Ultra structural study on different sensory structure and some associated body parts of mango mealy bug, Drosicha mangiferae (G.) by scanning electron microscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Article Details: Received: 2020-02-05 | Accepted: 2020-08-04 | Available online: 2021-03-31 https://doi.org/10.15414/afz.2021.24.01.78-86 Observation on the ultra- structure of both mouth parts and sensory apparatus of mango mealy bug, Drosicha mangiferae (Stebbing, 1903) (Hemiptera: Coccoidea) was carried out. Seven segments of different size in each antenna have been identified in D.mangiferae in the present observation. Out of the all segments, the terminal segment was the longest trailed by third and second flagellomere in downward order. Sensilla with flexible socket was noted in almost every body parts in the present observation. Abundant wax pores on the dorsal and ventral surface on the body surface of mealy bug secrete spiral wax filaments. Two types of wax pores namely trilocular and quinquelocular were observed. Leg consisted of basal coxa, trochanter, femur, tibia and tarsus which ended with curved claw and two claw digitules.Hair like sensilla trichoidea was mostly abundant in antenna and was of four subtypes. All of these function as mechanoreceptor or gustatory receptor. The labium of second instar nymphs of D.mangiferae had three segments with a median labial groove for housing stylet fascicle. Ten pairs of trichoid sensilla were found in the labium that also function as mechanoreceptors. Long hair like sensilla chaetica with pointed tip (SCh) in five pairs was also observed. Apart from that different kind of mechanoreceptor sensilla with flexible sockets, sensilla were found having inflexible sockets and pores with probable olfactory function. Keywords: Drosicha mangiferae, antenna, sensilla, mechanoreceptor, labium, stylet fascicle, wax pores References Ahamad, A., Kaushik, S., Ramamurthy, V., Lakhanpaul, S., Ramani, R., Sharma, K.K. and Vidyarthi, A.S. (2012). Mouthparts and stylet penetration of the lac insect Kerria lacca (Kerr) (Hemiptera: Tachardiidae). Arthropod Structure and Development, 41(5), 435–441. Alliaume, A., Reinfold, C., Uzest, M., Lemairo, O. and Herrbach, E. (2018). Mouth parts morphology of mealy bug Phenacoccusaceris. Bulletin of Insectology, 71(1), 1–9. Agren, L. (1977). Flagellar sensilla of some Colletidae (Hymenoptera: Apoidea). International Journal of Insect Morphological Embryology, 6(3–4), 137–146. Altner, H. and Prillinger, L. (1980). Ultra structure of invertebrate chemothermo- and hygroreceptors and its functional significance. International Review of Cytology, 67, 69–139. Backus, E. A. (1988). Sensory systems and behaviours which mediate hemipteran plant-feeding: a taxonomic overview. Journal of Insect Physiology, 34(3), 151–165. Blanke, A., Ruhr, P.T., Mosko, R., Villaneuva, P.,Wilde, F.M., Stampanoni, M.,Uesogi, K. R., Machida, R. and Misof, B. (2015). Structural mouthpart interaction evolved already in the earliest lineages of insects. Proceedings of the Royal Society Biological Sciences, 282 p. 20151033. Bromley, A. K. and Anderson, M. (1982). An electrophysiological study of olfaction in the aphid Nasonoviaribis nigri. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 32(2), 101–110. Calatayud, P.A. and Le Rü, B. (2006). Cassava-Mealybug Interactions. IRD Éditions, Actiques, Paris, France, pp. 24–28. Catala, S.S. (1997). Antennal sensilla of Triatominae (Hemiptera, Reduviidae): a comparative study of five genera. International. Journal of Insect Morphological Embryology, 26(2), 67–73. Chapman, R. F. (1982). Chemoreception: the significance of receptor numbers. Advances in Insect Physiology, 16, 247–356. Chapman, R.F. (1998). Mechanoreception. Chemoreception. In Chapman, R.F. (ed) The insects, structure and function. Cambridge University Press, UK, pp. 610–652. Foldi, I. and Lambdin, P.L. (1995). Ultrastructural and phylogenetic assessment of wax glands in pit scales (Homoptera: Coccoidea). International Journal of Insect Morphological Embryology, 24(1), 35–49. Hallberg, E., Hansson, B.S. and Lofstedt, C. (2003). Sensilla and proprioreceptors. (Ed). Kristensen NP, Lepidoptera, Moths and Butterflies: morphology, physiology and development, (2nd ed.). WdG, New York, Berlin, pp. 267–288. Hu, F., Zhang, G.N. and Wang, J.J. (2009). Scanning electron microscopy studies of antennal sensilla of bruchid beetles, Callosobruchu schinensis (L.) and Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Micron, 40(3), 320–326. Jansen, M.G.M. (2001). Instar identification and some notes about the life cycle of Rhizoecushibisci Kawai and Takagi (Coccoidea: Pseudococcidea). Proceedings of the IX International Symposium on Scale Insect Studies (ed. G. Pellizzari). Bollettino di Zoologia Agraria e di Bachicoltura, 33(3), 53–66. Manjunatha, D., Kumar, P., Kishore, R., Prasad, S.K., Narayanaswamy, K.C. and Datta. R.K. (1993). Towards understanding tukra and its management. Indian Silk, 32, 6–9. McIver, S.B. (1975). Structure of cuticular mechanoreceptors of arthropods. Annual Review of Entomology, 20, 381–397. Koteja, J. (1980). Campaniform, basiconic, coeloconic, and intersegmental sensilla on the antennae in the Coccinea. Acta Biologia Cracoviensia, Series Zoologia, 22, 73–88. Karar, H., Arif, J., Saeed, S. and Sayeed, H. A. (2006). A threat to Mango. DAWN Scientific technology World, 23. LeRü B., Renards, S., Allo, M. R., Lelanic, J. and Rolland, J.P. (1995A). Antennal sensilla and their possible meaning in the host plant selection behavior of Phenacoccus manihoti MatileFerrero. International Journal of Insect Morphology & Embryology, 24, 375–389. Le Rü, B., Renards, S., Allo, M. R., Lelanic, J. and Rolland, J.P. (1995B). Morphology and ultrastructure of sensory receptors of the labium of the cassava mealybug, Phenacoccus manihoti Matile-Ferrero (Homoptera, Pseudococcidae). Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 77, 31–36. Peregrine, D.J. (1972). Fine structure of sensilla basiconica on the labium of the cotton stainer, Dysdercus fasciatus (Signoret) (Heteroptera: Pyrrhocoridae). International Journal of Insect Morphological Embryology, 1(3), 241–251. Pesson, P. (1944). Contribution à l’étudemorphologique et fonctionnelle de la tête, de l’appareil buccal et du tube digestif des femelles de Coccides. Imprimerie Nationale, Paris, France. Pope, R.D. (1983). Some aphid waxes, their form and function (Homoptera: Aphididae). Journal of Natural History, 17, 489–506. Salama, H. S. (1971). Olfaction and gustation in coccids (Coccoidea). Experientia, 27, 1294. Schneider, D. (1964). Insect antennae. Annual Review of Entomology, 9, 103–122. Shields, V.D.C. and Hildebrand, J.G. (1999). Fine structure of antennal sensilla of the female sphinx moth, Manduca sexta (Lepidoptera: Sphingidae). II. Auriculate, coeloconic and styliform complex sensilla. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 77(2), 302–313. Sirisena, U.G.A.I., Watson, G.W., Hemachandra, K.S., Sage, O. and Wijayagunasekara, H.N.P. (2015). Scanning Electron Microscopy of Six Selected Mealybug (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Species of Sri Lanka. Tropical Agricultural Research, 26(2), 237–247. Tjallingii, W. F. (1978). Mechanoreceptors of the aphid labium. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 24, 731–737. Vahedi, H.A. and Mahfar, F.G. (2010). Scanning electron microscope observations on the multiloculardisc-pores and dermal projections of adult female Porphyrophor atritici and P. cynodontis. Entomolgia Hellenica, 19, 76–81. Whietefield, A.E., Falk B.W. and Rotenford, B.W. (2015). Insect vector mediated transmission of plant viruses. Virology, 79, 278–289. Walker, G. P. and Gordh, G. (1989). The occurrence of apical labial sensilla in the Aleyrodidae and evidence for a contact chemosensory function. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 35, 215–224. Wensler, R. J. D. (1977). The fine structure of distal receptors on the labium of the aphid, Brevicoryne brassicae. Implications for current theories of sensory transduction. Cell and Tissue Research, 181, 409–422.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".