Describe The Differences In The Field Cricket (Acheta Domestica)
Analyzing the differences in carbon dioxide output in the field cricket (Gryllus bimaculotus) and house cricket (Acheta domestica).
Discussion
In the experiment, the field cricket (Gryllus bimaculotus) and house cricket (Acheta domestica) were tested for their carbon dioxide output. The results showed that the field cricket produced significantly more carbon dioxide than the house cricket. As a species that flies, exists outdoors and is larger than the house cricket, it follows that the field cricket faces more challenges and requires a higher metabolic rate and therefore carbon dioxide output to sustain itself day after day.
Much of a cricket’s life consists of finding food. Where the house and field cricket differ in this aspect is in the fact that the latter is capable of flight, thus being able to move quickly to new food …show more content…
sources after their current one has been depleted. This emphasis on flight, what will be discussed as a reason for the difference in carbon dioxide output, is indicative of a difference in activity rates between both species. The metabolism required by an insect capable of flight needs to be sustained by a diet rich in nutrients as well as an increased density of mitochondria in areas relating to it (Reinhold 1999). This increased density of mitochondria means that the production of the waste products of cellular respiration is also increased and is what provides the field cricket with a higher carbon dioxide output compared to the house cricket.
Since not all members of a field cricket population fly, the crickets examined in the holding capsule may or may not have attempted to take flight, depending on the gender. Thus a larger difference in carbon dioxide output is indicative of the subject being a female field cricket. Such variations in physiology are most likely due to the natural selection of females that are able to quickly escape predators and keep their progeny out of harms way, an adaptation that the house cricket has no use for since its predators are limited in an indoor environment. This energetically demanding behavior is frequently touched upon in Bartholomew’s (1981) research proposing that if a species spends more energy on activity, they will have a higher Resting Metabolic Rate (RMR). Therefore, regardless if the female field cricket has attempted flight or not, she will continuously have a higher Resting Metabolic Rate, significantly increase her carbon dioxide output.
The house cricket tends to be approximately 10mm shorter than the field cricket.
By evolving in different environments and being exposed to different food supplies, it suggests that the environment and food supply that existed over multiple generations had an effect on present day cricket size (Gaston 1988). Due to the relatively large amount of organic material found in a field cricket’s immediate habitat (outdoors) versus the relatively small amount in that of a house cricket’s (indoors), it follows that the two species differ in size. Feeding on grasses, other insects and leaves compared to feeding on clothing, sweat, and other potentially edible material on the side of the house cricket, demonstrates how different food supplies contribute to general body size.
Cell growth and division is regulated by nutrition. In Nijhout’s (2003) research, he found that insulin signaling post-meal is a key mediator in the rate of growth of an insect’s internal organs. Following what Gaston’s research proposed, Nijhout (2003) also supports the notion that a higher food intake leads to a higher body mass and therefore a larger insect
size.
Harrison (2010) supports the notion suggested by Gaston; there are positive correlations between metabolic rates and activity and food intake, growth and thus carbon dioxide output. What this proposes is that in larger insects, spiracular openings are large as well. As the passage of respiration in both the field and house cricket, a larger spiracular opening means that there is a faster rate at which gasses and water lost needs to be replenished and therefore a higher resting metabolic rate and a higher rate of carbon dioxide production. Supported by Reichle’s (1968) study done in 1968, the energy lost to heat in larger spiralic openings is also indicative of metabolic rate and is another way to measure the energy differences in the field and house cricket.
The differences between the field and house cricket due to flight, habitat and size ultimately led to their differences in carbon dioxide output. The carbon dioxide output, when compared between the two species, ultimately demonstrated that the field cricket has a higher metabolic rate than the house cricket.
Literature Cited
Bartholomew, George A., David Vleck, and Carol M. Vleck. "Instantaneous measurements of oxygen consumption during pre-flight warm-up and post-flight cooling in sphingid and saturniid moths." Journal of Experimental Biology 90.1 (1981): 17-32.
Gaston, K. J. "The intrinsic rates of increase of insects of different sizes."Ecological Entomology 13.4 (1988): 399-409.
Harrison, Jon F., Alexander Kaiser, and John M. Vanden Brooks. "Atmospheric oxygen level and the evolution of insect body size." Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 277.1690 (2010): 1937-1946.
Nijhout, H. F. "The control of body size in insects." Developmental biology261.1 (2003): 1-9.
Reichle, David. "Relation of body size to food intake, oxygen consumption, and trace element metabolism in forest floor arthropods." Ecology 49.3 (1968): 538-542.
Reinhold, Klaus. "Energetically costly behaviour and the evolution of resting metabolic rate in insects." Functional Ecology 13.2 (1999): 217-224.
Discussion
In the experiment, the field cricket (Gryllus bimaculotus) and house cricket (Acheta domestica) were tested for their carbon dioxide output. The results showed that the field cricket produced significantly more carbon dioxide than the house cricket. As a species that flies, exists outdoors and is larger than the house cricket, it follows that the field cricket faces more challenges and requires a higher metabolic rate and therefore carbon dioxide output to sustain itself day after day.
Much of a cricket’s life consists of finding food. Where the house and field cricket differ in this aspect is in the fact that the latter is capable of flight, thus being able to move quickly to new food …show more content…
sources after their current one has been depleted. This emphasis on flight, what will be discussed as a reason for the difference in carbon dioxide output, is indicative of a difference in activity rates between both species. The metabolism required by an insect capable of flight needs to be sustained by a diet rich in nutrients as well as an increased density of mitochondria in areas relating to it (Reinhold 1999). This increased density of mitochondria means that the production of the waste products of cellular respiration is also increased and is what provides the field cricket with a higher carbon dioxide output compared to the house cricket.
Since not all members of a field cricket population fly, the crickets examined in the holding capsule may or may not have attempted to take flight, depending on the gender. Thus a larger difference in carbon dioxide output is indicative of the subject being a female field cricket. Such variations in physiology are most likely due to the natural selection of females that are able to quickly escape predators and keep their progeny out of harms way, an adaptation that the house cricket has no use for since its predators are limited in an indoor environment. This energetically demanding behavior is frequently touched upon in Bartholomew’s (1981) research proposing that if a species spends more energy on activity, they will have a higher Resting Metabolic Rate (RMR). Therefore, regardless if the female field cricket has attempted flight or not, she will continuously have a higher Resting Metabolic Rate, significantly increase her carbon dioxide output.
The house cricket tends to be approximately 10mm shorter than the field cricket.
By evolving in different environments and being exposed to different food supplies, it suggests that the environment and food supply that existed over multiple generations had an effect on present day cricket size (Gaston 1988). Due to the relatively large amount of organic material found in a field cricket’s immediate habitat (outdoors) versus the relatively small amount in that of a house cricket’s (indoors), it follows that the two species differ in size. Feeding on grasses, other insects and leaves compared to feeding on clothing, sweat, and other potentially edible material on the side of the house cricket, demonstrates how different food supplies contribute to general body size.
Cell growth and division is regulated by nutrition. In Nijhout’s (2003) research, he found that insulin signaling post-meal is a key mediator in the rate of growth of an insect’s internal organs. Following what Gaston’s research proposed, Nijhout (2003) also supports the notion that a higher food intake leads to a higher body mass and therefore a larger insect
size.
Harrison (2010) supports the notion suggested by Gaston; there are positive correlations between metabolic rates and activity and food intake, growth and thus carbon dioxide output. What this proposes is that in larger insects, spiracular openings are large as well. As the passage of respiration in both the field and house cricket, a larger spiracular opening means that there is a faster rate at which gasses and water lost needs to be replenished and therefore a higher resting metabolic rate and a higher rate of carbon dioxide production. Supported by Reichle’s (1968) study done in 1968, the energy lost to heat in larger spiralic openings is also indicative of metabolic rate and is another way to measure the energy differences in the field and house cricket.
The differences between the field and house cricket due to flight, habitat and size ultimately led to their differences in carbon dioxide output. The carbon dioxide output, when compared between the two species, ultimately demonstrated that the field cricket has a higher metabolic rate than the house cricket.
Literature Cited
Bartholomew, George A., David Vleck, and Carol M. Vleck. "Instantaneous measurements of oxygen consumption during pre-flight warm-up and post-flight cooling in sphingid and saturniid moths." Journal of Experimental Biology 90.1 (1981): 17-32.
Gaston, K. J. "The intrinsic rates of increase of insects of different sizes."Ecological Entomology 13.4 (1988): 399-409.
Harrison, Jon F., Alexander Kaiser, and John M. Vanden Brooks. "Atmospheric oxygen level and the evolution of insect body size." Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 277.1690 (2010): 1937-1946.
Nijhout, H. F. "The control of body size in insects." Developmental biology261.1 (2003): 1-9.
Reichle, David. "Relation of body size to food intake, oxygen consumption, and trace element metabolism in forest floor arthropods." Ecology 49.3 (1968): 538-542.
Reinhold, Klaus. "Energetically costly behaviour and the evolution of resting metabolic rate in insects." Functional Ecology 13.2 (1999): 217-224.