Home >Archive

Volume: 6, Issue: 1, Jan-Feb, 2018
DOI: 10.7324/JABB.2017.60101

Research Article

Cephalic Microstructure and its role in Predation Biology of Myrmicaria brunnea on Antheraea mylitta


Ganesh B. Gathalkar1, Deepak D. Barsagade2

  Author Affiliations


Abstract

The Antheraea mylitta (Drury) (Lepidoptera: Saturniidae) is commercially most important for the world-class ‘Wild Silk,' popularly known as ‘Tasar’ or ‘Kosa’ silk. However, the ant Myrmicaria brunnea (Saunders) (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) is being a serious predator of A. mylitta. Whose predation include the continuous pricking and biting leads to complete destruction of the silkworm larvae, resulting in massive crop loss. Therefore, we hypothesized the role of sensilla present on the antenna and mouthparts in its predatory success. Hence, we explore the cephalic appendages of M. brunnea to trace out the presence of mechano- and chemosensory organs, which we thought to play a significant role in the predatory behaviour of M. brunnea. The host-predator interactions based on this sensory physiology, will enable to develop an effective control strategy in sericultural practices, to trap this predator.

Keywords:

Aggressive predator, invasions, crop damage, feeding behavior, tasar-culture.



Citation: Gathalkar GB, Barsagade DD. Cephalic Microstructure and its role in Predation Biology of Myrmicaria brunnea on Antheraea mylitta. J App Biol Biotech. 2018; 6(1): 1-6. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7324/JABB.2017.60101


Copyright: Author(s). This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License, which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

References

  1. Jolly MS, Chaturvedi SM, and Prasad SA. Survey of Tasar crops in India. Indian Journal of Sericulture. 1968; 1: 50-58.
  2. Jolly MS, Sen SK, Sonwalkar, TN, and Prasad GK. Non-mulberry silks. Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations, Service Bulletin. 1979;29, 1-178.
  3. Jolly MS Package of practices for tropical tasar culture, Ranchi. Central Tasar Research Station, (Central Silk Board, Bombay). 1976; pp. 32.
  4. Chatterjee KK, Chandra H, Gupta R, and Chakravorty D. Tasar culture an approach of social upliftment of forest dwellers of Achanakmar Amarkantak Biosphere Reserve. Proceedings of workshop held at Tropical Forest Research Institute, Jabalpur on Research needs for Achanakmar- Amarkantak Biosphere Reserve 2007.
  5. Singh RN, and Thangavelu K. Parasites and predators of tasar silkworm Antheraea mylitta has many enemies. Indian Silk. 1991; pp. 33-36.
  6. Gathalkar, GB and Barsagade, DD. Parasites-predators: their occurrence and invasive impact on the tropical tasar silkworm Antheraea mylitta (Drury) in the Zone of Central India. Current Science. 2016; 111 (10):1643-1657.
  7. Barsagade DD. and Gathalkar, GB. Myrmicaria brunnea (Saunders) (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): a new predator in tasar sericulture. Proceedings of the 10th ANeT International Conference. Department of Zoology and Environmental Management, University of Kelaniya (Abstract). 2015; p. 53. URI: http://repository.kln.ac.lk/handle/123456789/10162
  8. Bain A, Harrison RD, and Schatz B. How to be an ant on figs. Acta Oecologica. 2014; 57:97-108.
  9. Lach L, Parr C, and Abbott K. Ant Ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 2010.
  10. General, DM, and Alpert, GD. A synoptic Review of the ant genera (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) of the Phillippines. Zookeys. 2012; 200: 1-111.
  11. Gathalkar, GB and Barsagade: Predation potential of Myrmicaria brunnea (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) on the wild silkworm Antheraea mylitta (Lepidoptera: Saturniidae). (Communicated).
  12. Bingham CT. Fauna of British India. Hymenoptera. 1903; Vol II. London.
  13. Bakhtiar EY, Yamane SK, and Maryati M. Morphological and behavioural characters of the two species-groups of the ant genus Myrmicaria (Insecta, Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Myrmicinae) from Southeast Asia. Species Diversity. 2009; 14, 249–265.
  14. Okada Y, Miura, T, and Tsuji K. Morphological differences between sexes in the ponerine ant, Diacamma sp. (Formicidae: Ponerinae). Sociobiology. 2006; 48: 527-541.
  15. Nakanishi A, Nishino H, Watanabe H, Yokohari F, and Nishikawa M. Sex-specific antennal sensory system in the ant Camponotus japonicus, structure and distribution of sensilla on the flagellum. Cell Tissue Research. 2009; 338: 79-97.
  16. Mysore K, Subramanian, KA, Sarasij RC, Suresh A, Shyamala BV, Vijayraghavan K, and Rodrigues V. Caste and sex-specific olfactory glomerular organization and brain architecture in two sympatric ant species Camponotus sericeus and Camponotus compressus (Fabricius, 1798). Arthropod Structure and Development. 2009; 38: 485-497.
  17. Offenberg J, Havanon S, Aksornkoae S, Macintosh DJ, and Nielsen MG. Observations on the ecology of weaver ants Oecophylla smaragdina (Fabricius) in a Thai mangrove ecosystem and their effect on herbivory of Rhizophora mucronata Lam. Biotropica. 2004;36: 344-351.
  18. Gathalkar GB. and Barsagade DD. Predation biology of weaver ant Oecophylla smaragdina (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in the field of tasar sericulture. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies. 2016; 4 (2): 07-10.
  19. Barsagade DD, Tembhare DD, and Kadu SG. Microscopic structure of antennal sensilla in the carpenter ant Camponotus compressus (Fabricius) (Formicidae: Hymenoptera), Asian Myrmecology. 2013; 5: 113-120.
  20. Dumpert K. Alarm stoffrezeptoren auf der Antenne von Lasius fuliginosus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Zeitschrift f\ür Vergleichende Physiologie. 1972;76: 403- 425.
  21. Chapman RF. The insect structure and function (4th ed.). Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 1998.
  22. Paul JP, Flavio R and Hölldobler B. How do ants stick out their tongues? Journal of Morphology and Embryology. 2002; 254, 39-52.
  23. Paul J. Mandible movements in ants. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology. 2001; 13 (1): 7-20.
  24. Hölldobler B, and Wilson EO. The Ants. MA, Belknap Press of Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. 1990; pp. 732.
  25. Zacharuk RY. Ultrastructure and Function of Insect Chemosensilla. Annual Review of Entomology, 1980; 25: 27-47.
  26. Kapoor NN. Distribution and innervations of sensilla on the mouthparts of the Carnivorous stonefly nymph, Paragnetina media (walker) (Plecoptera: Perlidae). Canadian Journal of Zoology. 1989; 67 (4): 831- 38.
  27. Barsagade DD, Tembhare DB, and Kadu SG. SEM structure of mandibular sensilla in the carpenter ant Camponotus compressus (Fabricius) (Formicidae: Hymenoptera) Halters. 2010; 2 (1): 53-57.
  28. Ozaki M, Wada-Katsumata A, Fujikawa K, Iwahasi M, Yokahari F, Satoji Y, Nishimurat, and Yamaoka Y. Ant nestmate and nonnestmate discrimination by a chemosensory sensillum. Science. 2005;309: 311-314.
  29. Esslen J,and Kaissling KE.: Zahl-und Verteilung antennaler Sensillen bei der Honigbiene (Apis mellifera L.). Zoomorphology. 1976; 83: 227-251.
  30. Zacharuk RY. Antennae and sensilla. In Comprehensive Insect Physiology, BiochemistryandPharmacology. Vol. 6. Pergamon Press. Nervous System. Sensory Ed., Kerkut GA. and Gilbert, LI. 1985; pp. 1- 69.
  31. Mysore K, Shyamala BV, Rodrigues V. Morphological and developmental analysis of peripheral antennal chemosensory sensilla and central olfactory glomeruli in worker caste of Camponotus compressus (Fabricius, 1787). Arthropod Structure and Development. 2010; 39: 310-321.
  32. Renthal RD. Sensory reception in fire ants, imported fire ant research and management project, Final report, Texas. 2003; pp. 1-3.
  33. Renthal R, Velasqueza D, Olmosa D, Hamptona J, and Wergin WP. Structure and distribution of antennal sensilla of the red imported fire ant. Micron. 2003; 34: 405- 413.
  34. Nakanishi A, Nishino H, Watanabe H, Yokohari F, and Nishikawa M. Sex-specific antennal sensory system in the ant Camponotus japonicus, glomerular organizations of antennal lobes. Journal of Comparative Neurology. 2010; 518: 2186-2201.
  35. Hashimoto Y. Unique features of sensilla on the antennae of Formicidae (Hymenoptera). Applied Entomology and Zoology. 1990; 25: 491-501.
  36. Altner H, and Prillinger L. Ultrastructure of invertebrate chemo-, thermo- and hygroreceptors and its functional significance.In, Bourne, G.H., Danielli, J.F. (Eds.), International Review of Cytology. Academic Press. 1980; pp. 69–139.
  37. Kugler C. Evolution of the sting apparatus in the myrmicine ants. Evolution. 1979; 33: 117-130.
  38. Kugler C. Stings of ants of the tribe Pheidologetini (Myrmicinae). Insecta Mundi. 1986; 1 (4): 221-230.
  39. Kaib M, and Dittebrand H. The poison gland of the ant Mvrmicariaeumenoides and its role in recruitment communication. Chemoecology. 1990; 1: 3-11.
  40. Kenne M, Schatz B, Durand JL, and Dejean A. Hunting strategy of a generalist ant species proposed as a biological control agent against termites. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata. 2000; 94: 31–40.
  41. Kugler C. A comparative study of the myrmicine sting apparatus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) Studia Entomologica. 1978; 20; 413-548.
  42. Babu MJ, Ankolekar SM, and Rajashekhar KP. Castes of the weaver ant Oecophylla smaragdina (Fabricius) differ in the organization of sensilla on their antennae and mouthparts. Current Science. 2011; 101 (6): 1-10.

Article Metrics

Similar Articles