Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T09:33:24.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Using Visible Implant Elastomer to tag insects across life stages: a preliminary investigation with blow flies (Diptera: Calliphoridae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2013

Colin Moffatt
Colin Moffatt*
Affiliation:
School of Forensic and Investigative Sciences, University of Central Lancashire, Preston PR1 2HE, United Kingdom (e-mail: cmoffatt@uclan.ac.uk)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Visible Implant Elastomer (VIE) has previously been used successfully to tag individuals in a variety of marine and amphibious animals, earthworms, and scorpions. Visible Implant Elastomer tags were injected into third instars of the blow fly Calliphora vicina Robineau-Desvoidy (Diptera: Calliphoridae) to test its compatibility and retention across life stages. Injecting into the dorsal midline of the 11th segment (seventh abdominal segment) produced survival rates of 80%, with no significant difference in the subsequent rate of development (z = 0.21, P = 0.83) as compared with untagged insects. Tags remained visible and allowed identification of individuals within a feeding, intermingling aggregation (maggot mass), especially when a high-contrast fluorescent colour was used. Tags were retained across life-stage changes and were easily found in dissected adults.

Résumé

Les implants visibles d’élastomère (VIE, Visible Implant Elastomer) ont servi avec succès à étiqueter individuellement une variété d'animaux marins et amphibies, des vers de terre et des scorpions. Des étiquettes visibles d’élastomère ont été injectées dans des larves de troisième stade de la mouche de la viande Calliphora vicina Robineau-Desvoidy (Diptera: Calliphoridae) pour évaluer leur compatibilité et leur rétention au cours des différents stades du cycle. L'injection dans la ligne dorsale médiane du 11e segment (7e segment abdominal) s'accompagne de taux de survie de 80% et les taux subséquents de développement (z = 0,21, P = 0,83) des insectes marqués ne diffèrent pas significativement de ceux des insectes nonmarqués. Les étiquettes demeurent visibles et permettent l'identification d'individus au sein d'une agrégation alimentaire (masse entremêlée d'asticots), particulièrement lorsqu'on utilise une couleur fluorescente à fort contraste. Les étiquettes sont retenues durant les changements du cycle biologique et se retrouvent facilement par dissection chez les adultes.

Type
Techniques – NOTE
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 145 , Issue 4 , August 2013 , pp. 466 - 470
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Berry, W.L., Stimman, M.W., Wolf, W.W. 1972. Marking of native phytophagous insects with rubidium: a proposed technique. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 65: 236–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butt, K.R., Briones, M.J.I., Lowe, C.N. 2009. Is tagging with visual implant elastomer a reliable technique for marking earthworms? Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira, 44: 969–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butt, K.R.Lowe, C.N. 2007. A viable technique for tagging earthworms using visible implant elastomer. Applied Soil Ecology, 35: 454–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapin, K.J. 2011. Suitability of a subcuticular permanent marking technique for scorpions. Journal of Arachnology, 39: 194–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, J.L.D., Young-Williams, A.C., Hines, A.H., Zmora, O. 2004. Comparing two types of internal tags in juvenile blue crabs. Fisheries Research, 67: 265–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davy, C.M., Coombes, S.M., Whitear, A.K., MacKenzie, A.S. 2010. Visible implant elastomer: a simple, non-harmful method for marking hatchling turtles. Herpetelogical Review, 41: 442–445.Google Scholar
Erzinclioglu, Z. 1996. Blowflies naturalists handbooks number 23. Richmond Publishing Co. Ltd, Slough, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Ferrar, P. 1987. A guide to the breeding habits and immature stages of Diptera Cyclorrhapha. Entomonograph 8. E.J. Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Frederick, J.L. 1997. Evaluation of fluorescent elastomer injection as a method for marking small fish. Bulletin of Marine Science, 61: 399–408.Google Scholar
Godin, D.M., Carr, W.H., Hagino, G., Segura, F., Sweeney, J.N., Blankenship, L. 1996. Evaluation of a fluorescent elastomer internal tag in juvenile and adult shrimp Penaeus vannameri. Aquaculture, 139: 243–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, B.Kunich, J.C. 2002. Entomology and the law: flies as forensic indicators. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Hagler, J.R. 1997. Field retention of a novel mark-release-recapture method. Environmental Entomology, 26: 1079–1086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagler, J.R.Jackson, C.G. 2001. Methods for marking insects: current techniques and future prospects. Annual Review of Entomology, 46: 511–543.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henderson, P.A. 2003. Practical methods in ecology. Blackwell Science, Oxford, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Hutchens, S.J., Deperno, C.S., Matthews, C.E., Pollock, K.H., Woodward, D.K. 2008. Visible implant fluorescent elastomer: a reliable marking alternative for snakes. Herpetological Review, 39: 301–303.Google Scholar
Kinkead, K.E., Lanham, J.D., Montanucci, M.R. 2006. Comparison of anesthesia and marking techniques on stress and behavioral responses in two Desmognathus salamanders. Journal of Herpetology, 40: 323–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nauwelaerts, S., Coeck, J., Aerts, P. 2000. Visible implant elastomers as a method for marking adult anurans. Herpetological Review, 31: 154–155.Google Scholar
Replinger, S.E.Wood, J.B. 2007. A preliminary investigation of the use of subcutaneous tagging in Caribbean reef squid Sepioteuthis sepioidea (Cephalopoda: Loliginidae). Fisheries Research, 84: 308–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Service, M.W. 1993. Mosquito ecology: field sampling methods. Elsevier, New York, United States of America.Google Scholar
Southwood, T.R.E.Henderson, P.A. 2000. Ecological methods, 3rd edition. Blackwell, Oxford, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Uglem, I., Noess, H., Farestveit, E., Jorstad, K.E. 1996. Tagging of juvenile lobsters (Homarus gammarus (L)) with visible implant elastomer tags. Aquacultural Engineering, 15: 499–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weseloh, R.M. 1985. Dispersal, survival, and population abundance of gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae), larvae determined by releases and mark-recapture studies. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 78: 728–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, R.R.Singer, M.C. 1987. Marking technique for larvae. Pan-Pacific Entomologist, 633: 341–345.Google Scholar