Wing Phenotypic Variation among Stomoxys calcitrans (Diptera: Muscidae) Populations in Thailand

Abstract

Stomoxys calcitrans (Linnaeus, 1758) (Diptera: Muscidae) is a cosmopolitan hematophagous ectoparasite of veterinary and medical importance. It is an important mechanical vector of several animal pathogens and can cause significant economic losses. However, the morphological variation of this species remains unknown. This study aimed to investigate the phenotypic variation in the wing size and shape of S. calcitrans populations in Thailand based on a landmark-based geometric morphometric approach. Specimens were collected from five populations in five geographical regions in Thailand. A total of 490 left wings of S. calcitrans (245 female and 245 male individuals) were used for geometric morphometric analysis. Wing size differences were detected between some populations of S. calcitrans, whereas wing shape differences were found among populations. Therefore, the phenotypic variation in S. calcitrans populations indicated that these populations are adaptive responses to local environmental pressures, suggesting the presence of phenotypic plasticity in this species.

Wing geometric morphometrics to distinguish and identify Haematobosca flies (Diptera: Muscidae) from Thailand

“…They used 10 landmark positions on the wing for distinguishing morphologically similar species of Stomoxys flies ( S. pullus , S. uruma , and S. indicus ). Subsequently, it was evidenced that these landmark positions can be used to discriminate individuals among the other Stomoxys flies, namely S. bengalensis , S. calcitrans , and S. sitiens ( Changbunjong et al, 2023 ) and can also be used to explore the phenotypic variation of S. calcitrans ( Chaiphongpachara et al, 2022b ) as well as the sexual dimorphism of H. aberrans ( Changbunjong et al, 2020 ). Therefore, we also used the same landmark positions for the GM analysis in the present study.…”

“…Hence, we do not suggest using the wing size to distinguish these flies if the sex of the flies is unknown. In fact, it has also been shown that the wing size is unsuitable for the differentiation of insect species because it is frequently influenced by environmental factors ( Jirakanjanakit et al, 2007 ; Morales Vargas et al, 2010 ; Baleba et al, 2019 ; Phanitchat et al, 2019 ; Chaiphongpachara et al, 2022b ; Chaiphongpachara et al, 2022c ).…”

“…It is a quantitative method for measuring the size and shape variation through landmark-, semilandmark-, and outline-based analyses ( Dujardin 2008 ; Dujardin et al, 2014 ; Dujardin and Dujardin, 2019 ). The GM method can be used to identify species and evaluate differences within species (intraspecific variation) and between sexes (sexual dimorphism) in several insects of medical and veterinary importance ( Ruangsittichai et al, 2011 ; Lorenz et al, 2012 ; Sontigun et al, 2017 ; De Souza et al, 2020 ; Oliveira-Christe et al, 2020 ; Simões et al, 2020 ; Changbunjong et al, 2021 ; Martinet et al, 2021 ; Chaiphongpachara et al, 2022a ; Chaiphongpachara et al 2022b ; Chaiphongpachara et al 2022c ; Laojun et al, 2023 ). The efficiency of GM for species identification has been demonstrated in stomoxyine flies ( Stomoxys spp.)…”

Wing morphology variations in Culicoides circumscriptus from France

“…WGM is largely developed in several vectors families like as Culicidae [see review of Lorentz et al ( 29 )] to explore intraspecific variations among mosquito populations or to research interspecific variation, to study in sexual dimorphism, plasticity and deviation, to detection of parasites and to characterize laboratory strain. This technique was used to study the intra specific variations in Glossinidae ( 30 ), Muscidae ( 31 ), Psychodiae ( 28 , 32 , 33 ), Reduviidae ( 34 ) and Tabanidae ( 35 , 36 ) and to show inter specific variations in Muscidae ( 37 ). The landmark-based WGM analysis of Culicoides wings has proven to be a valuable tool for interspecific discrimination ( 38–42 ), C. circumscriptus intersexes specimens ( 43 ), sexual dimorphism ( 44 ) and geographic variations ( 45 ).…”