Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-05-28T13:16:06.115Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Utilisation of metabolic Water in Insects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

G. Fraenkel  and
M. Blewett
G. Fraenkel
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology and Applied Entomology, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London.
M. Blewett
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology and Applied Entomology, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

(1) Three insects, Tribolium confusum, Ephestia kuehniella and Dermestes vulpinus, have been grown at several humidities and the following factors have been determined: length of larval period; water content of food and of the freshly formed pupae; wet and dry weight of pupae and wet and dry weight of food consumed during larval development. The “net utilisation” of the food has been calculated as the ratio of dry weight of food eaten per larva to dry weight of pupa.

(2) At lower humidities more food is eaten to produce a given unit of body weight. The length of the larval period increases and the weight of the pupae decreases.

(3) More food is eaten at low humidities, because part of the food is utilised as water. As a consequence of this, the larva grows more slowly and its final size is smaller. It is shown for Dermestes at 30 per cent. and Ephestia at 1 per cent. R.H. that less than 32·9 and 7·6 per cent. of the water in the pupae can be derived from water ingested with the food.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , July 1944 , pp. 127 - 139
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1944

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

references

Ahmad, T. (1936). J. Anim. Ecol., 5, pp. 567–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babcock, S. M. (1912). Res. Bull. Wis. agric. Exp. Sta., no. 22, 181 pp.Google Scholar
Buxton, P. A. (1930). Proc. roy. Soc., (B) 106, pp. 560–577.Google Scholar
Buxton, P. A. (1931). Bull. ent. Res., 22, pp. 431–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buxton, P. A. (1932). Biol. Rev., 7, pp. 275–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraenkel, G. & Blewett, M. (1943 a). Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond., 93, pp. 457–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraenkel, G. (1943 b). J. exp. Biol., 20, pp. 28–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraenkel, G., Reid, J. A. & Blewett, M. (1941). Biochem. J., 35, pp. 712–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gay, F. J. (1938). J. exp. Zool., 79, pp. 93–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunn, D. L. & Cosway, C. A. (1942). J. exp. Biol., 19, pp. 124–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holdaway, F. G. (1932). Ecol. Monogr., 2, pp. 261–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kozhanchikov, I. V. (1934). C.R. Acad. Sci. URSS, 3, pp. 548–552.Google Scholar
Mellanby, K. (1932 a). Proc. roy Soc., (B) 111, pp. 376–390.Google Scholar
Mellanby, K. (1932 b). Parasitology 24, pp. 419–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellanby, K. (1934). Ann. appl. Biol., 21, pp. 476–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellanby, K. (1936 a). Bull. ent. Res., 27, pp. 611–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellanby, K. (1936 b). Nature, 138, pp. 124–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulz, F. N. (1930). Biochem. Z., 227, pp. 340–353.Google Scholar
Shohl, A. T. (1939). Mineral Metabolism. New York.Google Scholar
Auber, L. & Raymont, J. E. G. (1944). Nature, 153, p. 314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speicher, B. R. (1931). Proc. Penn. Acad. Sci., 5, 79.Google Scholar