4.1 Article

Sexual difference in the photoperiodic induction of pupal diapause in the flesh fly Sarcophaga similis

期刊

ENTOMOLOGICAL SCIENCE
卷 13, 期 3, 页码 311-319

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1479-8298.2010.00394.x

关键词

diapause titer; external coincidence model; photoinducible phase; photoperiodism; qualitative time measurement; quantitative time measurement; Sarcophagidae

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) [18770053]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [18770053, 22770069] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The flesh fly Sarcophaga similis enters pupal diapause in response to short days, but averts diapause under long days. This species shows a sexual difference in the photoperiodic induction of diapause, with females having shorter critical daylength than males. Here, we proposed two hypotheses to explain this sexual difference. First, we proposed a sexual difference in the qualitative evaluation of photoperiods. This hypothesis assumes under the external coincidence model that although the photoinducible phase of both sexes locates at late scotophase, in males, it locates at a slightly earlier phase. However, the results of night interruption experiments clearly ruled out this hypothesis. Because we verified that S. similis evaluated photoperiods quantitatively, we next proposed a sexual difference in the quantitative evaluation of photoperiods. This hypothesis incorporates concepts of a hypothetical substance accumulation that shows a diapause-inducing effect and an internal threshold that serves as a reference to determine the diapause/nondiapause developmental program. In long-day exposure experiments and night interruption experiments, females consistently showed a lower incidence of diapause than males. Thus, the present study data satisfactorily meet the second hypothesis, that is a sexual difference in the quantitative evaluation of photoperiods exists in S. similis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据