4.5 Article

Evidence of active aggregation behaviour in Lucilia sericata larvae and possible implication of a conspecific mark

期刊

ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR
卷 85, 期 6, 页码 1191-1197

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.03.005

关键词

binary choice; blow fly larva; gregariousness; individual distribution; larval mass; Lucilia sericata; retentive signal; self-organization; thigmotaxis; video tracking

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Vectors of aggregation are well known for some arthropod species, but not for many others. We aimed to describe larval aggregation (experiment 1) in the carrion fly, Lucilia sericata (Diptera: Calliphoridae), and to investigate the effect of food and conspecifics on larval behaviour (experiment 2). In experiment 1, 40 larvae were placed in a petri dish with a homogeneous diet for 30 min, 1 h, 3 h, 5 h or 24 h. This experiment demonstrated for the first time under controlled conditions the active aggregation of L. sericata larvae. The results indicate that the aggregation took place quickly and was reinforced with time. After only 3 h, one main aggregate comprising a majority of individuals was observed. These results also highlight the likely use by necrophagous larvae of a signal left by conspecifics as an aggregation vector. In experiment 2, we used a video-tracking system to investigate whether such an aggregative signal exists. Fed and starved larvae were tracked for 5 min in a circular area with each half marked with a different signal combination. The time spent in the signal zones, the distance travelled, the velocity, the time at the stop and the number of stops in each zone were measured. The larvae were significantly retained by a signal (mark) left by conspecifics. Together, the results of this study demonstrate the existence of a contact and/or odour-mediated signal involved in the aggregative behaviour of necrophagous larvae. (C) 2013 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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