain showed that the incidence of diapause in the progeny was always intermediate to that of the parents under different photoperiods and temperatures, suggesting that diapause induction was determined by both female and male parents. There was a significant effect of temperature; temperature interacted with reciprocal cross on diapause induction, whereas no significant effect of reciprocal cross was demonstrated. The incidence of diapause in ♀ND × ♂HD was the same as in ♀HD × ♂ND under continuous darkness at 18 °C (100%) and 26 °C (0%), but the former was higher than that in ♀HD × ♂ND under continuous darkness at 22 °C, suggesting that female parent does not exhibit strong influence on the diapause response to temperature. There was a significant effect of photoperiod and reciprocal cross on diapause induction, whereas no significant interactive effect on diapause induction was demonstrated. Incidence of diapause in ♀HD × ♂ND was always higher than in ♀ND × ♂HD at 25 °C and 12:12 L:D, 14:10 L:D, and 16:8 L:D, suggesting a strong maternal influence on the diapause response to photoperiod, though a significant difference was observed only at 14:10 L:D. Our results support the idea that diapause induction is determined by both female and male parents. However, results also indicated that a strong maternal influence on diapause was exhibited only in response to photoperiod.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?