Morphometrics of Male Genitalia in Rice Yellow Stem Borer Scirpophaga incertulas Populations From Telangana
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55446/IJE.2023.892Keywords:
Rice Scirpophaga incertulas, male genitalia, intraspecific variations, uncus, valva, saccus, aedeagus, morphometrics, principal, components, cluster analysisAbstract
Morphometric characterization of male genitalia is an important aspect for studying intraspecific variation in Lepidoptera. In this study, size variation in the male genitalia of rice yellow stem borer (YSB) Scirpophaga incertulas (Walker) collected from nine locations through sex pheromone traps was examined. Measurements of male genitalial parts like uncus length (UL), uncus width (UW), valva length (VL), valva width (VW), saccus length (SL), saccus width (SW), aedeagus length (AD) were considered. Significant size variation was observed among the populations, and the measurements SL, SW, VL, VW, UL, UW and AD contributed to about 16% to location variability. The results showed that all characters except valva width was significantly different (p≤0.05) among the nine populations.
Downloads
Metrics
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
References
Adams D C, Slice D E, Rohlf F J. 2004: Geometric morphometrics: Ten years of progress following the “revolution”. Italian Journal of Zoology 71: 5-16.
Bandong J P, Litsinger J A. 2005.Rice crop stage susceptibility to the rice yellow stem borer Scirpophaga incertulas (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). International Journal of Pest Management 51(1): 37-43.
Carlos Cordero and Joaquín Baixeras 2015. Sexual Selection Within the Female Genitalia in Lepidoptera. Chapter 12 pp.325-350. A V Peretti and A Y Aisenberg (eds.). Cryptic female choice in arthropods, doi.10.1007/978-3-319-17894-3_12© Springer International Publishing Switzerland.
Dujardin J P 1997. Contribution of population genetics to the control and surveillance of vectors of Chagas disease. pp. 13-15.
Eberhard W G, Huber B A, Rodriguez R L S, Briceno R D, Salas I, Rodriguez V. 1998. One size fits all? Relationships between the size and degree of variation in genitalia and other body parts in twenty species of insects and spiders. Evolution 52: 415-431.
Garnier S, Magniez-Jannin F, Rasplus J Y, Alibert P. 2005. When morphometry meets genetics: inferring the phylogeography of Carabussolieri using Fourier analyses of pronotum and male genitalia. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 18: 269-280.
Goulson, David. 1993. Variation in the genitalia of the butterfly Maniola jurtina (Lepidoptera: Satyrinae). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 107 (1): 65-71
Gururaj Katti, Chitra Shanker, Padmakumari A P, Pasalu I C. 2011. Rice stem borers in India-species composition and distribution. Technical bulletin No. 59. Directorate of Rice Research, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad. p. 89
House C M, Simmons L W. 2003. Genital morphology and fertilization success in the dung beetle Onthophagus taurus: An example of sexually selected male genitalia. Proceedings of the Royal Society (B). 270: 447-455
Lent H, Jurberg J. 1966. Review of the American Piratinae II: The genus Phorastes Kirkaldy, 1900, with a study on the genitalia of the species (Hemiptera: Reduviidae). Brazilian Journal of Biology 26(3): 297-314.
Muralidharan K, Pasalu I C. 2006.Assessments of crop losses in rice ecosystems due to stem borer damage (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Crop Protection 25(5): 409-417.
Mutanen M. 2005. Delimitation difficulties in species splits: a morphometric case study on the Euxoa tritici complex (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae). Systematic Entomology 30: 632-643.
Mutanen M, Kaitala A. 2006. Genital variation in a dimorphic moth Selenia tetralunaria (Lepidoptera, Geometridae).Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 87: 297-307.
Mutanen M, Rytkönen S, Lindén J, Sinkkonen J. 2007. Male genital variation in a moth Pammene luedersiana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). European Journal of Entomology 104: 259-265.
Richmond M P. 2014. The role of aedeagus size and shape in failed mating interactions among recently diverged taxa in the Drosophila mojavensis species cluster. BMC Evolutionary Biology 14: 255.
Rohlf F J, Marcus L F. 1993: A revolution in morphometrics. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8: 129-132. Shapiro A M, Porter A H. 1989. The lock-and-key hypothesis: evolutionary and biosystematic interpretation of insect genitalia. Annual Review of Entomology 34: 231-245.
Singh-Pruthi H 1926. The morphology of the male genitalia in Rhynochota. Transactions of the Entomological Society of London1. 127-267.
Toth J P, Bereczki J, Varga Z, Rota J, Sramk Ó G, Wahlberg N. 2014. Relationships within the Melitaea phoebe species group (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae): new insights from molecular and morphometric information. Systematic Entomology 39: 749-757.
Tóth J P, Varga Z. 2011. Inter-intraspecific variation in the genitalia of the “Melitaea phoebe group” (Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae). Zoologischer Anzeiger 250: 258-268.
Tuxen S L. 1970. Taxonomists glossary of genitalia in insects. Scandinavian University Press, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Willmore K E, Young N M, Richtsmeier J T. 2007. Phenotypic variability: its components, measurement and underlying developmental processes. Evolutionary Biology 34: 99-120.
Zelditch M L, Swiderski D L, Sheets H D, Fink W L. 2004: Geometric morphometrics for biologists: A primer. Elsevier Academic Press, New York. 443 pp.
