Submit a preprint

354

Intra- and interspecific variations in flight performance of oak-associated Agrilinae (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) using computerised flight mills use asterix (*) to get italics
Elodie Le Souchu, Aurélien Sallé, Stéphanie Bankhead-Dronnet, Mathieu Laparie, Daniel SauvardPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"
2024
<p style="text-align: justify;">Several Agrilinae species (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) are secondary pests of broadleaf forests, and some of them are also major invasive pests. These thermophilous borers are expected to be favoured by climate change and the global deterioration of forest health, and ultimately expand their range and damage. Flight behaviour and performance of these insects are poorly known despite their critical role in dispersal inside and outside native ranges and their relevance for management purposes. This study aimed to assess intra- and interspecific variability in active flight of several Agrilinae species and effects of sex and mass on this variability to contribute to filling this gap. We assessed the flight performance of eleven species associated with oaks (nine <em>Agrilus</em>, one <em>Coraebus </em>and one <em>Meliboeus</em>) plus one <em>Agrilus </em>species associated with the herbaceous layer. Computer-monitored flight mills were used to measure flight parameters, including periods, durations, distances and velocity in 250 beetles. Overall, flight capacities were rather homogeneous among species, with a dominance of poor flyers and only <em>Coraebus undatus</em> showed outstanding performance. Beetles generally performed several short flight bouts within one trial, and only a few individuals sustained long flight. The maximal total distance covered across multiple assays until death ranged from 170 to 16 097 m depending on the species, with a median between 35 and 966 m (excluding individuals that never flew). On top of this interspecific variability, flight distances also varied greatly among individuals, but were not influenced by sex. Preflight body mass had mixed effects depending on the species, presumably related to different dispersal patterns. In our experimental conditions, most species had limited average dispersal capacities over multiple flight trials. Overall, dispersal over long distances and colonisation events probably depend mainly on a small proportion of individuals which largely exceeded the median performance.</p>
https://entrepot.recherche.data.gouv.fr/privateurl.xhtml?token=f3984f55-77b7-4448-9236-256acd53838fYou should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://
https://entrepot.recherche.data.gouv.fr/privateurl.xhtml?token=d19dd57d-3331-401d-9c55-9ed503bf1d83You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://
https://entrepot.recherche.data.gouv.fr/privateurl.xhtml?token=724c5291-2ab3-43f8-b6c4-a4179174269bYou should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://
Agrilus, secondary pest, range expansion, tethered flight, dispersal behaviour, locomotor activity
NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).
Behavior, Biology, Ecology, Insecta
Ann M. Ray suggested: Mark Hoddle mark.hoddle@ucr.edu, Nicola A. Irvin suggested: Steve Naranjo steve.naranjo@usda.gov
e.g. John Doe john@doe.com
No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Zool. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct
e.g. John Doe john@doe.com
2024-07-05 22:50:58
Pedro Abellan