| Literature DB >> 30822778 |
Juan A Morales-Ramos1, Hans C Kelstrup2, M Guadalupe Rojas1, Virginia Emery2.
Abstract
Efforts to improve rearing conditions of Tenebrio molitor L. (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) for insect biomass production included selecting for larger size pupae. The effects of an 8-yr continuous selection of T. molitor pupae for larger size were studied. Data consisting of daily counts and weights of pupae were analyzed using regression to determine the effects of selection over time. A preliminary evaluation of food conversion, growth, fecundity, and larval survival was done to compare ancestral versus selected strains. A significant positive correlation was identified between pupal size and time indicating a significant increase in pupal size over time in the selected T. molitor strain. A preliminary comparison of ancestral and selected strains showed significantly larger pupal size, growth rate, fecundity, and efficiency of conversion of ingested food in the selected strain. However, the selected strain also showed significantly lower larval survival than the ancestral strain. The low larval survival impacted the overall productivity of the selected strain resulting in no significant differences in biomass production when compared with the ancestral strain. The potential of using selection to improve biomass productivity in T. molitor is discussed. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Entomological Society of America 2019. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.Entities:
Keywords: biomass production; fecundity; food conversion; insect rearing; insects as feed and food
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30822778 PMCID: PMC6403474 DOI: 10.1093/jisesa/iey110
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Insect Sci ISSN: 1536-2442 Impact factor: 1.857
Fig. 1.Daily averages of pupal weight of T. molitor selected for larger size over a period of 8 yr. Circles represent means, the solid and dashed lines represent the linear and the quadratic regression models, respectively.
Parameter estimates of linear and quadratic models using raw data (daily averages) and 10-d and 30-d means of pupal weight versus time
| Data source/parameter | Estimate | Standard error |
| Probability |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Linear model ( | ||||
| Raw data ( | ||||
| Intercept | 101.13733 | 0.392624 | 257.59 | <0.0001 |
| Slope | 0.0242009 | 0.000223 | 108.4 | <0.0001 |
| 10-d means ( | ||||
| Intercept | 101.2278 | 1.075647 | 94.11 | <0.0001 |
| Slope | 0.2423529 | 0.006139 | 39.48 | <0.0001 |
| 30-d means ( | ||||
| Intercept | 101.51365 | 1.746939 | 58.11 | <0.0001 |
| Slope | 0.7255862 | 0.029884 | 24.28 | <0.0001 |
| Quadratic model ( | ||||
| Raw data ( | ||||
| Intercept | 97.965658 | 0.433107 | 226.19 | <0.0001 |
| | 0.0241913 | 0.000215 | 112.37 | <0.0001 |
| | 0.000004146 | 0.00000027 | 15.08 | <0.0001 |
| 10-d means ( | ||||
| Intercept | 98.019496 | 1.177711 | 83.23 | <0.0001 |
| | 0.2423816 | 0.005856 | 41.39 | <0.0001 |
| | 0.0004148 | 0.0000747 | 5.55 | <0.0001 |
| 30-d means ( | ||||
| Intercept | 98.450896 | 1.914942 | 51.41 | <0.0001 |
| | 0.7255862 | 0.028543 | 25.42 | <0.0001 |
| | 0.0035329 | 0.001084 | 3.26 | 0.0015 |
Fig. 2.Thirty-day means of pupal weight of T. molitor. Top: Circles represent means, and the solid and dashed lines represent the linear and the quadratic regression models, respectively. Bottom: The line shows the oscillating pattern of pupal weight over time.
Comparisons of pupal weight grouped by year since the start of pupal selection
| Year no. | Dates |
| Mean ± SEM | LS Mean ± SE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 25 Mar. 2010–24 Mar. 2011 | 353 | 106.6 ± 0.43 H | 106.3 ± 0.58 H |
| 1 | 25 Mar. 2011–23 Mar. 2012 | 364 | 116.6 ± 0.33 G | 115.1 ± 0.58 G |
| 2 | 24 Mar. 2012–23 Mar. 2013 | 365 | 126.3 ± 0.45 F | 124.3 ± 0.6 F |
| 3 | 24 Mar. 2013–23 Mar. 2014 | 349 | 130.7 ± 0.39 E | 131.8 ± 0.58 E |
| 4 | 24 Mar. 2014–23 Mar. 2015 | 365 | 132.9 ± 0.34 E | 133.3 ± 0.56 E |
| 5 | 24 Mar. 2015–22 Mar. 2016 | 365 | 145.6 ± 0.55 D | 146.1 ± 0.56 D |
| 6 | 23 Mar. 2016–22 Mar. 2017 | 365 | 160.4 ± 0.77 C | 161.7 ± 0.58 C |
| 7 | 23 Mar. 2017–22 Mar. 2018 | 361 | 171.3 ± 0.84 B | 173.1 ± 0.59 B |
| 8 | 23 Mar. 2018–20 July 2018 | 120 | 177.2 ± 0.86 A | 176.4 ± 0.98 A |
Means and LS means with the same letter are not significantly different at α = 0.05 after Tukey–Kramer HSD test.
Comparison of food utilization parameters and fecundity between ancestral and selected strains of T. molitor
| Variable | Stoneville | SEI |
| df 2 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Live weight gained (g) | 9.17 ± 0.07 | 8.49 ± 0.19 | 11.14 | 13 | 0.0053* |
| Food assimilation (%) | 24.25 ± 0.78 | 25.55 ± 1.92 | 0.687 | 13 | 0.4222 |
| ECI (%) | 6.2 ± 0.05 | 5.79 ± 0.13 | 7.8 | 13 | 0.0152* |
| ECA (%) | 25.76 ± 0.92 | 23.56 ± 1.75 | 2.27 | 13 | 0.1554 |
| Eggs produced | 780.65 ± 24.06 | 567.37 ± 17.58 | 48.2 | 320 | <0.0001* |
Means ± standard error of the mean; df 1 = 1 for GLM contrast; ECI = efficiency of conversion of ingested food; ECA = efficiency of conversion of assimilated food.
*Signifies highly significant differences.
Biomass gain and survival of ancestral (SEI) and selected (Stoneville) strains of T. molitor
| Mean ± SEM | LS mean ± SE | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age class | Stoneville | SEI | Stoneville | SEI | df 2 |
|
|
| Biomass gain | |||||||
| 1: 44–59 d | 4.5 ± 0.55 | 5.18 ± 0.98 | 4.55 ± 0.98 | 5.14 ± 0.81 | 67 | 0.21 | 0.6489 |
| 2: 60–79 d | 13.47 ± 1.61 | 16.86 ± 2.22 | 14.0 ± 1.48 | 16.09 ± 1.81 | 87 | 0.74 | 0.3907 |
| 3: 80–99 d | 19.18 ± 1.55 | 20.89 ± 1.88 | 17.79 ± 1.67 | 22.33 ± 1.71 | 102 | 3.41 | 0.0679 |
| 4: 100–120 d | 23.14 ± 1.87 | 22.57 ± 2.13 | 20.16 ± 1.62 | 25.55 ± 1.62 | 58 | 5.11 | 0.0276* |
| Larval survival | |||||||
| 1: 44–59 d | 0.191 ± 0.013 | 0.267 ± 0.011 | 0.192 ± 0.013 | 0.267 ± 0.011 | 68 | 19.39 | <0.0001* |
| 2: 60–69 d | 0.105 ± 0.007 | 0.242 ± 0.021 | 0.105 ± 0.012 | 0.242 ± 0.015 | 37 | 66.96 | <0.0001* |
*Signifies highly significant differences.