Next Article in Journal
Chemical Composition and Nutritional Value of Royal Jelly Samples Obtained from Honey Bee (Apis mellifera) Hives Fed on Oak and Rapeseed Pollen Patties
Previous Article in Journal
Transcriptome-Wide Identification of Cytochrome P450s in Tea Black Tussock Moth (Dasychira baibarana) and Candidate Genes Involved in Type-II Sex Pheromone Biosynthesis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Insects
Volume 15
Issue 3
10.3390/insects15030140
insects-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Flight Dispersal in Supratidal Rockpool Beetles

by
Jorge Plaza-Buendía
1,
Juana María Mirón-Gatón
1,
Antonio José García-Meseguer
1,
Adrián Villastrigo
2,
Andrés Millán
1 and
Josefa Velasco
1,*
1
Ecology and Hydrology Department, University of Murcia, 30100 Murcia, Spain
2
Division of Entomology, SNSB- Bavarian State Collection of Zoology, 81247 Munich, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Insects 2024, 15(3), 140; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects15030140
Submission received: 17 January 2024 / Revised: 14 February 2024 / Accepted: 17 February 2024 / Published: 20 February 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Insect Ecology, Diversity and Conservation)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

We studied the flight dispersal of two congeneric beetle species (Ochthebius quadricollis and Ochthebius lejolisii) living in Mediterranean coastal rockpools; temporary and fragmented habitats with extreme environmental conditions (high salinity, high temperature, and strong desiccation). We used a multi-approach (experimental flying assays, wing morphology, and genetic markers) to measure flight capacity. We found that both species had similar flight behaviour, with most individuals flying when water was heated. Females had larger body sizes and wing areas and lower wing loading than males, which suggested higher dispersal capacity. The wing shape of both species was also shown to be an efficient adaptation to flight. However, the molecular data point to passive dispersal assisted by wind at small-to-medium spatial scales (<100 km).

Abstract

Flight dispersal is ecologically relevant for the survival of supratidal rockpool insects. Dispersal has important consequences for colonisation, gene flow, and evolutionary divergence. Here, we compared the flight dispersal capacity of two congeneric beetle species (Ochthebius quadricollis and Ochthebius lejolisii) that exclusively inhabit these temporary, fragmented, and extreme habitats. We estimated flight capacity and inferred dispersal in both species using different approaches: experimental flying assays, examination of wing morphology, and comparison of microsatellite markers between species. Our findings revealed that both species exhibited similar flight behaviour, with 60 to 80% of the individuals flying under water heating conditions. Notably, females of both species had larger body sizes and wing areas, along with lower wing loading, than males in O. quadricollis. These morphological traits are related to higher dispersal capacity and more energetically efficient flight, which could indicate a female-biassed dispersal pattern. The wing shapes of both species are characterised by relatively larger and narrower wings in relation to other species of the genus, suggesting high flight capacity at short distances. Molecular data revealed in both species low genetic divergences between neighbouring populations, non-significant differences between species, and no isolation by distance effect at the study scale (<100 km). These results point to passive dispersal assisted by wind.

1. Introduction

Dispersal ability, that is, the ability to move between different habitat patches, significantly influences the range and distribution of aquatic insects, especially in temporary habitats [1,2,3]. This trait has a crucial role in shaping the dynamic and genetic structure of species, impacting processes such as colonisation, gene flow, and evolutionary divergence [4,5,6]. Dispersal is also an essential process for metapopulation and metacommunity dynamics [7]. For species inhabiting isolated and temporary habitat patches, such as coastal supratidal rockpools, dispersal, whether active or passive, is especially relevant to avoid unfavourable environmental conditions, such as temporary desiccation, and colonise new habitats [1]. In insects with aquatic adults (i.e., water beetles and bugs), flight is a resilient survival strategy that enables them to withstand extended periods of drying by taking into the air and seeking more permanent water, thereby allowing habitat recolonisation and population recovery after water return or refilling [2,8]. Moreover, flight is the primary escape response under extreme environmental stressors [8], triggered by elevated air temperatures [9,10,11] and decreasing water levels [12].
Flight dispersal, a complex trait encompassing rate, distance, distribution, and timing, is challenging to study directly. Although direct measures of flight dispersal can be achieved in the field (e.g., mark-release-recapture methods, see [13,14]), this method presents serious difficulties for small organisms and species travelling long distances. In such cases, indirect measurements based on wing morphology serve as reliable insights into flight performance [15]. Key wing characteristics, including length, width, and area, are closely linked to flight dispersal capacity [16]. Several studies on different insect orders have explored wing loading (body mass to wing area ratio) and wing aspect ratio (wing length to wing width ratio), e.g., [15,16,17,18,19,20]. Low wing loading correlates with superior flight capacity, as larger wings per unit of weight demand less energy for a given flight distance [15,21,22]. Aspect ratio, reflecting wing shape, significantly influences speed and manoeuvrability, with longer and more slender wings associated with higher acceleration capacity [22] and faster flying, as seen in dipterans and odonatans [23]. However, insects with lower aspect ratios (shorter, more rounded wings) exhibit slower flights but greater manoeuvrability, as observed in most lepidopterans [24,25]. Recognising differences in wing morphology between males and females has been considered as indicative of sex-biassed dispersal, a prevalent phenomenon in insects with significant demographic, ecological, and genetic implications, e.g., [18,20,22,26].
Another approach for indirectly estimating dispersal involves genetic methods, such as biparentally inherited markers like microsatellites, that offer great sensitivity to recent genetic flow and provide contemporary estimates of dispersal [27,28]. Analysing pairwise fixation index (FST) alongside geographical distance can also reveal patterns of population connectivity. In this context, populations in proximity should exhibit higher connectivity and gene flow than more distant populations (i.e., a classical isolation-by-distance model, see [29].
Coastal supratidal rockpools are characterised by great physical and chemical variability on a daily and seasonal basis [30,31,32]. During the summer drying phase, aquatic animals are exposed to high levels of ultraviolet light, elevated temperatures, salinity fluctuations, pH variation, oxygen concentration changes, and rapid water depletion [28,32,33]. These extreme and fluctuating conditions restrict the biota to a handful of species [34]. Notably, certain beetle species from the genus Ochthebius (Coleoptera, Hydraenidae) exclusively inhabit these challenging habitats (see [35]). Two species, Ochthebius quadricollis Mulsant and Ochthebius lejolisii Mulsant and Rey, characterised by their wide distributions spanning the Atlantic and Mediterranean coasts, can coexist in the same localities, including the same rockpools along the southern and south-eastern Mediterranean Iberian coastline [28]. Both species are macropterous with flight capabilities and can move locally among pools by either flying or walking when environmental conditions are unfavourable [11,36,37].
Although flight dispersal among pools (also under laboratory conditions) has been observed in Ochthebius species [11], the potential for flight dispersal over larger spatial scales (tens to hundreds of kilometres) may be limited by their very small size (approximately 2 mm). Nevertheless, this limitation can be mitigated by utilising physical and biological agents. Coastal Ochthebius may passively disperse via the transport of eggs by endo- and epizoochory with seabirds that frequently occur in rockpools, although no cases of phoresy have been documented in these species [38]. However, passive dispersal through marine currents may be the main method by which these insects disperse as marine plankton over medium to large spatial scales [38,39,40]. Therefore, the population genetic structure of the two Ochthebius species was predicted from the general circulation pattern of Mediterranean marine currents and associated oceanic fronts [38]. On the other hand, flight assisted by wind is frequent in small, weekly flying insects [41], and wind direction significantly modulates flying aquatic invertebrate biodiversity and metacommunity organisation [42,43,44]. However, their contribution to the genetic structure of supratidal Ochthebius species is still unknown. Active flight, whether unassisted or aided by wind, is likely to play an important role in short-distance dispersal. However, information regarding their flight capacities or the occurrence of sex-biassed dispersal is lacking for inhabitants of these environments, where both sexes are exposed equally to extreme conditions.
Here, by using different and complementary approaches (flight experimental tests, wing morphology, and molecular markers), we aim to: (1) assess and compare the flight behaviour and capacity of two congeneric supratidal rockpool species, O. quadricollis and O. lejolisii; (2) discern sex-diferences in wing morphology related to flight performance; and (3) evaluate the congruence between the different outcomes obtained from the various methods employed. We expect to see wing morphology differences between species and sexes related to their flight capacity, which should be reflected in interspecific differences in the genetic divergence (FST) at a small scale (less than 100 km). Despite the apparent limited contribution of flight to the overall larger-scale genetic structure of these beetles, we aim to explore whether flight capacity can still be considered a predictor of genetic connectivity at a short-distance scale.

2. Methods

2.1. Flight Behaviour

We used an experimental approach to explore flight avoidance response to warming in the studied Ochthebius species, O. quadricollis and O. lejolisii. Both species show significant morphological differences that make it easy to distinguish them using a stereomicroscope. O. lejolisii is mainly characterised by the rugose surface and the serrate edge of the elytra, non-splitted labrum, sorted legs, and the elytra tip without forming an inner angle. In contrast, O. quadricollis has smooth elytra without serration, significantly longer legs than O. lejolisii, and a markedly bilobed labrum.
Alive adults from two coastal rockpool locations in Murcia (Spain) were collected: Cala Reona (37°37′04″ N 0°42′47″ W) for O. quadricollis and Isla Plana (37°34′29″ N 1°12′56″ W) for O. lejolisii (Figure 1). These specimens were transported to the laboratory in small, aerated aquaria containing 2–3 cm of seawater and filter paper as a substrate.
In the laboratory, the specimens underwent a 7-day acclimation period at a temperature of 20 °C and a salinity of 90 gL−1 under a 12-h light and 12-h dark cycle within a climate chamber (Sanyo MLR-351). For each species, 10 acclimated specimens (without being identified by their sex) were randomly allocated to experimental aquaria. Each of these aquaria contained 100 mL of 90 gL−1 salt solution and an artificial stone that was partially submerged to facilitate the emergence and flight of individuals, thus helping them avoid stressful conditions (Figure 2). These aquaria were placed in a temperature-controlled water bath, and the temperature was increasing at a rate of 1 °C/min, starting at 20 °C and ending at 45 °C. The temperature gradient tested represents a range from the species’ habitual temperatures (20–35 °C) to extreme temperatures (>45 °C), which are close to the upper lethal limits recorded for these species [11]. Each species trial was replicated in three independent aquaria.
During the exposure period, individuals who flew or died and the corresponding water temperature were recorded (Table S1). To assess interspecific differences, we conducted an ANOVA in R software, version 4.2.2 [45], on the total number of individuals who flew and the count within the 5 °C temperature intervals along the ascending temperature gradient. We did not determine the sex of the specimens that flew since they could not be captured.

2.2. Wing Morphology

To assess the flight capacity of both species and sexes, we used wing loading (elytron length/wing area) and wing aspect ratio (wing length/wing width) measures. Elytral length served as a proxy for body mass [19], considering the small size of both species (approximately 2 mm) and the impossibility of obtaining the individual weight accurately. Adult specimens collected in the same localities as those used in the flight behaviour experiments were kept dried in the freezer to kill and preserve them. To determine the sex of each specimen, we placed them in a Petri dish with 70% ethanol and then observed them under a Leica S9E stereomicroscope (Leica Microsystems GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany), looking at the shape of the last abdominal ventrite, which is different in males and females. Subsequently, the right elytron and wing of each beetle were extracted and mounted on a glass slide, with the thoracic insertion pointing to the left. We used a 50% dimethyl hydantoin formaldehyde solution (DMHF) for mounting, dipping the wing and elytron into two drops. The wing was then covered with a coverslip, and the elytron was left immersed in the uncovered DMHF drop to avoid potential damage from the coverslip. For each species, 15 male and 15 female specimens were prepared and photographed using a Leica M165C stereomicroscope (Leica Microsystems GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany), equipped with an integrated camera. The microscope settings included a fixed zoom of 1.65 and 10× eyepieces. Images were imported into the ImageJ software, v1.53 [46], to measure the maximum length of each elytron, the maximum length, the maximum width, and the area of each wing (Figure 3). Elytron length, wing area, and both ratios were analysed by an ANOVA in R software, v.4.2.2 [45], with species as the fixed factor and sex as the nested factor. The post-hoc Tukey test was performed for pairwise comparisons.

2.3. Microsatellites

To infer species flight dispersal, we used microsatellite markers through direct comparison of FST values between neighbouring populations located at a distance less than 100 km. Our analysis focused on 15 localities on the coast of the Iberian Peninsula where O. quadricollis and O. lejolisii coexist (Table S1). For each species, five randomly selected specimens per locality were sequenced using nine microsatellite markers (SSR) designed separately for each subgenus [47]. To minimise interferences between markers, we conducted two PCR reactions per species, distributing five markers in one and four in the other. Loci detection was performed using GeneMapper v.5 software [48], and a minimum quality criterion of presence in the samples was established, leaving 6 markers for each species (Table S2). Genetic distances were calculated using the FST method of Weir and Cockerham [49] for diploid genomes. The analysis was conducted with the ‘hierfstat’ package [50] in R software, v.4.2.2 [45]. We used the permutation Welch paired t-test to analyse interspecific differences in FST values (9999 Monte Carlo permutations) with the vegan package [51] libraries “MKinfer” and “jmuOutlier.” Confidence intervals (95%) for pairwise FST estimates were determined through bootstrapping across loci (100 bootstrap samples).
To explore the isolation-distance effect in each species, pairwise FST values were linearised by utilising the regression method proposed by Rousset [52]. The linearised FST values were then visualised alongside logarithmically transformed euclidean geographical distance between populations in R [45] using the ggplot2 package [53] and its extension ggpmisc [54], adjusting both variables with a linear model.

3. Results

3.1. Flight Behaviour

Both species showed flight dispersal behaviour in response to heating (Figure 4), with approximately 60 to 80% of the total individuals tested (n = 10) taking flight and the rest died. No significant differences were found between the two species in terms of the total number of individuals that flew during the exposure period (F = 0.046, p = 0.831) or across temperature intervals (Table 1, Figure 4).

3.2. Wing Morphology

Elytron length showed significant differences between species and sexes (Figure 5A, Table 2). In both species, females were found to be larger than males, with O. lejolisii being larger than O. quadricollis. Additionally, females of both species have a larger wing area than males, although no significant differences were observed between species for each sex (Figure 5B). The aspect ratio of the wings remained similar across species and sexes (Figure 5C). However, wing loading differed significantly between species, with O. quadricollis exhibiting, on average, lower wing loading than O. lejolisii. Moreover, in O. quadricollis, females have lower wing loading than males, while O. lejolisii did not show significant differences between sexes (Figure 5D).

3.3. Genetic Divergences

Overall, in both species, small genetic divergences were observed across all locality pairs, as outlined in Table 3. Notably, instances of panmixia were identified, indicated by non-significantly different FST values from 0, regardless of geographic distance within the studied scale. For example, Cala Panizo and Cala de las Conchas, separated by less than 5 km and Cala Panizo and Punta del Cocedor, separated by over 98 km, exhibited panmixia. O. quadricollis showed a slightly greater mean FST (0.03780) than O. lejolisii (0.01642) (Table 3), although that difference was not significant (t = 1.2504, df = 27.901, p value = 0.2215). The linear model assessing pairwise FST and geographical distance did not reveal a significant correlation for either species (p value > 0.237), with similar FST values regardless of the geographical distance compared and indicating no significant association between genetic differentiation and distance (Figure 6). Confidence intervals overlapped for both species.

4. Discussion

Our laboratory experiments revealed a pronounced and similar flight response in both studied Ochthebius species when exposed to adverse heating, mirroring the environmental conditions often encountered in their natural habitat. While our study did not find a significant effect of temperature on flight, a previous study reported that both O. quadricollis and O. lejolisii exhibited temperature thresholds for avoidance responses generally lower than 40 °C [11]. Increasing flight activity with rising temperatures under controlled laboratory conditions was observed in other congeneric saline species, such as Ochthebius glaber Montes and Soler and Ochthebius notabilis Rosenhauer [10]. Although we did not observe significant differences in flight response between the two species under the laboratory conditions tested, Mirón-Gatón et al. [11] reported a higher tendency for walking avoidance in O. lejolisii at lower temperature stress compared with O. quadricollis (35.62 versus 38.42 °C, respectively). This difference aligns with their distinct thermal tolerance and microhabitat preferences, where O. lejolisii favours smaller, shallower pools located further from the coast and prone to drying out, while O. quadricollis prefers larger, deeper pools near the sea [28]. Moreover, O. lejolisii demonstrates adaptive behaviours, such as walking away from the pool or seeking refuge beneath sediment or rock crevices [11]. Both species displayed sexual dimorphism concerning their dispersal capacity, with females exhibiting larger bodies (measured as elytron length) and wing area. These sex-related variations in body size and wing morphology can impact flight capacity, with larger insects known for greater energy storage and the ability to cover longer distances [55,56]. Furthermore, lower wing loading, associated with more energetically efficient flight [16,21,22,57], was also observed in females, particularly in O. quadricollis, these being probably the best dispersers. Interestingly, both species and sexes shared similar wing aspect ratios, indicating higher (longer and narrower wings) ratios compared with other beetle species typically found in inland saline habitats, including those within the genus Ochthebius (O. glaber and O. notabilis, Pallarés et al., unpublished data) and species from the Enochrus bicolor group [19], as well as Corixidae species [20].
For small insects similar in size to Ochthebius (like fruit flies), the Reynolds number for wing motion is generally low [58], mainly due to the prevalence of laminar flow around the wings. This suggests that the wing morphology of the studied Ochthebius species is more suited for wind-assisted gliding than continuous fast-flapping, favouring an energy-efficient active flight [17].
Dispersal costs and benefits are often asymmetric between sexes, leading to sex-biassed dispersal [59]. The timing of dispersal relative to mating is often of crucial importance [60,61,62,63,64]. Pre-dispersal mating favours female-biassed dispersal, while post-dispersal mating favours male-biassed dispersal [61]. In addition, the evolution of female-biassed dispersal seems to be favoured by the fluctuating environment [60]. Therefore, in the case of the studied Ochthebius species, the high temporality of the rockpools could favour female-biassed dispersal.
Our behavioural and morphological results imply that rockpool beetle species have a high likelihood of survival in pools exposed to drying through active flight dispersal at local and small spatial scales (a few km). However, due to their small size, flight assisted by wind becomes more probable at larger scales (tens to a hundred km), as observed in experimental release-and-recapture experiments with tiny fruit flies [14]. While the isolation by distance scenario did not yield statistically significant results, the observed low FST values suggest high population connectivity at the studied spatial scale that may provide partial support to the stepping-stone mechanism [65]. This mechanism could be crucial for the dispersal success and population persistence of Ochthebius. The absence of a detectable influence of distance may be attributed to either a recent range expansion or a notable homogenising effect of gene flow related to dispersal [29]. Notably, a recent expansion into the Mediterranean has been previously suggested for O. lejolisii, a species initially considered restricted to the Atlantic Sea [39]. At a larger spatial scale (hundreds of km), Villastrigo et al. [38], using other molecular markers (COI and wingless), found a lack of significant relationships between genetic and geographical distance, suggesting that additional factors played a more important role in the genetic structure of Ochthebius populations, such as oceanic currents. The lack of concordance between the genetic divergences and the identified morphological variations among species and sexes in relation to their flight capacities may suggest a potential influence of wind currents at smaller spatial scales. This opens the possibility of contrasting passive dispersal mechanisms operating at different spatial scales. Additional research is required to elucidate the role of wind in their dispersal and its broader implications for the genetic structure, as well as the pattern of sex-biassed dispersal by flight in supratidal Ochthebius species.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/insects15030140/s1, Table S1: Sampled localities (ordered from north to south) and number of analysed individuals of each species by sex; Table S2: Details and sequences of selected loci of O. lejolissi and O. quadricollis from García-Meseguer et al. [47] for FST calculation.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.V.; Methodology, J.P.-B., J.M.M.-G., A.J.G.-M. and A.V.; Validation and Formal Analysis, A.J.G.-M., J.M.M.-G., A.V. and J.P.-B.; Investigation, J.P.-B., J.M.M.-G., A.J.G.-M., A.V., A.M. and J.V.; Resources, A.M. and J.V.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, J.P.-B. and J.V.; Writing Review and Editing, J.P.-B., J.M.M.-G., A.J.G.-M., A.V., A.M. and J.V.; Project Administration and Funding Acquisition, J.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by Excellence Research Project CGL2017-84157P (Josefa Velasco) funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and by “ERDF A way of making Europe”. J.P.B., A.J.G.-M. (both FPI programmes), and J.M.M.-G. (FPU programme) are supported by predoctoral grants.

Data Availability Statement

All data produced in this study are available through the main text and the Supplementary Materials.

Acknowledgments

We thank María Botella, Susana Pallarés, and Pedro Abellán for field assistance; Obdulia Sánchez and Irene Muñoz for helping with laboratory genetic work; Cayetano Gutiérrez for statistical analysis support; and the team in the scientific imaging services of the ACTI (University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain) for helpful assistance with the morphometric analyses.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Lake, P.S. Drought and Aquatic Ecosystems: Effects and Responses|Wiley; Wiley-Blackwell: Chichester, UK, 2011; ISBN 978-1-4051-8560-8. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bogan, M.T.; Chester, E.T.; Datry, T.; Murphy, A.L.; Robson, B.J.; Ruhi, A.; Stubbington, R.; Whitney, J.E. Chapter 4.8—Resistance, Resilience, and Community Recovery in Intermittent Rivers and Ephemeral Streams. In Intermittent Rivers and Ephemeral Streams; Datry, T., Bonada, N., Boulton, A., Eds.; Academic Press: London, UK, 2017; pp. 349–376. ISBN 978-0-12-803835-2. [Google Scholar]
  3. Washko, S.; Bogan, M.T. Global Patterns of Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Dispersal and Functional Feeding Traits in Aridland Rock Pools. Front. Environ. Sci. 2019, 7, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Prugnolle, F.; De Meeûs, T.; Prugnolle, F.; De Meeus, T. Inferring Sex-Biased Dispersal from Population Genetic Tools: A Review. Heredity 2002, 88, 161–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Trochet, A.; Courtois, E.; Stevens, V.; Baguette, M.; Chaine, A.; Schmeller, D.; Jean, C.; Wiens, J. Evolution of Sex-Biased Dispersal. Q. Rev. Biol. 2016, 91, 297–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Longing, S.; Magoulick, D. Flight Capacity and Response to Habitat Drying of Endemic Diving Beetles (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) in Arkansas (USA). Hydrobiology 2023, 2, 354–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bogan, M.T.; Boersma, K.S. Aerial Dispersal of Aquatic Invertebrates along and Away from Arid-Land Streams. Freshw. Sci. 2012, 31, 1131–1144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Strachan, S.; Chester, E.; Robson, B. Freshwater Invertebrate Life History Strategies for Surviving Desiccation. Springer Sci. Rev. 2015, 3, 57–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Zalom, F.G.; Grigarick, A.A.; Way, M.O. Diel Flight Periodicities of Some Dytiscidae (Coleoptera) Associated with California Rice Paddies. Ecol. Entomol. 1980, 5, 183–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Pallarés, S.; Arribas, P.; Céspedes, V.; Millán, A.; Velasco, J. Lethal and Sublethal Behavioural Responses of Saline Water Beetles to Acute Heat and Osmotic Stress. Ecol. Entomol. 2012, 37, 508–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mirón-Gatón, J.M.; Botella-Cruz, M.; García-Meseguer, A.J.; Millán, A.; Velasco, J. Thermal Tolerance Differs between Co-Occurring Congeneric Beetle Species in Marine Supratidal Rockpools. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2022, 681, 185–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Velasco, J.; Millan, A. Insect Dispersal in a Drying Desert Stream: Effects of Temperature and Water Loss. Southwest. Nat. 1998, 43, 80–87. [Google Scholar]
  13. Svensson, B.W. Local Dispersal and Its Life-History Consequences in a Rock Pool Population of a Gyrinid Beetle. Oikos 1998, 82, 111–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Leitch, K.J.; Ponce, F.V.; Dickson, W.B.; van Breugel, F.; Dickinson, M.H. The Long-Distance Flight Behavior of Drosophila Supports an Agent-Based Model for Wind-Assisted Dispersal in Insects. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2021, 118, e2013342118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Martínez-Pérez, S.; Galante, E.; Micó, E. Sex Specificity of Dispersal Behaviour and Flight Morphology Varies among Tree Hollow Beetle Species. Mov. Ecol. 2022, 10, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Gibb, H.; Hjältén, J.; Ball, J.P.; Pettersson, R.B.; Landin, J.; Alvini, O.; Danell, K. Wing Loading and Habitat Selection in Forest Beetles: Are Red-Listed Species Poorer Dispersers or More Habitat-Specific than Common Congenerics? Biol. Conserv. 2006, 132, 250–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hoffsten, P.-O. Site-Occupancy in Relation to Flight-Morphology in Caddisflies. Freshw. Biol. 2004, 49, 810–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Breuker, C.; Brakefield, P.; Gibbs, M. The Association between Wing Morphology and Dispersal Is Sex-Specific in the Glanville Fritillary Butterfly Melitaea Cinxia (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Eur. J. Entomol. 2007, 104, 445–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Arribas, P.; Velasco, J.; Abellán, P.; Sánchez-Fernández, D.; Andújar, C.; Calosi, P.; Millán, A.; Ribera, I.; Bilton, D. Dispersal Ability Rather than Ecological Tolerance Drives Differences in Range Size between Lentic and Lotic Water Beetles (Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae). J. Biogeogr. 2012, 39, 984–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Carbonell, J.A.; Millán, A.; Green, A.J.; Céspedes, V.; Coccia, C.; Velasco, J. What Traits Underpin the Successful Establishment and Spread of the Invasive Water Bug Trichocorixa Verticalis Verticalis? Hydrobiologia 2016, 768, 273–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wainwright, P.C.; Reilly, S.M. (Eds.) Ecological Morphology: Integrative Organismal Biology; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1994; ISBN 978-0-226-86995-7. [Google Scholar]
  22. Berwaerts, K.; Van Dyck, H.; Aerts, P. Does Flight Morphology Relate to Flight Performance? An Experimental Test with the Butterfly Pararge Aegeria. Funct. Ecol. 2002, 16, 484–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Grabow, K.; Rüppell, G. Wing Loading in Relation to Size and Flight Characteristics of European Odonata. Odonatologica 1995, 24, 175–186. [Google Scholar]
  24. Betts, C.R.; Wootton, R.J. Wing Shape and Flight Behaviour in Butterflies (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea and Hesperioidea): A Preliminary Analysis. J. Exp. Biol. 1988, 138, 271–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Devries, P.; Penz, C.; Hill, R. Vertical Distribution, Flight Behaviour and Evolution of Wing Morphology in Morpho Butterflies. J. Anim. Ecol. 2010, 79, 1077–1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Shi, J.; Chen, F.; Keena, M.A. Differences in Wing Morphometrics of Lymantria Dispar (Lepidoptera: Erebidae) Between Populations That Vary in Female Flight Capability. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 2015, 108, 528–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Selkoe, K.A.; Toonen, R.J. Microsatellites for Ecologists: A Practical Guide to Using and Evaluating Microsatellite Markers. Ecol. Lett. 2006, 9, 615–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. García-Meseguer, A.J.; Abellán, P.; Mirón-Gatón, J.M.; Botella-Cruz, M.; Guareschi, S.; Millán, A.; Velasco, J. Fine-Scale Niche Differences Allow the Co-Existence of Congeneric Aquatic Beetles in Supratidal Rockpools. Hydrobiologia 2024, 851, 471–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Hutchison, D.W.; Templeton, A.R. Correlation of Pairwise Genetic and Geographic Distance Measures: Inferring the Relative Influences of Gene Flow and Drift on the Distribution of Genetic Variability. Evolution 1999, 53, 1898–1914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Margalef, R. Sobre la ecología de las larvas del mosquito Aëdes mariae. Publicaciones Inst. De Biol. Apl. 1949, 6, 83–101. [Google Scholar]
  31. Catalán, J.; Ballesteros, E. Contribución al estudio de las cubetas supralitorales (Tossa, Costa Brava). Limnetica 1984, 1, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ganning, B. Studies on Chemical, Physical and Biological Conditions in Swedish Rockpool Ecosystems. Ophelia 1971, 9, 51–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Denny, M.W.; Gaines, S.D. Encyclopedia of Tidepools and Rocky Shores, 1st ed.; Encyclopedias of the Natural World; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2007; ISBN 978-0-520-25118-2. [Google Scholar]
  34. Williams, D.D. The Biology of Temporary Waters; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2005; ISBN 978-0-19-852812-8. [Google Scholar]
  35. Villastrigo, A.; Hernando, C.; Millán, A. The Ochthebius (Coleoptera, Hydraenidae) from Western Palaearctic Supratidal Rockpools. Bol.—Asoc. Esp. Entomol. 2022, 4, 100–108. [Google Scholar]
  36. Hase, A. Zur Kenntnis Der Lebensgewohnheiten Und Der Umwelt Des Marinen Käfers Ochthebius Quadricollis Mulsant (Hydrophilidae). Int. Rev. Gesamten Hydrobiol. Hydrogr. 1926, 16, 141–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Jacquin, A. Recherches biologiques sur Ochthebius quadricollis Mulsant (Coléoptère: Hydrophilide). Bull. Société D’histoire Nat. L’afrique Nord. 1956, 47, 270–290. [Google Scholar]
  38. Villastrigo, A.; Orenes-Salazar, V.; García-Meseguer, A.J.; Mirón-Gatón, J.; Mourre, B.; Millán, A.; Velasco, J. Oceanic Currents Maintain the Genetic Structure of Non-Marine Coastal Taxa in the Western Mediterranean Sea. NPJ Biodivers. 2023, 2, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Villastrigo, A.; Bilton, D.T.; Abellán, P.; Millán, A.; Ribera, I.; Velasco, J. Cryptic Lineages, Cryptic Barriers: Historical Seascapes and Oceanic Fronts Drive Genetic Diversity in Supralittoral Rockpool Beetles (Coleoptera: Hydraenidae). Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 2022, 196, zlac032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bilton, D.T. Differentiation of South African Coastal Rock Pool Ochthebius Is Associated with Major Ocean Currents (Coleoptera: Hydraenidae). Acta Entomol. Musei Natl. Pragae 2021, 61, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kelly, L.C.; Bilton, D.T.; Rundle, S.D. Population Structure and Dispersal in the Canary Island Caddisfly Mesophylax Aspersus (Trichoptera, Limnephilidae). Heredity 2001, 86, 370–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Bertin, A.; Alvarez, E.; Gouin, N.; Gianoli, E.; Montecinos, S.; Lek, S.; Gascoin, S.; Lhermitte, S. Effects of Wind-Driven Spatial Structure and Environmental Heterogeneity on High-Altitude Wetland Macroinvertebrate Assemblages with Contrasting Dispersal Modes. Freshw. Biol. 2015, 60, 297–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Juračka, P.J.; Dobiáš, J.; Boukal, D.S.; Šorf, M.; Beran, L.; Černý, M.; Petrusek, A. Spatial Context Strongly Affects Community Composition of Both Passively and Actively Dispersing Pool Invertebrates in a Highly Heterogeneous Landscape. Freshw. Biol. 2019, 64, 2093–2106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Epele, L.B.; Dos Santos, D.A.; Sarremejane, R.; Grech, M.G.; Macchi, P.A.; Manzo, L.M.; Miserendino, M.L.; Bonada, N.; Cañedo-Argüelles, M. Blowin’ in the Wind: Wind Directionality Affects Wetland Invertebrate Metacommunities in Patagonia. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2021, 30, 1191–1203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. 2023. Available online: https://www.R-project.org (accessed on 2 February 2024).
  46. Rasband, W.S. ImageJ; U.S. National Institutes of Health: Bethesda, MD, USA, 1997–2018. Available online: https://imagej.net/ij/ (accessed on 2 February 2024).
  47. García-Meseguer, A.J.; Villastrigo, A.; Mirón-Gatón, J.M.; Millán, A.; Velasco, J.; Muñoz, I. Novel Microsatellite Loci, Cross-Species Validation of Multiplex Assays, and By-Catch Mitochondrial Genomes on Ochthebius Beetles from Supratidal Rockpools. Insects 2023, 14, 881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Applied Biosystems. GeneMapper Software v.5. Applied Biosystems™. Waltham, MA, USA. Available online: https://www.thermofisher.com/order/catalog/product/es/es/4370784 (accessed on 2 February 2024).
  49. Weir, B.S.; Cockerham, C.C. Estimating F-Statistics for the Analysis of Population Structure. Evolution 1984, 38, 1358–1370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Goudet, J. Hierfstat, a Package for r to Compute and Test Hierarchical F-Statistics. Mol. Ecol. Notes 2005, 5, 184–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Oksanen, J.; Simpson, G.L.; Blanchet, F.G.; Kindt, R.; Legendre, P.; Minchin, P.R.; O’Hara, R.B.; Solymos, P.; Stevens, M.H.H.; Szoecs, E.; et al. Vegan: Community Ecology Package 2022. Available online: https://github.com/vegandevs/vegan (accessed on 16 February 2024).
  52. Rousset, F. Genetic Differentiation and Estimation of Gene Flow from F-Statistics under Isolation by Distance. Genetics 1997, 145, 1219–1228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Wickham, H. Ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis, 2nd ed.; Use R! Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; ISBN 978-3-319-24277-4. [Google Scholar]
  54. Aphalo, P. Learn R…as You Learnt Your Mother Tongue; Leanpub: Victoria, BC, Canada, 2017; Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304581791 (accessed on 16 February 2024).
  55. Dingle, H.; Arora, G. Experimental Studies of Migration in Bugs of the Genus Dysdercus. Oecologia 1973, 12, 119–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Dingle, H.; Blakley, N.R.; Miller, E.R. Variation in Body Size and Flight Performance in Milkweed Bugs (Oncopeltus). Evolution 1980, 34, 371–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Angelo, M.J.; Slansky, F. Body Building by Insects: Trade-Offs in Resource Allocation with Particular Reference to Migratory Species. Fla. Entomol. 1984, 67, 22–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Cheng, X.; Sun, M. Wing-Kinematics Measurement and Aerodynamics in a Small Insect in Hovering Flight. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 25706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Li, X.-Y.; Kokko, H. Sex-Biased Dispersal: A Review of the Theory. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 2019, 94, 721–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Hirota, T. The Evolution of Sex-Biased Dispersal by Pre-Dispersal Copulation and Fluctuating Environment. J. Anim. Ecol. 2004, 73, 1115–1120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Hirota, T. The Effect of Female Polyandry and Sperm Precedence on the Evolution of Sexual Difference in Dispersal Timing. J. Evol. Biol. 2005, 18, 1395–1402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Wild, G.; Taylor, P. Kin Selection Models for the Co-Evolution of the Sex Ratio and Sex-Specific Dispersal. Evol. Ecol. Res. 2004, 6, 481–502. [Google Scholar]
  63. Shaw, A.K.; Kokko, H. Mate Finding, Allee Effects and Selection for Sex-Biased Dispersal. J. Anim. Ecol. 2014, 83, 1256–1267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Henry, R.C.; Coulon, A.; Travis, J.M.J. The Evolution of Male-Biased Dispersal under the Joint Selective Forces of Inbreeding Load and Demographic and Environmental Stochasticity. Am. Nat. 2016, 188, 423–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Rocha, É.; Brigatti, E.; Niebuhr, B.; Ribeiro, M.; Vieira, M. Dispersal Movement through Fragmented Landscapes: The Role of Stepping Stones and Perceptual Range. Landsc. Ecol. 2021, 36, 3249–3267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Insects 15 00140 g001
Figure 1. Supratidal rockpool locations used for species collection: (A) Isla Plana; and (B) Cala Reona, Murcia, Spain.
Figure 1. Supratidal rockpool locations used for species collection: (A) Isla Plana; and (B) Cala Reona, Murcia, Spain.
Insects 15 00140 g001
Insects 15 00140 g002
Figure 2. Experimental setup comprising aquaria placed within a water bath under controlled temperatures for flying assays. Each aquaria contained a partially submerged stone to facilitate emergence of individuals from water and dry wings before flying.
Figure 2. Experimental setup comprising aquaria placed within a water bath under controlled temperatures for flying assays. Each aquaria contained a partially submerged stone to facilitate emergence of individuals from water and dry wings before flying.
Insects 15 00140 g002
Insects 15 00140 g003
Figure 3. Habitus of Ochthebius lejolisii (A) and Ochthebius quadricollis (B), and morphometric measurements made in the right elytron of O. quadricollis (C, maximum length in red) and in the membranous wing (D, perimeter in red, maximum length in black, and maximum width in blue). The same measurements were performed for O. lejolisii.
Figure 3. Habitus of Ochthebius lejolisii (A) and Ochthebius quadricollis (B), and morphometric measurements made in the right elytron of O. quadricollis (C, maximum length in red) and in the membranous wing (D, perimeter in red, maximum length in black, and maximum width in blue). The same measurements were performed for O. lejolisii.
Insects 15 00140 g003
Insects 15 00140 g004
Figure 4. Mean number of individuals flying (+SE) of Ochthebius quadricollis and O. lejolisii in the experimental trial of increasing temperature (n = 10).
Figure 4. Mean number of individuals flying (+SE) of Ochthebius quadricollis and O. lejolisii in the experimental trial of increasing temperature (n = 10).
Insects 15 00140 g004
Insects 15 00140 g005
Figure 5. Box plots of the elytron lenght (A) and wing metrics (B–D) in the studied Ochthebius species. Box plots depict the minimum, first quartile, median, third quartile, and maximum, with outliers depicted as small circles. Bars with different letters mark significant differences in the pairwise Tukey test (p < 0.05).
Figure 5. Box plots of the elytron lenght (A) and wing metrics (B–D) in the studied Ochthebius species. Box plots depict the minimum, first quartile, median, third quartile, and maximum, with outliers depicted as small circles. Bars with different letters mark significant differences in the pairwise Tukey test (p < 0.05).
Insects 15 00140 g005
Insects 15 00140 g006
Figure 6. Plot of the relationship between geographical distance and linearised FST index for the studied species in a small spatial scale (<100 km). Linear tendencies, equations and confidence intervals are shown.
Figure 6. Plot of the relationship between geographical distance and linearised FST index for the studied species in a small spatial scale (<100 km). Linear tendencies, equations and confidence intervals are shown.
Insects 15 00140 g006
Table 1. ANOVA results of the effect of temperature and species and their interaction on the flight behaviour of the study Ochthebius species.
Table 1. ANOVA results of the effect of temperature and species and their interaction on the flight behaviour of the study Ochthebius species.
DfSumSq MeanSq F valuePr(>F)
temperature interval514.222.8441.3840.265
species10.110.1110.0540.818
temperature × species517.893.5781.7410.164
Residuals2449.332.056
Table 2. ANOVA results of the effect of species and sex in the elytron and wing metrics on the studied Ochthebius species. In bold are significant p-values.
Table 2. ANOVA results of the effect of species and sex in the elytron and wing metrics on the studied Ochthebius species. In bold are significant p-values.
DfSum SqMean SqF Valuep Value
Elytron length
species10.182660.1826634.5692.38 × 10−7
sex 20.093680.046848.8640.000452
residuals560.295900.00528
Wing area
species10.05160.051552.760.102
sex 20.51780.2589113.861.29 × 10−5
residuals561.04600.01868
Aspect ratio
species10.000870.000860.1860.668
sex 20.003350.001600.3590.700
residuals560.261050.00466
Wing loading
species10.018030.018034.1090.047416
sex 20.074270.037138.4620.000615
residuals560.245760.00439
Table 3. Pairwise FST estimates and 95% confidence intervals obtained from the six microsatellite markers for each species between neighbouring localities (<100 km) on the western Mediterranean coast.
Table 3. Pairwise FST estimates and 95% confidence intervals obtained from the six microsatellite markers for each species between neighbouring localities (<100 km) on the western Mediterranean coast.
Pairwise FST Estimates
LocalityLocalityGeographic
Distance (km)		Ochthebius quadricollisOchthebius
lejolisii
MorairaLa Illeta52.400.02339
(0.01107–0.03412)		0.01145
(−0.00155–0.03216)
La IlletaSanta Pola28.510.02796
(−0.00371–0.05866)		0.06467
(0.00333–0.11443)
Santa PolaPunta del Cocedor53.070.00384
(−0.01610–0.02746)		0.03286
(0.00993–0.05025)
Punta del CocedorCala de las Pulgas72.690.04370
(0.01784–0.07344)		0.02569
(−0.01268–0.08342)
Punta del CocedorCala Panizo98.310.02638
(−0.00920–0.08267)		−0.02076
(−0.03394–−0.01145)
Cala PanizoPercheles36.740.00377
(−0.03225–0.03935)		0.06962
(−0.05322–0.17334)
PerchelesCala de las Pulgas10.390.03841
(0.00829–0.07813)		0.14545
(0.04615–0.23690)
Cala de las PulgasCala Panizo26.140.02399
(−0.00029–0.04641)		0.01738
(−0.02107–0.06049)
Cala PanizoCala Conchas4.74−0.01105
(−0.02868–0.01554)		−0.03440
(−0.11121–0.02991)
Cala ConchasEl Playazo52.660.00901
(−0.01176–0.04150)		0.00000
(0.00000–0.00000)
Cala PanizoEl Playazo57.360.02174
(−0.00796–0.05468)		−0.04519
(−0.07066–−0.02616)
Cala RijanaVelilla24.610.15088
(0.11918–0.18392)		−0.00709
(−0.03338–0.01618)
Cala RijanaNerja44.300.13505
(0.09631–0.17350)		−0.01727
(−0.05207–0.01285)
VelillaNerja19.870.02605
(−0.00001–0.05432)		−0.00816
(−0.02670–0.00801)
Cala MillaIsla de las Palomas46.330.04396
(0.00614–0.08026)		0.01212
(−0.02171–0.03797)
Mean FST value0.037800.01642
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Plaza-Buendía, J.; Mirón-Gatón, J.M.; García-Meseguer, A.J.; Villastrigo, A.; Millán, A.; Velasco, J. Flight Dispersal in Supratidal Rockpool Beetles. Insects 2024, 15, 140. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects15030140

AMA Style

Plaza-Buendía J, Mirón-Gatón JM, García-Meseguer AJ, Villastrigo A, Millán A, Velasco J. Flight Dispersal in Supratidal Rockpool Beetles. Insects. 2024; 15(3):140. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects15030140

Chicago/Turabian Style

Plaza-Buendía, Jorge, Juana María Mirón-Gatón, Antonio José García-Meseguer, Adrián Villastrigo, Andrés Millán, and Josefa Velasco. 2024. "Flight Dispersal in Supratidal Rockpool Beetles" Insects 15, no. 3: 140. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects15030140

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop