Convergent photoperiodic plasticity in developmental rate in two species of insects with widely different thermal phenotypes

Abstract

http://www.eje.cz tion, analysis and synthesis. At fi rst glance, the sheer variety of taxa, lifestyles, photoperiodic responses and, last but not least, experimental designs is so wide that drawing any generalizations seems challenging. Furthermore, it has long been noted that the rate-controlling effect of photoperiod may depend on other factors, especially temperature. The difference may be merely quantitative such that a particular photoperiod exerts a strong effect at one temperature and little or no effect at another (Vinogradova, 1960; Ingram & Jenner, 1976), but sometimes there is a reversal of photoperiodic effect at high temperatures relative to that in cooler conditions, e.g., acceleration versus retardation (Geispitz et al., 1971; Goryshin & Akhmedov, 1971; Lopatina et al., 2007). Due to the growing appreciation of the role of reaction norms in adaptive evolution (Schlichting & Pigliucci, 1998; Murren et al., 2014; Kivelä et al., 2015), these photoperiod-temperature interactions are currently interpreted as photoperiodic plasticity of thermal reaction norms for growth and development (Gotthard et al., 1999; Lopatina et al., 2007; Kutcherov et al., 2015). However, studies on insect growth and development at several combinations of temperature and photoperiod have also produced a patchwork of examples with nearly as Convergent photoperiodic plasticity in developmental rate in two species of insects with widely different thermal phenotypes

Flying over Eurasia: Geographic Variation of Photoperiodic Control of Nymphal Development and Adult Diapause Induction in Native and Invasive Populations of the Brown Marmorated Stink Bug, Halyomorpha halys (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Pentatomidae)

“…On average, the duration of H. halys nymphal development observed in our experiment was similar to the results of earlier studies [ 28 , 29 , 31 , 32 , 35 , 60 ]. The photoperiodic impact on the growth rate and development of true bug species has been demonstrated in many cases [ 29 , 53 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 ]. In insects with a long-day type photoperiodic response, short-day conditions often accelerate the development of pre-diapause stages and thus increase the chances of individuals to timely enter diapause.…”

Effects of Temperature and Photoperiod on the Immature Development in Cassida rubiginosa Müll. and C. stigmatica Sffr. (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae)

“…In addition to the existence of interspecific differences, individuals of the same species may also differ in their developmental or growth rate and its relation to temperature, e.g., as a response to a change in the environment. Diet, photoperiod, humidity, diapause commitment, and other extrinsic and intrinsic factors are known to modify thermal reaction norms for development and growth in a number of insect species 21–26 . No such studies have ever been conducted with either tortoise beetles or other Cassidinae, although it is conceivable that this predominantly tropical group likely faced numerous adaptive challenges during colonization of higher latitudes and could have evolved various kinds of developmental plasticity in seasonal climates.…”

Population‐specific effects of temperature and photoperiod on development and body mass in Cassida vibex (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae)

“…However, photoperiodic influence on developmental rate, of varying magnitude and pattern, has been discovered numerous times in many insect species. These photoperiodic effects are often temperature-dependent (overviewed in Lopatina et al, 2007;Kutcherov et al, 2011Kutcherov et al, , 2018 and tend to agree with intuitive adaptive explanations. For example, in insect populations originating from relatively high-latitude environments, immature development is often accelerated and more temperature-sensitive under a short-day photoperiod, that is, in the face of a late-season time constraint (Hoshikawa, 2000;Nakamura, 2002;Lopatina et al, 2011;Gusev & Lopatina, 2018), which suggests that these minor effects are not mere artifacts of experimentation and, instead, are likely an integral part of the suites of traits involved in seasonal adaptation.…”