scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal Article•DOI•

A Functional System of Adaptive Dispersal by Flight

C. G. Johnson
01 Jan 1966-Annual Review of Entomology (Annual Reviews 4139 El Camino Way, P.O. Box 10139, Palo Alto, CA 94303-0139, USA)-Vol. 11, Iss: 1, pp 233-260
About: This article is published in Annual Review of Entomology.The article was published on 1966-01-01 and is currently open access. It has received 71 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Biological dispersal.

Summary (2 min read)

Jump to: [Introduction] – [PERSPECTIVES OF THE SYSTEM] – [PLACE OF ORIGIN] – [EXODUS] – [TO WEATHER] – [ORIENTATION] – [AERIAL TRANSPORT] – [THE FIRST HYPOTHESIS] and [THE ONTOGENETIC HYPOTHESIS]

Introduction

  • By C. G. JOHNSON Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts., England Insect dispersal is a confused subject and lacks system.
  • Different people have seen migration and dispersal as distinct, processes, twice reviewed in these volumes.
  • Therefore if a general, valid, and functional system for all of these movements can be made; it may show up effects of incidental and accidental movements in clearer perspective (I suggest that these are small by comparison with those of adaptive move ments) .

PERSPECTIVES OF THE SYSTEM

  • It is often assumed that males and females migrate similarly.
  • Among the latter, some even hibernate where they become adult, dis persing only afterwards [Conophthorus coniperda (71)].
  • Little seems to be known about relative distances travelled by many insects before and after ovipo sition, or between egg laying by the same individuals; but the emigration after pupal emergence (often characterized by a relatively prolonged and undistracted flight), is often the most noticeable with recognized migrants.

PLACE OF ORIGIN

  • There are two fundamentally different types of "populated place " (4) from which dispersal occurs adaptively.
  • Most important is the site where new adults develop.
  • These changes, and those caused by the seasons affect the insects' ontogeny and apparently determine whether or not, or in what proportions, adults will become migrants, and hence the ex tent and amount of dispersal.
  • If Type II movements are migratory in the senses defined earlier (and this is debatable), feeding and oogenesis sites are among these.

EXODUS

  • There are a few observations of the beginnings of "classical" migrations especially of butterflies and dragonflies; rather more exist for migratory in sects in the wider sense, including wind-borne dispersants formerly consid ered to be "passive.".
  • But, of the vast majority of even well known and com mon species, nothing is known about exodus behaviour though it is very im portant for dispersal.
  • The prime function of such flights is departure, sometimes for long distances, as soon as the insects become fully flight-mature.
  • There are more references it seems to the positive act of exodus (few though these are) than to others showing that adults do not leave, and it would be instructive to search out the latter.

TO WEATHER

  • "Flight activity" is a universal term among entomologists.
  • Though these changes are well recognized as long-term trends over several days and even corrected for (169) , their rapidity from hour to hour (when they can simulate the effects of individual responses as far as aerial density change is concerned) is not so well recognized.
  • The duration and progress of this Hight away from the birthplace is adapted to the needs of particular species, varying from a few yards [ter mites, white fly (92)] to thousands of miles (locusts; monarch butterflies) can be resolved into four components: fuel supply ; duration of single flights; and duration of period when such flights are repeatable; and orientation.

ORIENTATION

  • Kennedy et al. (91) inferred that aphids flying near the ground in the "alighting flight" re sponded to both the bright, short wavelengths of the sky and to the dimmer long wavelengths from the green vegetation and were kept in an uneasy bal ance between them, rather than that they became negatively phototactic.
  • The common orientation of butterflies, migrating within the boundary layer, is also apparently established visually at exodus ( 1 10) .
  • Many insects disperse from the birthplace by flying within their bound ary layer and seem to control their track in a more or less linear way ap parently for relatively long distances against or across the wind.

AERIAL TRANSPORT

  • Adaptive displacement per se depends on the following factors; flight speed, duration and frequency of single undistracted flights, the duration of the "migratory" period within which single long flights are made, the need and opportunity to "refuel, " orientation into or out of the "boundary layer, " and the state of the atmosphere.
  • -A complete displacement flight often occurs adaptively both within and above the boundary layer.
  • The ver tical density profile increases in height and decreases in steepness toward mid-day as more i nsects are discharged, and subsides, with the flight rhythm at exodus, to nothing by evening (81, 85) .

THE FIRST HYPOTHESIS

  • The following findings support this hypothesis: Orthoptera migrated when plants dried up and after rain ( 133, 157) .
  • Flight in solitary locusts prob ably was a response to humidity changes (37) .
  • L. cerealium flew en masse when grasses dried up, rather in contrast to normal, prereproductive mass flights (99) .
  • Leafhopper populations moved from cut vegetation (103) .
  • No doubt hunger often causes insects to move but perhaps more to mix than to disperse, for starved insects cannot migrate far (74) .

THE ONTOGENETIC HYPOTHESIS

  • This hypothesis applies, so far, only to females.
  • In large populations of A . monuste, settling thresholds are so high that the insects continue to fly all night (dark ness usually suppresses flight) and into the second day, scarcely stopping more than a few seconds to feed, which prolonged flight makes necessary ; this behaviour is associated with delayed ovarial development ( 1 10) .
  • Johnson, .c. G. A basis for a general system of insect migration and dis persal by flight.
  • Smith sonian Inst. Misc. Collections, 137, 263-86 (1959) Roer, H. Experimentelle Untersuch ungen zum Migrationsverhaltl�n des Kleiner Fuchs (Aglais urticae L.) Beitr.

Did you find this useful? Give us your feedback

Content maybe subject to copyright    Report

    
  
   
   
         


     

      
         
    
      
          
     

  
 
           
 
  


 
        
         
 

        
 
            




        
 


  
         

 

        
          

  


         


Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1966.11:233-260. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by 82.23.168.208 on 04/28/20. For personal use only.
Quick links to online content
Further
ANNUAL
REVIEWS


         
       
         
          
          
 
  
      
    
     
  
       
 

      


        
        


 
    
   

   
    

      
         
       
        
       
            
 

           
   
  
       

  
    
         





   
          




  
       

 
Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1966.11:233-260. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by 82.23.168.208 on 04/28/20. For personal use only.
    
 
     
  
  


       



         
       

         
 
      


    

   

   
         

   
    

       



 
         
     
         
   
        
 

         






           
   
       
    
     

  
     


          
Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1966.11:233-260. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by 82.23.168.208 on 04/28/20. For personal use only.


          
           
 

          

    
           
 
        
       
     
  
     
         

           

         
         
          
         
     

          
  
  
  
         
          
       
     
         

          
   
    
   
       
          
     


  
          
        
  
Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1966.11:233-260. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by 82.23.168.208 on 04/28/20. For personal use only.
   


      
  
       
  



     

      
  
        
           
      
    
          
         

            
        

 
  
     

 
  

  


     



      
   

      



            
             

        


   


  
    
             
Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1966.11:233-260. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by 82.23.168.208 on 04/28/20. For personal use only.
Citations
More filters
Journal Article•DOI•
Larval aggregation formation and population density interrelations in aedes taeniorhynchus1, their effects on pupal ecdysis and adult characteristics at emergence

[...]

J. K. Nayar1, D. M. Sauerman1•
Florida State University1
01 Dec 1968-Entomologia Experimentalis Et Applicata
TL;DR: Formation of aggregations in larval populations aided in the synchronization of pupal ecdysis in individual peaks as well as in the brood, and also produced adults which are slightly (though insignificantly) larger in size, heavier in dry body weights and exhibited higher expression of autogeny than adults which were obtained from populations reared under standard conditions which showed no aggregation formation.
Abstract: Different types of aggregation formation in larval populations of Aedes taeniorhynchus are found to be controlled by temporary crowding, nutritional state, photonegative behavior, and temperature. At a constant temperature of 27°, cluster type aggregations are formed when larvae are temporarily crowded and provided with extra food, whereas when larvae are temporarily crowded and deprived of food, ball type aggregations are formed. At constant temperatures of 22° and 25° only cluster type aggregations appear, whereas at temperatures of 30° and 32° aggregations generally did not form when larvae were crowded and deprived of food. Formation of aggregations in larval populations aided in the synchronization of pupal ecdysis in individual peaks as well as in the brood, and also produced adults which are slightly (though insignificantly) larger in size, heavier in dry body weights and exhibited higher expression of autogeny than adults which are obtained from populations reared under standard conditions which showed no aggregation formation. It is suggested that larval aggregations which lead to developmental synchronization in the later stages of growth and in pupal ecdysis result in adults prone to exhibit migratory behavior at emergence. ZUSAMMENFASSUNG BEZIEHUNGEN ZWISCHEN LARVALER HAUFEN BILDUNG UND POPULATIONS-DICHTE BEI AEDES TAENIORHYNCHUS, IHRE WIRKUNGEN AUF PUPPENHAUTUNG UND ADULTEIGENSCHAFTEN BEIM SCHLUPF 1. In den Larvenpopulationen von Aedes taeniorhynchus werden zwei verschiedene Typen der Haufenbildung beobachtet. Bei konstanter Temperatur von 27° wird der Klumpen-Typ der Zusammenscharung beobachtet, wenn die Larven zeitweilig gepfercht und mit zusatzlicher Nahrung versorgt werden, wahrend sich der Ball-Typ ausbildet, wenn die Larven zeitweilig gepfercht und der Nahrung beraubt werden. 2. Dicht gedrangt lebende Larven von A. taeniorhynchus zeigen photonegatives Verhalten, welches als ein Faktor bei der Herausbildung von Zusammenscharungen nachgewiesen wurde. 3. Bei verschiedenen konstanten Temperaturen zwischen 22° und 32° wurde bei Larven, die zeitweise zusammengepfercht und mit Zusatzfutter versehen waren, bei 22° und 25° nur der Klumpen-Typ und bei 27°, 30° und 32° nur der Ball-Typ der Zusammenscharung beobachtet. Erhielten die zusammengepferchten Larven kein Futter, wurden jedoch bei 30° und 32° keine Zusammenscharungen beobachtet, selbst wenn die Larven sehr aktiv waren. 4. Es erwies sich, das Haufenbildung die Synchronisation der Puppenhautung in einzelnen Gruppen wie in der gesamten Brut forderte. 5. Es konnte auch gezeigt werden, das die Haufenbildung die Bildung groserer Imagines fordert, welche ein groseres Korpertrockengewicht, hoheren prozentualen Fettgehalt und starker ausgepragte Autogenie aufwiesen als Adulte, die aus Larven hervorgehen, die unter Standardbedingungen herangezogen werden. 6. Die Bildung der verschiedenen Typen der Haufenbildung unter unterschiedlichen Bedingungen im Labor wie auch im Freiland werden erlautert. Es wird wahrscheinlich gemacht, das die Haufenbildungen der Larven, die primar durch die Bedingungen hoher Populationsdichte verursacht werden. zur Synchronisation der Entwicklung in den spateren Stadien des Wachstums und der Puppenhautung fuhren und Imagines ergeben, die nach dem Schlupfen zu Migrationsverhalten neigen.

4 citations

Journal Article•DOI•
Evidence for Anopheles squamosus Migration

[...]

White Gb
15 Aug 1970-Nature
TL;DR: Experimental investigations on Anopheles funestus, A. gambiae and A. melas have demonstrated that most, adult mosquitoes do not normally fly more than 3–5 km from a site of origin or release.
Abstract: IN normal tropical and sub-tropical conditions most species of anopheline mosquitoes usually fly only short distances in search of food, shelter and breeding sites. Experimental investigations on Anopheles funestus1, A. gambiae2 and A. melas3 in Africa, A. quadrimaculatus4 in the United States of America, A. argyritarsis5 in Canada, A. flavirostris6 in the Philippines and A. culicifacies7 in India, have demonstrated that most, adult mosquitoes do not normally fly more than 3–5 km from a site of origin or release.

4 citations

Journal Article•DOI•
Interlacing roles of bottom-up, top-down, endogenous, and anthropogenic factors in population oscillations

[...]

Gaétan Moreau1, Gaétan Moreau2, Don P. Ostaff3, Don P. Ostaff2, Éric Bauce4, Eldon S. Eveleigh3, Eldon S. Eveleigh2, Christopher J. Lucarotti2, Christopher J. Lucarotti3, Benoit Morin3, Dan T. Quiring2 •
Université de Moncton1, University of New Brunswick2, Natural Resources Canada3, Laval University4
01 Sep 2018-Ecosphere

3 citations

Dissertation•
Proximate causation of stable fly (Stomoxys calcitrans (L.)) host use : the influence of phenology and host blood suitability

[...]

Kristina Marjorie. Hale
01 Jan 2011
TL;DR: Results indicate that the nutritional composition of blood from these hosts does not explain the rarity of stable flies feeding on birds, and implications of host defenses as an explanation for stable fly behavior are discussed.
Abstract: The biting fly, Stomoxys calcitrans (L.) (Diptera: Muscidae) has become a cosmopolitan pest of livestock, companion animals, and humans. Both males and females require daily blood meals and will opportunistically feed on many terrestrial mammals. They have rarely been seen to feed on birds, despite the presence of many potential hosts. A unique feeding behavior was documented at a wildlife refuge in northeast Montana when stable flies were seen congregating on the heads and eyes of West Nile-infected American white pelicans. The objectives of this investigation were to describe adult phenology near the pelican colony and to determine daily and lifetime fecundity when fed on cattle, horse, or chicken blood. From 2008-2010, relative adult abundance was measured by placing white Coroplast cards near the colony, around confinement lots, and along transects in pasture used by grazing cattle. Results showed that temporal dynamics varied by habitat type (2008: F = 7.4; df = 16, 191; P < 0.001; 2009: F = 17.7; df = 14, 270; P < 0.001) and that local dispersal occurred throughout the season. Weekly changes in abundance were explained by temperature, precipitation, and degree-days in 2008 (F = 12.2; r = 0.13) and 2010 (F = 13.8; r = 0.27) and by temperature and precipitation in 2009 (F = 164.6; r = 0.82). Stable flies from a laboratory-maintained colony were provided with cattle, horse, or chicken blood and daily and lifetime fecundity rates were measured through F2 adult emergence. Flies fed chicken blood laid more eggs per day than those fed cattle (P = 0.008) or horse blood (P = 0.05), but lifetime fecundity was similar between treatments (χ = 3.4; df = 2; P = 0.2) because of shorter oviposition periods in cohorts fed chicken blood. These results indicate that the nutritional composition of blood from these hosts does not explain the rarity of stable flies feeding on birds. Implications of host defenses as an explanation for stable fly behavior are discussed.

3 citations

Swarming Behaviour and Alate Sex-Ratio of Heterotermes indicola (Wasmann) (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae)

[...]

Ayesha Aihetasham, Muhammad Saeed Akhtar
01 Jan 2008
TL;DR: Swarming behaviour of Heterotermes indicola was observed during the swarming season of 2003 and 2004 in the Punjab University, New Campus, Lahore, Pakistan, which created suitable combination of relative humidity and temperature required for swarming.
Abstract: s.Swarming behaviour of Heterotermes indicola (Wasmann) was observed during the swarming season of 2003 and 2004 in the Punjab University, New Campus, Lahore, Pakistan. Swarming took place on 15 out of 92 nights for which observations were made. Swarming started after 3 rainfall of the season, which created suitable combination of relative humidity and temperature required for swarming. Peak emergence of alates was observed after heavy rainfall (16mm) of short duration at 25.7°C to 36°C with 100% humidity. Frequency of swarming was maximum between 8:00 to 8:30 P.M. Overall sex ratio of H. indicola indicates that males dominate over females 5:1 (Male: Female).

3 citations

References
More filters
Journal Article•DOI•
Aggregation, Variance and the Mean

[...]

L. R. Taylor1•
The Hertz Corporation1
01 Mar 1961-Nature

2,305 citations

Journal Article•DOI•
Migration of terrestrial arthropods in relation to habitat

[...]

T. R. E. Southwood1•
Imperial College London1
01 May 1962-Biological Reviews
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors propose a method to solve the problem of the problem: this paper...,.. ].. ).. ]... )...
Abstract: CONTENTS

653 citations

Book•
A biology of dragonflies

[...]

Philip S. Corbet
01 Jan 1962

501 citations

Journal Article•DOI•
Analysis of the effect of temperature on insects in flight

[...]

L. R. Taylor
01 Feb 1963-Journal of Animal Ecology
TL;DR: Analysis of the numbers in flight in the open of five very different species of insect in relation to air temperature finds both the effect of temperature on flight and methods suitable for its evaluation, in terms of this hypothesis.
Abstract: Many attempts have been made to relate the numbers of insects in flight to some function of air temperature both outside and in the laboratory. The subject is complicated in nature because temperature affects both the level of population and the amount of activity of those insects able to fly. Natural populations are usually sampled by traps and current methods of analysis often attempt, first, to distinguish between population changes and behaviour changes and then to relate behaviour, or the amount of activity, to temperature by regression analysis of catches. The method has been applied with outstanding success by Williams (1940, 1961) to large taxonomic groups; its use is based on the hypothesis that activity increases gradually with increase in temperature up to an optimum; above this, further temperature increase causes a fall in activity. Linear regressions are fitted over short temperature ranges and the regression coefficients are positive up to the optimum and negative above it. The whole response curve has recently been demonstrated by Williams & Osman (1960) using trap catches from Egypt where monthly mean temperatures ranged widely enough to show the rise to the optimum, 18-29? C, and the decline above it, 29-34? C. In laboratory cages the number of flights made per minute by individuals of a single species frequently gives a similar response curve, one that rises gradually with temperature to an optimum and then falls gradually to zero, so that some laboratory results appear to be complementary to the regression analysis used by Williams. But flight in cages, being restricted, is not typical of free flight in the open and the number of flights per minute is very much affected by these experimental limitations. Also the increase in numbers flying in the open as temperature increases, shown by trap catches of large taxonomic groups, is caused by the increasing number of species in flight as well as by the number of individuals of each species. Suppose that each individual insect can fly only between two fairly clearly defined temperatures, a lower threshold and an upper threshold, and that all insects of the same species in the same local situation have similar thresholds, i.e. that temperature thresholds are species specific. Then between these two thresholds, the proportion of insects in flight may well be independent of temperature. Hence regression methods may not be appropriate for the analysis of the temperature responses of single insect species. I have therefore analysed the numbers in flight in the open of five very different species of insect in relation to air temperature, to investigate both the effect of temperature on flight and methods suitable for its evaluation, in terms of this hypothesis. However, activity and population changes are chronological processes and trap catches are rarely instantaneous. I have therefore re-examined what a trap catch represents before attempting analysis and, after analysis, the results are considered in the light of laboratory observations.

451 citations

Journal Article•DOI•
Biology and Ecology of Predaceous Coccinellidae

[...]

Kenneth S. Hagen
01 Jan 1962-Annual Review of Entomology

433 citations

Related Papers (5)
Migration of terrestrial arthropods in relation to habitat

[...]

01 May 1962-Biological Reviews
T. R. E. Southwood
A Turning Point in the Study of Insect Migration

[...]

01 Mar 1961-Nature
J. S. Kennedy
Physiological factors in insect migration by flight

[...]

01 May 1963-Nature
C. G. Johnson
Migration strategies of insects.

[...]

24 Mar 1972-Science
Hugh Dingle
Migration and dispersal of insects by flight.

[...]

01 Jan 1969
C. G. Johnson