First description and comparison of the morphological and ultramicro characteristics of the antennal sensilla of two fir longhorn beetles

Zishu Dong; Fugen Dou; Yubin Yang; Jacob D Wickham; Rong Tang; Yujing Zhang; Zongyou Huang; Xialin Zheng; Xiaoyun Wang; Wen Lu

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0241115

. 2020 Oct 30;15(10):e0241115. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241115

First description and comparison of the morphological and ultramicro characteristics of the antennal sensilla of two fir longhorn beetles

Zishu Dong ¹, Fugen Dou ², Yubin Yang ², Jacob D Wickham ³, Rong Tang ¹, Yujing Zhang ¹, Zongyou Huang ¹, Xialin Zheng ¹, Xiaoyun Wang ¹, Wen Lu ^1,^*

Editor: Yulin Gao⁴

PMCID: PMC7598455 PMID: 33125380

Abstract

Allotraeus asiaticus Schwarzer and Callidiellum villosulum Fairmaire are repeatedly intercepted in wood and wood products all over the world. As two common stem borers of Cunninghamia lanceolata (Lambert) Hooker, to further understanding of the differences in their living habits, behaviors and the mechanism of insect-host chemical communication, we observed the external morphology, number and distribution of antennal sensilla of A. asiaticus and C. villosulum with scanning electron microscopy (SEM), respectively. The results showed that 1st-5th subsegments of the flagellum are spined endoapically in A. asiaticus which is different from the previous report (1st-3rd of the flagellomere). Meanwhile, there were five subsegments on the flagellum of C. villosulum that were clearly specialized as serrated shapes on the 4th-8th flagellomeres. Four types (ten subtypes) of sensilla were both found on the antennae of these two fir longhorn beetles, named Böhm bristle (Bb), sensilla trichodea (ST I and II), sensilla basiconica (SB I, II and III), sensilla chaetica (SCh I, II, III and IV). There is one additional kind of morphological type of sensilla found on the antennae of C. villosulum compared to A. asiaticus which was related to their habit of laying eggs only on dry and injured fir branches, named sensilla campaniformia (SCa). These differences may vary according to their own biological habits. For research purposes, the observed difference in the sensillum distribution and function between the two fir longhorn beetles will greatly facilitate the design of better semiochemical control methods of these insect pests.

Introduction

Cunninghamia lanceolata (Lambert) Hooker, Chinese fir, is one of the most commonly planted species in cultivated fast-growing timber forests of East and Southeast Asia, such as China, Japan, Laos, Vietnam, and neighboring countries, is popularly used for home and gardens due to its soft but durable wood that is easily workable [1]. Therefore, it has great economic and ornamental value. Allotraeus asiaticus Schwarzer and Callidiellum villosulum Fairmaire are two reported pest species of China fir (C. lanceolata) [2,3]. Indigenous to Southern China, there are few reports on the biology of A. asiaticus [4]. On the other hand, C. villosulum is only found in East Asia, but is occasionally intercepted in wood and wood products in US, Malta and Japan [2,5,6]. To avoid its proliferation in other regions of the world, it is necessary to systematically study the two beetles in order to plan preventive measures such as developing detection tools.

As phytophagous insects, Cerambycidae are economically important pests of street trees and forests [7], with more than 36,000 described species worldwide [8]. In recent years, more research on pheromones and behavior of longhorn beetles has been done, such as host location [7,9], mating [10,11], oviposition [12], thanatosis (death-feigning) [13], and sex and aggregation pheromones [14]. Behavior is inseparable from signaling and signal reception. In the insect world, signal perception and antennal structure are interrelated, and insects rely on these structures for gathering information on the environment and chemical communication with conspecifics and interspecifics [15].

Insect antennae have sensory receptors called sensilla. Several morphological structures are adapted to the primary function of insect antennae, such as omnidirectional movements and sensing adequate area. Antennae shaking during walking, the antennal sensilla can facilitate the insect to recognize different stimuli in the environment and are specialized for taste, olfaction, hygroreception, thermoreception or mechanoreception [16]. Because of functional requirements, different sensilla specialize in different morphological characteristics. Sensilla are differentiated according to morphology such as Böhm bristles, chaetica, trichodea, basiconca, coeloconica, campaniformia, and others. These sensilla types have been reported in a variety of insects [17–19]. Therefore, the distribution and number of sensilla with different functions may affect the reception of information, as related to specific searching behavior of insects [20].

The purpose of this study was to compare antennal morphology and sensilla ultrastructure between A. asiaticus and C. villosulum and between the sexes of each species via scanning electron microscopy (SEM) techniques. To our knowledge, there have been no studies on the description of the antennal sensilla of these two species using SEM techniques. The two species of beetle both belong to family Cerambycidae, and the main flight season is from March to May [21,22]. Thus, by comparing the species, numbers and distribution of antennal sensilla between the two species of stem-boring pest that utilize the same host, it will contribute to a better understanding of the differences in their living habits and behaviors. Meanwhile, this descriptive work will also provide the theoretical basis for future work on pheromone identification and development of prevention and control techniques for these two pests.

Materials and methods

Insects

The adults of A. asiaticus and C. villosulum (Fig 1) were captured in Chinese fir forest at Gaofeng Forest Park (22ptured in Chinese fir forest at rk on pheromone identification and development of prevention and control techniques for these tAlphaScents, Portland, OR) that were coated with a 50% aqueous dilution of the fluoropolymer Fluon to render traps more slippery and improve trap efficiency [3]. Traps were hung on a branch or on a wooden strut and kept 0.5–1 m high off the ground. Five male and five female adults of A. asiaticus and C. villosulum were selected from the trap catches, and were placed into a freezer at −20°C. After 30 minutes, the adults were removed and their antennae were excised under a stereomicroscope PX-1 (Camsonar Technology Co. Ltd, Beijing, China). The antennae were stored in a 75% alcohol solution until examination. All animal experiments were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of Guangxi University and animal care and use protocol are based upon the National Institutes of Health (NIH), USA.

Scanning electron microscopy

The antennae were cleaned three times by distilled water in an ultrasonic bath JP-010T (Skymen Cleaning Equipment CO., Ltd., Shenzhen, China) at 250 W for 360 seconds each, and were then fixed separately in 2.5% glutaraldehyde at 4°C for 12 h. The antennae were dehydrated through an ascending ethanol series of 75%, 80%, 85%, 90%, 95% and 100% at 10 min intervals. The prepared antennae were stored in a cleaned and dried glass petri dishes container that was air-dried for 12 h. After drying, the specimens were mounted on a holder using double-sided sticky tape and sputter coated with gold-palladium. Samples were put into a holder with double-sided adhesive tape (dorsal, ventral). Subsequently, the prepared samples were scanned by the electron microscope (model S-3400 N, Hitachi, Japan) at an accelerating voltage of 5–10 kV. Images were named respectively and stored on a computer.

Dates collection and analysis

Identification and classification of the sensilla types and the terminology used in this work was based on studies of Schneider [21] and Zacharuk [22]. The length, and intermediate width of antenna and various sensilla were counted by the software Image J Launcher Version 1.44p (Broken Symmetry Soft-ware, National Institutes of Health, USA). According to the images of SEM, these sensillar distribution patterns were precisely described using the software Adobe Photoshop Version CS6 and counted individually. The general morphological characteristics of antennae of A. asiaticus and C. villosulum were also drawn by Adobe Photoshop Version CS6. The quantity and distribution of each type of sensillum was analyzed between the antennae of both sexes of the two beetles. One-way ANOVA was applied to determine possible differences in antennal sensilla between the sexes of each species and the qualities of spine between different flagellomeres of the same sex of A. asiaticus, by using SPSS statistical software package version 25.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). In all, individual samples per type were subjected to a quantitative analysis in both side (dorsal, ventral) of antenna. A t-test or one-way ANOVA was applied to determine possible differentiation of the number, length, and width of antennal sensilla, and values were reported as mean ± SE (standard error). The significance level was set at 0.05. All graphs were made by SPSS 25.0 and GraphPad prism 6.01 (GraphPad Software, Inc., La Jolla, CA, USA).

Results

Gross morphology of antennae of A. asiaticus and C. villosulum

Shape characteristics

Antennae of the two fir longhorn beetles both consist of three segments: scape (Sc), pedicel (Pd) and flagellum (nine flagellomere). There is a great difference between A. asiaticus and C. villosulum in the shape of the flagellum. The nine flagellomeres of A. asiaticus are all columnar (Figs 2A, 2E, 2G, 3C and 3D), but the 1st-6th subsegments of the flagellum of A. asiaticus appeared as a characteristic prism (Fig 2C and 2E). Besides, we also found that the 1st-5th subsegments of flagellum of A. asiaticus had a specialized spine on inner apex in both sexes (Table 1, Fig 3C and 3D). In C. villosulum, the structure of flagella was clear specialized as serrated shapes in 4th-8th subsegments of both sexes (Figs 2F, 3A and 3B). And the 9th flagella of male C. villosulum shown like the grain of Poa supina Schrad. (Figs 2H and 3B).

Fig 2 — (A) Scape (Sc) and Pedicel (Pe) of male A. *asiaticus*. (B) Scape (Sc) and Pedicel (Pe) of male C. *villosulum*. (C) View of the 2nd flagellomere of female A. *asiaticus*. (D) View of the 2nd flagellomere of female C. *villosulum*. (E) View of the 4th flagellomere of female A. *asiaticus*. (F) View of the 4th flagellomere of female C. *villosulum*. (G) View of the 9th flagellomere of male A. *asiaticus*. (H) View of the 9th flagellomere of male C. *villosulum*. Scale bars: (A, E) = 1000 μm; (B, C, F, G, H) = 500 μm; (D) = 300 μm.

Fig 3 — Scale bars just for the general morphological characteristics of antenna: (A, B, C, D) = 2 mm.

Table 1. Length (μm) and width (μm) of spine of both sexes in A. asiaticus.

Sizes	Sex	Flagellomeres
Sizes	Sex	F1	F2	F3	F4	F5
Length	♀	352.78 ± 18.35a ^*	324.61 ± 22.19a	246.20 ± 17.46b	104.43 ± 14.00c ^*	25.30 ± 3.42d
Length	♂	276.57 ± 15.43a	270.59 ± 14.46a	234.36 ± 14.34a	42.62 ± 2.11b	46.05 ± 4.124b^*
Width	♀	98.04 ± 4.47a	85.46 ± 3.76a	72.55 ± 2.27b	43.19 ± 2.07c ^*	16.81 ± 0.89d
Width	♂	85.84 ± 3.50a	82.78 ± 4.17a	72.19 ± 3.46a	19.72 ± 0.75b	15.71 ± 0.42b

Open in a new tab

Note: Data were presented as mean ± SE, n = 5.

* indicate significant difference between male and female in length or width at 0.05 level using the t-test. Different letters in each row indicated significant difference at 0.05 level using Tukey’s test.

Length and width of antennae

In A. asiaticus, there are no significant difference between males and females in the length of antennae (Table 2). In terms of width, female adult antennae were wider than male in the scape (t = 4.32, p = 0.00) and 3rd (t = 2.51, p = 0.03), 4th (t = 2.49, p = 0.03), 7th (t = 2.42, p = 0.04), 9th (t = 3.48, p = 0.00) subsegments of the flagellum (Table 2).

Table 2. Length (mm) and width (mm) of antennal segments of both sexes in A. asiaticus and C. villosulum.

Antennomere		Length				Width
		A. asiaticus		C. villosulum		A. asiaticus		C. villosulum
		♀	♂	♀	♂	♀	♂	♀	♂
Scape		1.56 ± 0.05	1.56 ± 0.02	0.88 ± 0.05	1.16 ± 0.12 ^*	0.50 ± 0.02 ^*	0.40 ± 0.02	0.28 ± 0.01	0.39 ± 0.01 ^*
Pedicel		0.45 ± 0.07	0.43 ± 0.03	0.28 ± 0.01	0.46 ± 0.02 ^*	0.30 ± 0.01	0.29 ± 0.02	0.18 ± 0.00	0.22 ± 0.01 ^*
Flagellum	F1	2.16 ± 0.09	2.22 ± 0.07	0.75 ± 0.02	1.16 ± 0.08 ^*	0.32 ± 0.01	0.28 ± 0.01	0.20 ± 0.01	0.21 ± 0.01
	F2	1.63 ± 0.09	1.81 ± 0.05	0.63 ± 0.01	1.05 ± 0.03 ^*	0.27 ± 0.01	0.26 ± 0.01	0.21 ± 0.01	0.22 ± 0.01
	F3	1.90 ± 0.10	1.86 ± 0.08	0.77 ± 0.01	1.24 ± 0.05 ^*	0.24 ± 0.01 ^*	0.21 ± 0.01	0.18 ± 0.00	0.20 ± 0.01^*
	F4	1.95 ± 0.10	1.92 ± 0.09	0.76 ± 0.01	1.18 ± 0.03 ^*	0.21 ± 0.01 ^*	0.18 ± 0.00	0.18 ± 0.00	0.19 ± 0.01
	F5	1.98 ± 0.15	1.90 ± 0.04	0.70 ± 0.01	1.16 ± 0.09 ^*	0.19 ± 0.01	0.17 ± 0.00	0.19 ± 0.01	0.19 ± 0.01
	F6	1.74 ± 0.11	1.82 ± 0.09	0.59 ± 0.01	1.00 ± 0.02 ^*	0.18 ± 0.01	0.17 ± 0.01	0.20 ± 0.01	0.19 ± 0.01
	F7	1.74 ± 0.11	1.80 ± 0.08	0.56 ± 0.01	0.92 ± 0.02 ^*	0.17 ± 0.01 ^*	0.15 ± 0.00	0.20 ± 0.00 ^*	0.19 ± 0.01
	F8	1.61 ± 0.09	1.83 ± 0.06	0.49 ± 0.01	0.82 ± 0.03 ^*	0.16 ± 0.01	0.15 ± 0.00	0.21 ± 0.01	0.19 ± 0.01
	F9	1.91 ± 0.14	2.12 ± 0.08	0.63 ± 0.01	1.12 ± 0.04 ^*	0.16 ± 0.00 ^*	0.14 ± 0.00	0.20 ± 0.01 ^*	0.17 ± 0.01
Total		18.62 ± 0.87	19.65 ± 0.45	7.04 ± 0.08	11.25 ± 0.27 ^*

Open in a new tab

Note: Data were presented as mean ± SE, n = 10.

* indicate significant difference in length or width at 0.05 level using the t-test between male and female of the same species.

However, the antennae of male C. villosulum (11.25 ± 0.27 mm) were distinct significantly longer than female (7.04 ± 0.08 mm, t = -15.29, p = 0.00) (Table 2). Meanwhile, it was shown that the male adult antennae were wider than females in scape (t = -7.06, p = 0.00), pedicel (t = -3.15, p = 0.01) and 3rd (t = -3.16, p = 0.01) of flagellum (Table 2). On the contrary, female flagellomeres were wider than males in 7th (t = 2.18, p = 0.04) and 9th (t = 2.54, p = 0.02) subsegments of the flagella.

Comparing between different species, A. asiaticus were greater in antennal length than C. villosulum both in female (t = 13.19, p = 0.00) and male (t = 15.75, p = 0.00) (Table 2). In terms of width, antennae of flagellum both sexes of A. asiaticus were wider than C. villosulum from scape to 3rd subsegment of the flagella and female A. asiaticus (0.21 ± 0.01 mm) shown wider than female C. villosulum (0.18 ± 0.00 mm, t = 3.03, p = 0.13) in 4th flagella (Table 2). But it is interesting to note that both sexes of C. villosulum were tended to be wider than A. asiaticus in 6th (female: t = -2.64, p = 0.02; male: t = -2.55, p = 0.02), 7th (female: t = -4.03, p = 0.00; male: t = -6.88, p = 0.00), 8th (female: t = -3.92, p = 0.00; male: t = -5.15, p = 0.00), and 9th (female: t = -3.80, p = 0.00; male: t = -2.80, p = 0.02) subsegment of the flagella (Table 2).

Types of antennal sensillum of A. asiaticus and C. villosulum

Four different morphological types of sensilla both were found on the antennae of A. asiaticus and C. villosulum: Böhm bristle (Bb), sensilla trichodea (ST I, II), sensilla basiconica (SB I, II, III), sensilla chaetica (SCh I, II, III, IV). One more morphological type of sensilla was found on the antennae of C. villosulum compared to A. asiaticus, which named sensilla campaniformia (SCa). There was no clear sexual dimorphism in the species and distribution of the antennal sensilla between different sexes of two fir longhorn beetles, respectively. However, there was significant difference in the number of the antennal sensilla between different sexes and species (Fig 4). The length, width and morphological characteristics of antennal sensilla are summarized in Table 3, respectively.

Table 3. Morphological characteristics of the antennal sensilla of both sexes in A. asiaticus and C. villosulum.

Subtype	Species								Side	Distribution				Morphological characteristics of sensilla
	A. asiaticus				C. villosulum					A. asiaticus		C. villosulum		Tip	Wall	Shape	Socket
	L		W		L		W			A. asiaticus		C. villosulum
	♀	♂	♀	♂	♀	♂	♀	♂		♀	♂	♀	♂
SCh I	450.50 ± 23.48 ^*	299.40 ± 15.82	9.95 ± 0.58	8.02 ± 0.26	234.09 ± 16.83	343.11 ± 23.45 ^*	8.40 ± 0.25	10.59 ± 3.7 ^*	V	Sc-F8		Sc-F8		Slender	Grooved	Straight or Slightly curved	Wide
SCh I	450.50 ± 23.48 ^*	299.40 ± 15.82	9.95 ± 0.58	8.02 ± 0.26	234.09 ± 16.83	343.11 ± 23.45 ^*	8.40 ± 0.25	10.59 ± 3.7 ^*	D	— —		— —		Slender	Grooved	Straight or Slightly curved	Wide
SCh II	53.34 ± 0.55	59.58 ± 0.55 ^*	4.25 ± 0.14	4.71 ± 0.19	40.94 ± 0.52	53.70 ± 1.28 ^*	3.86 ± 0.08	4.68 ± 0.11 ^*	V	F6-F9		F6-F9	F7-F9	Slender	Grooved	Slightly curved	Tight
SCh II	53.34 ± 0.55	59.58 ± 0.55 ^*	4.25 ± 0.14	4.71 ± 0.19	40.94 ± 0.52	53.70 ± 1.28 ^*	3.86 ± 0.08	4.68 ± 0.11 ^*	D	Sc-F9		F3-F9		Slender	Grooved	Slightly curved	Tight
SCh III	263.43 ± 20.53	271.89 ± 23.28	9.61 ± 0.40	10.46 ± 0.40	135.34 ± 10.38	180.00 ± 9.00 ^*	8.75 ± 0.56	12.78 ± 0.52^*	V	F5-F8		F3-F9		Slender	Grooved	Slightly curved	Wide
SCh III	263.43 ± 20.53	271.89 ± 23.28	9.61 ± 0.40	10.46 ± 0.40	135.34 ± 10.38	180.00 ± 9.00 ^*	8.75 ± 0.56	12.78 ± 0.52^*	D	F1-F8		F3-F9		Slender	Grooved	Slightly curved	Wide
SCh IV	61.27 ± 2.10	66.63 ± 2.73	3.12 ± 0.12	4.48 ± 0.20^*	97.86 ± 4.09	99.31 ± 9.23	4.34 ± 0.12	4.47 ± 0.27	V	F3-F5	F4-F5	Sc-F6		Slender	Grooved	Straight	Tight
SCh IV	61.27 ± 2.10	66.63 ± 2.73	3.12 ± 0.12	4.48 ± 0.20^*	97.86 ± 4.09	99.31 ± 9.23	4.34 ± 0.12	4.47 ± 0.27	D	Sc-F5		Sc-F6		Slender	Grooved	Straight	Tight
Bb	47.01 ± 2.27 ^*	25.73 ± 0.98	3.46 ± 0.11^*	2.66 ± 0.07	28.98 ± 2.02	34.10 ± 2.60	3.07 ± 0.12	3.38 ± 0.09^*	V	Sc		Sc, Pe		Sharp	Smooth	Straight	Wide
Bb	47.01 ± 2.27 ^*	25.73 ± 0.98	3.46 ± 0.11^*	2.66 ± 0.07	28.98 ± 2.02	34.10 ± 2.60	3.07 ± 0.12	3.38 ± 0.09^*	D	Sc, Pe		Sc, Pe		Sharp	Smooth	Straight	Wide
ST I	377.39 ± 12.62	377.42 ± 16.18	12.26 ± 0.35	11.71 ± 0.50	321.32 ± 15.72	417.80 ± 19.44 ^*	8.89 ± 0.33	10.70 ± 0.43 ^*	V	——		——		Slender	Grooved	Curved	Wide
ST I	377.39 ± 12.62	377.42 ± 16.18	12.26 ± 0.35	11.71 ± 0.50	321.32 ± 15.72	417.80 ± 19.44 ^*	8.89 ± 0.33	10.70 ± 0.43 ^*	D	Sc-F9		Sc-F3		Slender	Grooved	Curved	Wide
ST II	54.31 ± 3.09	53.91 ± 3.37	4.08 ± 0.17	3.94 ± 0.18	47.11 ± 2.31	44.98 ± 2.67	3.68 ± 0.11	3.41 ± 0.19	V	Sc-F9		F3-F9		Blunt	Grooved	Slightly curved	Wide
ST II	54.31 ± 3.09	53.91 ± 3.37	4.08 ± 0.17	3.94 ± 0.18	47.11 ± 2.31	44.98 ± 2.67	3.68 ± 0.11	3.41 ± 0.19	D	Sc-F9		Sc-F9		Blunt	Grooved	Slightly curved	Wide
SB I	7.79 ± 0.25	8.28 ± 0.26	2.17 ± 0.07^*	1.92 ± 0.05	9.28 ± 0.54	9.45 ± 0.38	2.10 ± 0.09	1.93 ± 0.05	V	F6-F9		F6-F9	F7-F9	Sharp	Smooth	Straight	Ridgy
SB I	7.79 ± 0.25	8.28 ± 0.26	2.17 ± 0.07^*	1.92 ± 0.05	9.28 ± 0.54	9.45 ± 0.38	2.10 ± 0.09	1.93 ± 0.05	D	F1-F9		F3-F9		Sharp	Smooth	Straight	Ridgy
SB II	8.96 ± 0.29	11.47 ± 0.38 ^*	2.49 ± 0.08^*	2.23 ± 0.08	11.81 ± 0.44	11.53 ± 0.27	2.31 ± 0.09 ^*	1.94 ± 0.08	V	F6-F9		F6-F9	F7-F9	Blunt	Smooth	Straight	Ridgy
SB II	8.96 ± 0.29	11.47 ± 0.38 ^*	2.49 ± 0.08^*	2.23 ± 0.08	11.81 ± 0.44	11.53 ± 0.27	2.31 ± 0.09 ^*	1.94 ± 0.08	D	F1-F9		F3-F9		Blunt	Smooth	Straight	Ridgy
SB III	16.28 ± 0.90	16.26 ± 0.64	2.58 ± 0.13	2.36 ± 0.09	18.06 ± 1.12	19.66 ± 0.87	2.28 ± 0.12	2.08 ± 0.07	V	F6-F9		F6-F9	F7-F9	Slender or Blunt	Smooth	Slightly curved	Ridgy
SB III	16.28 ± 0.90	16.26 ± 0.64	2.58 ± 0.13	2.36 ± 0.09	18.06 ± 1.12	19.66 ± 0.87	2.28 ± 0.12	2.08 ± 0.07	D	F1-F9		F3-F9		Slender or Blunt	Smooth	Slightly curved	Ridgy
Sca	——	——	——	——	1.62 ± 0.01 ^*	1.59 ± 0.01	6.32 ± 0.17 ^*	5.70 ± 0.12	V	——		F6-F9	F7-F9	Blunt	Smooth	Campaniform	Ridgy & Tight
Sca	——	——	——	——	1.62 ± 0.01 ^*	1.59 ± 0.01	6.32 ± 0.17 ^*	5.70 ± 0.12	D	——		F1-F9		Blunt	Smooth	Campaniform	Ridgy & Tight

Open in a new tab

Note: Data were presented as mean ± SE, n = 20.

* indicate significant difference between male and female of the same species at 0.05 level using the t-test. “——” indicated the sensilla was non-existent. L = Length, W = Width, D = Dorsal, V = Venter.

Sensilla chaetica

Sensilla chaetica were widely distributed on antennae. It was spread over every segment of the antennae. The sensilla were more robust than other mechanical sensilla which could be further classified into four subtypes based on their morphological and ultra-micro characteristics: SCh I, II, III and IV. The number of SCh varies in the dorsal and ventral sides of the antennae of different segments of both sexes of A. asiaticus and C. villosulum, respectively (Fig 5).

Fig 5 — D, dorsal side. V, ventral side. Different letters in each column indicated significant difference at 0.05 level using Tukey’s test among sensillium on various segments of antennae.

Sensilla chaetica type I (SCh I) were widely distributed just on the ventral sides all over the antennae except the last segements of flagella (Table 3). Moreover, SCh I shown abundant on the ventral sides of 1st-3rd subsegments of the flagella of two fir beetles (Fig 5). What’s more, it was the most robust sensillum in both fir beetle species. This kind of sensillum had a wide socket, slender tip and longitudinal grooves (Fig 6A and 6D). SCh I was the longest in female A. asiaticus with the mean length 450.50 ± 23.48 μm. However, the length in males is 343.11 ± 23.45 μm which was more robust than females of C. villosulum (Table 3).

Sensilla chaetica type II (SCh II) were the largest number of sensilum which looked slightly curved. It had a tight sockets, grooved wall and gradually tapers into a slender tip (Fig 6B, 6E and 6F). This type of sensillum were distributed differently between the two species. Particularly, there is a sexual difference in C. villosulum (Table 3). SCh II were distributed from scape to 9th subsegment of the flagella on the dorsal sides in A. asiaticus. Moreover, it was distributed on the ventral sides of 6th-9th subsegments of the flagellum in A. asiaticus. SChII were only distributed from 3rd to 9th subsegments of the flagella on the dorsal side in C. villosulum. However, it was distributed differently between female (6th-9th subsegments of the flagella) and male (7th-9th subsegments of the flagella) on the ventral sides of C. villosulum. Over all, the length of this sensilla type in males was longer than females in both A. asiaticus and C. villosulum (Table 3).

Sensilla chaetica type III (SCh III) were visible at the junction of each segment of the flagellomeres (Fig 6A and 6D). This kind of sensillum has cuspidal tip, a wide socket and grooves on the surface. Moreover, SCh III appeared slightly curved. In distribution, there was no sexual differences in A. asiaticus (venter: 5th-8th flagella; dorsal: 1st-8th flagella) and C. villosulum (venter: 3rd-9th subsegments of the flagella; dorsal: 3rd-9th subsegments of the flagella), but there was a big difference between the venter and dorsal sides of its number both in two beetles (Table 3; Fig 5). The length of SCh III was longer in A. asiaticus (female: 263.43 ± 20.53 μm; male: 271.89 ± 23.28 μm) (Table 3). Meanwhile, there was no sexual differences in the length of the sensillum of A. asiaticus and C. villosulum (Table 3).

Sensilla chaetica type IV (SCh IV) were distributed from Sc to 6th flagella in both dorsal and ventral side of C. villosulum in both sexes (Table 3; Fig 5) with a tight socket, grooved wall and gradually tapers to a slender tip (Fig 6B, 6C, 6D and 6F). Meanwhile, it was found in Sc-5th subsegment of the flagella on the dorsal side of A. asiaticus in both sexes. However, it had different distribution patterns in male (4th-5th subsegments of the flagella) and female (3rd-5th subsegments of the flagella) A. asiaticus (Table 3; Fig 5). Similarly, there was a big difference between the venter and dorsal sides of the quantity (Fig 5).The length of SCh IV was longer in C. villosulum (female: 97.86 ± 4.09 μm; male: 99.31 ± 9.23 μm) than A. asiaticus (female: 61.27 ± 2.10 μm; male: 66.63 ± 2.73 μm; Table 3).

Böhm bristles

Böhm bristles (Bb) were observed on the base of the scape and pedicel, between the Head-Scape and Scape-Pedicel, respectively. However, no Bb were found on the ventral side of pedicel in A. asiaticusin both sexes (Table 3; Fig 7). Bb had a thorn-like structure with a wide socket. Besides, this type of sensillum had a smooth surface (Fig 8C and 8F). In female A. asiaticus, Bb had shown a salient advantage in length (47.01 ± 2.27 μm) and width (3.46 ± 0.11 μm) (Table 3). The number of Bb varies in the dorsal and ventral surface of the antennae of different segments of both sexes of A. asiaticus and C. villosulum, respectively (Fig 6).

Fig 7 — D, dorsal side. V, ventral side. Different letters in each column indicated significant difference at 0.05 level using Tukey’s test among sensillium on various segments of antennae.

Fig 8 — (A) ST I of A. *asiaticus*. (B) ST I of C. *villosulum*. (C) T Bb of C. *villosulum*. (D) ST II of A. *asiaticus*. (E) ST II of C. *villosulum*. (F) Bb of A. *asiaticus*. (G, H, I) SCa of C. *villosulum*. Scale bars: (A) = 500 μm; (B, C) = 200 μm; (F, H) = 50 μm; (D) = 40 μm; (E) = 30 μm; (G) = 20 μm.

Sensilla trichodea

Sensilla trichodea were spread all over all segments of the antennae of A. asiaticus and C. villosulum. It had hair-like protruding receptors with grooves and perforated surfaces. The sensillum could been further classified into two subtypes based on their morphological and ultramicro-structural characteristics: ST I, II. The number of ST varies in the dorsal and ventral side of the antennae of different segments of both sexes of A. asiaticus and C. villosulum, respectively (Fig 7).

Sensilla trichodea type I (ST I) was present only on the dorsal side of the antennae of A. asiaticus (Sc-F9, F9 = the 9th flagellomere) and C. villosulum (Sc-3rd flagella) (Table 3; Fig 7). It inserted into a broadened socket and was long, slender, and curved with a grooved surface (Table 3; Fig 8A and 8B). ST I was relatively longer in male C. villosulum (417.80 ± 19.44 μm) than in both sexes of two beetles (Table 3). In contrast, ST I of female C. villosulum were the shortest (321.32 ± 15.72 μm) (Table 3).

Sensilla trichodea type II (ST II) were visible at the junction of flagellomeres (Fig 8D and 8E) which was curved hairs with blunt tips. Either the length or the width, there is no difference between the sexes in both beetles. ST II was distributed from Sc to 9th flagellomere on the dorsal side of antennae of A. asiaticus and C. villosulum. Where as, it shown differences between A. asiaticus (Sc-9th flagellomere) and C. villosulum (Sc-3rd flagellomere) on the ventral side. In total number, male A. asiaticus exhibited large quantities in 1st-3rd subsegments of the flagella while females had high abundance distributed in the 7th-9th subsegments of the flagella (Table 4). On the other hand, sexes of C. villosulum mainly showed differences in 7th-9th subsegments of the flagella that female had high abundance on ventral side with male shown an inverse distribution.

Table 4. Number and distribution of ST and SB in the dorsal and ventral surface of different antennae segments in both sexes of A. asiaticus and C. villosulum.

Subtype	Species	Sex	Segments
			Scape		Pedicel		F1-F3		F4-F6		F7-F9
			Venter	Dorsal	Venter	Dorsal	Venter	Dorsal	Venter	Dorsal	Venter	Dorsal
ST I	A. asiaticus	♀	——	2.80 ± 0.58	——	2.40 ± 0.40	——	9.00 ± 0.95	——	1.40 ± 0.40	——	1.40 ± 0.40
		♂	——	4.60 ± 0.40^*	——	3.40 ± 0.24	——	6.80 ± 0.58	——	1.80 ± 0.73	——	1.20 ± 0.49
	C. villosulum	♀	——	11.2 ± 0.86	——	3.80 ± 0.37	——	11.40 ± 0.98	——	——	——	——
		♂	——	12.2 ± 1.69	——	3.00 ± 0.45	——	10.20 ± 1.11	——	——	——	——
ST II	A. asiaticus	♀	8.00 ± 0.84^*	19.40 ± 2.42	0.60 ± 0.40	8.60 ± 1.08	36.00 ± 1.14	141.20 ± 3.23	144.20 ± 3.06	235.00 ± 5.29	257.00 ± 1.70^*	292.00 ± 1.38^*
		♂	4.60 ± 0.75	16.00 ± 1.14	1.00 ± 0.32	10.00 ± 1.05	55.40 ± 4.41^*	152.20 ± 3.65^*	141.80 ± 6.64	227.20 ± 7.11	236.40 ± 6.64	269.00 ± 7.34
	C. villosulum	♀	——	6.2 ± 0.66	——	4.40 ± 0.68^*	1.80 ± 0.37	29.20 ± 1.98	25.80 ± 0.8b	125.40 ± 4.20	112.60 ± 4.50^*	175.40 ± 7.42
		♂	——	4.40 ± 0.51	——	1.80 ± 0.37	2.80 ± 0.37	27.20 ± 1.20	26.00 ± 2.39	135.60 ± 4.45	82.80 ± 2.54	200.40 ± 6.99^*
SB I	A. asiaticus	♀	——	——	——	——	——	534.80 ± 13.90	88.40 ± 3.22^*	474.00 ± 10.39	256.80 ± 1.77	319.80 ± 1.96^*
		♂	——	——	——	——	——	568.60 ± 16.62^*	58.20 ± 2.62	451.80 ± 12.72	251.00 ± 7.91	283.40 ± 8.47
	C. villosulum	♀	——	——	——	——	——	23.20 ± 2.60	60.80 ± 2.08^*	539.60 ± 19.77^*	254.20 ± 10.1^*	411.00 ± 17.30^*
		♂	——	——	——	——	——	28.60 ± 2.73	——	240.20 ± 7.94	139.60 ± 4.30	318.80 ± 11.25
SB II	A. asiaticus	♀	——	——	——	——	——	114.60 ± 2.94	44.00 ± 1.61	223.60 ± 4.20	85.40 ± 0.81	97.60 ± 0.60^*
		♂	——	——	——	——	——	118.00 ± 3.92	45.00 ± 2.05	212.60 ± 5.88	79.00 ± 2.49	90.20 ± 2.65
	C. villosulum	♀	——	——	——	——	——	123.60 ± 13.18^*	54.40 ± 1.89^*	532.40 ± 22.04^*	385.00 ± 15.65^*	629.40 ± 26.99
		♂	——	——	——	——	——	39.00 ± 3.89	——	337.80 ± 11.26	276.20 ± 8.71	653.20 ± 23.46
SB III	A. asiaticus	♀	——	——	——	——	——	164.20 ± 3.76	113.40 ± 4.13	371.80 ± 7.87	325.20 ± 2.85^*	366.00 ± 8.76^*
		♂	——	——	——	——	——	174.20 ± 4.68	116.20 ± 5.20	351.60 ± 10.00	300.00 ± 7.80	335.60 ± 8.76
	C. villosulum	♀	——	——	——	——	——	38.80 ± 4.16	67.00 ± 2.39^*	448.20 ± 17.03	140.80 ± 5.66	215.20 ± 8.69
		♂	——	——	——	——	——	57.00 ± 5.64^*	——	644.00 ± 22.20^*	376.80 ± 11.74^*	879.80 ± 58.99^*

Open in a new tab

Note: Data were presented as mean ± SE, n = 5. “——” indicated the sensilla was non-existent.

* indicate significant difference between male and female of the same species at 0.05 level using the t-test.

Sensilla campaniformia

Sensilla campaniformia (SCa) were only found on the antennae of C. villosulum which were distributed from 1st-9th subsegments of the flagella on the dorsal side (Fig 7). However, the distribution on the ventral surface was different between males (7th-9th flagella) and females (6th-9th flagellomeres) (Table 3). It is a dome-shaped sensilla whose cuticular collar surrounding the central small cap forms a slightly raised dome (Fig 8G, 8H and 8I). This sensilla on the female C. villosulum (L: 1.62 ± 0.01 μm, W: 6.32 ± 0.17 μm) were more pronounced than males (L: 1.59 ± 0.01 μm, W: 5.70 ± 0.12 μm) (Table 3).

Sensilla basiconic

Sensilla basiconic were interspersed on the flagellomeres (Fig 7). The distribution of sensilla basiconic on the two fir beetles shown that the dorsal side was obviously stronger than that of the ventral side (Table 4; Fig 7). In A. asiaticus, sensilla basiconic scattered over 1st-9th subsegments of the flagella on the dorsal side while it distributed in 6th-9th subsegments on ventral side (Table 3). Meanwhile in C. villosulum, sensilla basiconic were found in 3rd-9th subsegments of the flagella on the dorsal side while it distributed dimorphism on ventral side in female (6th-9th flagellomeres) and female (7th-9th flagella). On the other hand, it could be characterized as a cone-shaped prominence with a pedestal shape or a conically uplifted base. In the center of the base, there are small cone-shaped receptors with different shapes, which has chemical sensory functions such as smell perception and taste perception. The basiconic sensilla could be further classified into three types based on their surface micro-morphology: Sensilla SB I, II and III.

Sensilla basiconic type I (SB I) were cone-shaped and straight with a slightly pointed tip (Fig 9A and 9D) and a smooth surface. The length of SB I in C. villosulum (female: 9.28 ± 0.54 μm; male: 9.45 ± 0.38 μm) was longer than A. asiaticus (female: 7.79 ± 0.25 μm; male: 8.28 ± 0.26 μm) both without sexual differences (Table 3). In terms of distribution, female C. villosulum with plentiful SB I in 4th- 9th subsegments of the flagella on the both sides, and more than males overall (Table 4).

Sensilla basiconic type II (SB II) has no basic sockets and gradually tapers into the blunt tip with a smooth surface and only distributed on the flagellum (Table 3; Fig 9B and 9E). The length of this sensbnhmj,kjmnbnm,nbvkiuhnbvillan in male A. asiaticus (11.47 ± 0.38 μm) was longer than female (8.96 ± 0.44 μm, t = -5.22, p = 0.00). However, there was no sexual dimorphism in C. villosulum (female: 11.81 ± 0.44 μm, male: 11.53 ± 0.27 μm) (Table 3). Female C. villosulum also shown more than males overall in 4th- 9th subsegments of the flagella. In addition, the number of SB II in female A. asiaticus (97.60 ± 0.60) were significantly different compared to male (90.20 ± 2.65, t = 2.72, p < 0.05) on the 9th flagellomere (Table 4).

Sensilla basiconic type III (SB III) had a smooth surface and ridgy socket with a slender tip in C. villosulum (Fig 9F). However, its tip appears blunt in A. asiaticus (Fig 9C). In addition, SB III appears longer on the antennae of C. villosulum (female: 18.06 ± 1.12 μm, male: 19.66 ±0.87 μm) than A. asiaticus (female: 16.28 ± 0.90 μm, male: 16.26 ± 0.64 μm) both without sexual differences (Table 3). In terms of distribution, SB III abundantly covered on flagellum in male C. villosulum compared to female (Table 4). But in A. asiaticus, numbers were only found significant difference between male and female in 7th-9th subsegments of the flagella on both sides (Table 4).

Discussion

In the past half century, the antennal scanning electron microscopy of insects has been well-researched [23–25]. As phytophagous insects, Cerambycidae are economically important pests of forest, street trees and fruit trees [34]. Therefore, antenna scanning electron microscopy of cerambycid beetles has gained much recent research attention [26–28]. At present, the study of antennae ultrastructure of longicorn beetles is focused on the comparison between male and female adults of each species. However, the interspecific comparison of antennae ultrastructure of different longicorn beetles with the same host plants is very rare. Thus, we studied the ultrastructure of the antennae of A. asiaticus and C. villosulum. From this study, we found several significant differences between the two fir longhorn beetles in the antennal shape. The five flagellomeres of C. villosulum were specialized as serrated shapes in 4th-8th subsegments of the flagella with abundant olfactory sensillum. Those characters can greatly increase the effective sensing area of the antennae, enhancing the inductive force [29]. On the other hand, the cross section of A. asiaticus in 1st-6th subsegments of the flagella were pentagonal (Fig 1E). The sensilla distribution on each side was quite different. These structures are all related to olfactory traits which help to specialize local behaviors.

The morphological type and characteristics of sensillum on the antennae of A. asiaticus and C. villosulum are basically the same, but varies greatly with the quantity of each type. According to the external shape, dimensions and location, four subtypes of chaetica, three subtypes of basiconic, two subtypes of trichodea, one type of Böhm bristles were distinguished in both male and female adults of A. asiaticus and C. villosulum. Meanwhile, there is an extra sensilla named sensilla campaniformia in both sexes of C. villosulum. The functional and morphological characteristics of these five types of sensilla have been proven analogous in other beetles [26–28]. Sensilla campaniformia, as a kind of temperature and humidity sensor, is common in some kinds of insect, especially in the oral appendages [30–32], but rarely found on antennae of longhorn beetles [26]. This is related to the wood moisture and may be related to strict requirements of oviposition preference [33].

The main reported functions for sensilla chaetica and Böhm bristles show a mechanical function [26,34,35]. Meanwhile, some research also have shown that several subtypes of sensilla chaetica have an olfactory function [34], such as SCh II & IV in A. asiaticus and C. villosulum. Sensilla trichodea and sensilla basiconic, as two common olfactory sensors, have been found in a large number on the antennae of longhorn beetle [27,28]. According to these studies, the possible function of these sensillum was discussed on the basis of the morphological description and distribution. Only from the point of view of quantity, A. asiaticus outperforms C. villosulum (Fig 4), and the olfactory sensilla of C. villosulum has the advantage of quantity in the flagellomeres. The number of sensillum on the dorsal side of A. asiaticus and C. villosulum was larger than that on the ventral side. Moreover, the presence of olfactory sensillum was only found on the ventral side of last sections of distal part of the flagellum.

Mechanical sensillum in A. asiaticus and C. villosulum, consist of SCh I &III and Bb. Among them, SCh I is more robust than other mechanical sensilla which was only distributed on the ventral side of the antennae that are related to the mechanical induction function while landing (Table 3; Fig 5). In addition, we found males had higher abundance of this type compared to females on 4th-9th subsegments of the flagella in A. asiaticus (Table 3; Fig 5). Meanwhile, the males were more developed than females both in measurements and quantities of C. villosulum (Table 3; Fig 5). In addition to landing on the host, the mating behavior of males requires holding the females, which may explain this morphology. SCh III are visible at the junction of some segments of the flagellomeres in A. asiaticus and C. villosulum are related to mechanical induction when the antennae are waving (Table 3, Fig 6A and 6D). Bb are a special type of sensilla chaetica located only on the joint region between the ommateum and the scape, as well as on the joint region between the scape and the pedicel. As the antennae are more developed, the mechanical sensillum (SCh III and Bb) of joints also show more prominence in A. asiaticus (Fig 7).

Olfactory sensillum, as a general trend, contains richer sensilla subtypes in A. asiaticus and C. aillosulum, including SCh (II, IV), ST (I, II), SB (I, II, III). Although they have the same subtypes of olfactory sensilla, there are some differences in quantity, length and width between the sensillum (Table 4; Figs 5 and 7). Previous study has shown that there were differences in aggregation-sex pheromone components between C. villosulum and A. asiaticus [3]. The results of field trials show that C. villosulum shown specific attraction to the blend of 3-hydroxyhexan-2-one and the pyrrole, while A. asiaticus was only specifically attracted to the pyrrole as a single component [36]. Furthermore, the results of this study were compared within species, and some other interesting conclusions were found (Fig 10). In A. asiaticus, there is no difference in the number of males and females caught during the field experiment, which is consistent with the small difference in the number, measurement and distribution of sensillum between males and females (Tables 3 and 4; Figs 4, 5, 7 and 10). On the contrary, there is a big difference between males and females in C. villosulum (Tables 3 and 4; Figs 4, 5 and 7), which supported by the field experimental result (Fig 10). Meanwhile, there was no significant difference in the number of olfactory sensilla between male and female as a whole in A. asiaticus (Fig 2). But SCh II, SB II has shown that the male sensilla of these types were longer in shape than in the female (Table 3). This result suggests that these two sensilla very likely involved in the identification of sex pheromone components. In C. villosulum, SB I & II were more numerous in females compared to males (Table 4), which may be related to the induction of a compound that is analogous to the oviposition pheromone. In contract, the male C. villosulum showed a particularly well-developed SCh IV and SB III (Fig 6), which may be related to the identification of participatory pheromones.

Fig 10 — Compound abbreviations: ketol—racemic 3-hydroxyhexan-2-one, pyrrole—1-(1H-pyrrol-2-yl)-1, 2-propanedione. * indicate significant difference between different objects of the same treatment at 0.05 level using the t-test.

In examining the temperature and humidity sensing structures, A. asiaticus and C. villosulum were extremely different in structure in this regard. In C. villosulum, common temperature and humidity sensilla were spread all over their flagellomeres (Figs 4 and 7). This was related to the habit of laying eggs only on dry and injured fir branches [33]. Interestingly, F1-F5 flagellomeres of A. asiaticus had a specialized spine on the top of outer side in both sexes. There is no similar report in other longhorn beetle species. It has been reported that spines are found in other insects, for example styloconica that function as thermo-hygroreceptors [37]. So we speculate that this possibly plays a role as temperature and humidity sensing structures, however its exact functions need to be explored in future experiments.

This study aims to identify and characterize the external morphology and distribution of antennal sensillum types of A. asiaticus and C. villosulum using a SEM, and to compare the differences between species and sexes of these two fir longhorn beetles. Combining the research results of their living habits and other insects (especially other longhorn beetle species) with the results of this study, will provide valuable insights into possible functions of each sensillum. These results provide the necessary background information for future studies on the chemical ecology of these economically important longhorn beetle species. The observed difference in the sensilla distribution and function will greatly facilitate the design of better semiochemical control methods, for example more effective lures for survey and detection, for these pest insects.

Conclusions

In this research, we found that the antennae of C. villosulum are sexual dimorphism, but A. asiaticus is opposite. Coincidentally, the conclusions in our past field experiment can reasonably prove this result. Moreover, there’s a big difference between A. asiaticus and C. villosulum on antennae in terms of interspecies. First of all, the morphological characteristics of their antennae are quite different which related to their specific and unknown living habits and behaviors. This needs further study. Secondly, common temperature and humidity sensing sensilla were spread all over flagellomeres in C. villosulum which was related to the habit of laying eggs only on dry and injured fir branches. Last, the number of sensillum in the same types varied greatly among species. The result can well explain that the two longicorn beetles responded to different pheromones in our field experiment. These results merit further study with a particular focus on the chemosensory characteristics, which will greatly facilitate the design of better semiochemical control methods for these two fir longhorn beetles.

Supporting information

S1 File. Supplement tables.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(74.5KB, xlsx)}

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to editors and two anonymous reviewers for helpful suggestions to improve the manuscript.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This research was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (31660626). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

1.Earle CJ. Cunninghamia. The Gymnosperm Database. 2020 May 20. Available from: https://www.conifers.org/cu/Cunninghamia.php.
2.Cocquempot C, Mifsud D. First European interception of the brown fir longhorn beetle, Callidiellum villosulum (Fairmaire, 1900) (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). Bulletin of the Entomological Society of Malta. 2013; 6: 143–147. [Google Scholar]
3.Wickham JD, Lu W, Zhang LW, Chen Y, Zou YF, Hanks LM, et al. Likely Aggregation-Sex Pheromones of the Invasive Beetle Callidiellum villosulum, and the Related Asian Species Allotraeus asiaticus, Semanotus bifasciatus and Xylotrechus buqueti (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Journal of Economic Entomology. 2016; 109(5), 2243–2246. 10.1093/jee/tow187 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Hua LZ, Nara H, Samuelson GA, Lingafelter SW. Iconography of Chinese Longicorn Beetles (1406 Species) in Color. Sun Yat-sen University Press; 2009. [Google Scholar]
5.Longhorned beetles found in Christmas trees. EBSCO Host. 2004; 39(12): 6 Available from: http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/16525212/longhorned-beetles-found-christmas-trees. [Google Scholar]
6.Iwata R, Kawakami Y, Niisato T. Occurrence of Callidiellum villosum (Fairmaire) (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) from an imitation christmas tree manufactured in China. House and Household Insect Pests. 2006; 28(1): 85–89. (In Jepanese). [Google Scholar]
7.Lu W, Wang Q, Tian MY, Xu J, Qin AZ, He L, et al. Host Selection and colonization strategies with evidence for a female-produced oviposition attractant in a longhorn beetle. Environmental Entomology. 2011; 40(6): 1487–1493. 10.1603/EN10280 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.Wang Q. Cerambycidae of the world: Biology and pest management. CRC Press; 2017. [Google Scholar]
9.Men J, Zhao B, Cao DD, Wang WC, Wei JR. Evaluating host location in three native Sclerodermus species and their ability to cause mortality in the wood borer Aromia bungii (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in laboratory. Biological Control. 2019; 134: 95–102. 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2019.04.007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
10.Lu W, Wang Q, Tian MY, He XZ, Zeng XL, Zhong YX. Mate Location and Recognition in Glenea cantor (Fabr.) (Coleoptera:Cerambycidae: Lamiinae): Roles of Host Plant Health, Female Sex Pheromone, and Vision. Environmental Entomology. 2007; 36(4): 864–870. 10.1603/0046-225x(2007)36[864:mlarig]2.0.co;2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.Lu W, Wang Q, Tian MY, Xu J, Lv J, Qin AZ. Mating behavior and sexual selection in a polygamous beetle. Current Zoology. 2013; 59(2): 257–264. 10.1093/czoolo/59.2.257 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
12.Li Y, Li HE, Wang ZG, Gao DY, Xiao K, Yan AH. Cloning, localization and bioinformatics analysis of a gene encoding an odorant-binding protein (OBP) in Anoplophora glabripennis (Motschulsky). Invertebrate Neuroscience. 2018; 18(3): 10 10.1007/s10158-018-0214-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.Miyatake T, Katayama K, Takeda Y, Nakashima A, Sugita A, Mizumoto M. Is death-feigning adaptive? Heritable variation in fitness difference of death-feigning behaviour. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences. 2004; 271: 2293–2296. 10.1098/rspb.2004.2858 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Reagel PF, Ginzel MD, Hanks LM. Aggregation and mate location in the red milkweed beetle (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Journal of Insect Behavior. 2002; 15(6): 811–830. 10.1023/a:1021127624215 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
15.Ma MH. Odor and pheromone sensing via chemoreceptors. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology. 2012; 739: 93–106. 10.1007/978-1-4614-1704-0_6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16.Merivee E, Rahi M, Luik A. Antennal sensilla of the click beetle, Melanotus villosus (Geoffroy) (Coleoptera: Elateridae). International Journal of Insect Morphology & Embryology. 1999; 28(1–2): 41–51. 10.1016/s0020-7322(98)00032-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
17.Antonella DP, Marco P, Raffaele G, Antonio PG, Giacinto SG. Scanning electron microscopy of the antennal sensilla and their secretion analysis in adults of aromia bungii (Faldermann, 1835) (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). Insects. 2019; 10(4): 22 10.3390/insects10040088 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18.Michel JF, Tamás N, Robin K. Comparative antennal morphology of agriotes (Coleoptera: Elateridae), with special reference to the typology and possible functions of sensilla. Insects. 2020; 11(3): 137 10.3390/insects11020137 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.Wang Y, Jolanta B, Dai W. Morphological disparity of the mouthparts in polyphagous species of Largidae (Heteroptera: Pentatomomorpha: Pyrrhocoroidea) reveals feeding specialization. Insects. 2020; 11(3): 145 10.3390/insects11030145 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Yuvaraj JK, Andersson MN, Anderbrant O, Lofstedt C. Diversity of olfactory structures: A comparative study of antennal sensilla in Trichoptera and Lepidoptera. Micron. 2018; 111: 9–18. 10.1016/j.micron.2018.05.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21.Schneider D. Insect antennae. Annual Review of Entomology. 1964; 9: 103–122. 10.1146/annurev.en.09.010164.000535 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
22.Zacharuk RY. Comprehensive insect physiology, biochemistry and pharmacology. New York: Pergamon Press; 1985. [Google Scholar]
23.Olson DM, Andow DA. Antenna sensilla of female Trichogramma nubilale (Ertle and Davis) (Hymenoptera, Trichogrammatidae) and comparisons with other parasitic Hymenoptera. In ternational Journal of Insect Morphology & Embryology. 1993; 22(5): 507–520. 10.1016/0020-7322(93)90037-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
24.Merivee E, Ploomi A, Rahi M, Bresciani J, Ravn HP, Luik A, et al. Antennal sensilla of the ground beetle Bembidion properans Steph. (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Micron. 2002; 33(5): 429–440. 10.1016/s0968-4328(02)00003-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25.Zhang YJ, Chen DY, Chao XT, Dong ZS, Huang ZY, Zheng XL, et al. Morphological characterization and distribution of antennal sensilla of Diaphania angustalis Snellen (Lepidoptera: Crambidae). Microscopy Research and Technique. 2019; 82(10): 1632–1641. 10.1002/jemt.23329 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26.Chen JM, Qiao HL, Chen J, Xu CQ, Liu S, Lian ZM, et al. Observation of antennal sensilla in Xylotrechus grayii (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) with scanning electron microscopy. Microscopy Research and Technique. 2014, 77(4), pp. 264–273. 10.1002/jemt.22338 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27.MacKay CA, Sweeney JD, Hillier NK. Morphology of antennal sensilla of the brown spruce longhorn beetle, Tetropium fuscum (Fabr.) (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Arthropod Structure & Development. 2014; 43(5): 469–475. 10.1016/j.asd.2014.04.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28.Ali S, Ali SAI, Wagan TA, Waris MI, Wang MQ. Morphology and ultrastructure of the antennal sensilla of Japanese sawyer beetle Monochamus alternatus Hope (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society. 2017; 90(3): 241–251. 10.2317/0022-8567-90.3.241 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
29.Hansson BS, Stensmyr MC. Evolution of Insect Olfaction. Neuron. 2011; 72(5): 698–711. 10.1016/j.neuron.2011.11.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30.Hu F, Zhang GN, Wang JJ. Scanning electron microscopy studies of antennal sensilla of bruchid beetles, Callosobruchus chinensis (L.) and Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Micron. 2009; 40(3): 320–326. 10.1016/j.micron.2008.11.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31.Cao YK, Huang M. A SEM study of the antenna and mouthparts of Omosita colon (Linnaeus) (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae). Microscopy Research and Technique. 2016; 79(12): 1152–1164. 10.1002/jemt.22770 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32.Liu ZP, Yu W, Wu X. Ultrastructure of sensilla on the maxillary and labial palps of three species (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae: Staphylininae). Entomological Research. 2019; 49(8): 386–397. 10.1111/1748-5967.12389 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
33.Yang W, Zhou ZJ, Ye WJ, Zeng CH, Yang DM. Study on the damage characteristics and countermeasure of Callidium villosulum Fairmaire in Sichuan Province. Journal of Sichuan Forestry Science and Technology. 1997; 18(003): 38–41. 10.16779/j.cnki.1003-5508.1997.03.009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
34.Dong ZS, Yang YB, Dou FG, Zhang YJ, Huang HX, Zheng XL, et al. Observations on the Ultrastructure of Antennal Sensilla of Adult Glenea cantor (Cerambycidae: Lamiinae). Journal of Insect Science. 2020; 20(2): 7; 1–9. 10.1093/jisesa/ieaa006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35.Gao Y, Luo LZ, Hammond A. Antennal morphology, structure and sensilla distribution in Microplitis pallidipes (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Micron. 2007; 38(6): 684–693. 10.1016/j.micron.2006.09.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36.Wickham JD, Lu W, Zhang LW, Chen Y, Zou YF, Hanks LM, et al. Likely Aggregation-Sex Pheromones of the Invasive Beetle Callidiellum villosulum, and the Related Asian Species Allotraeus asiaticus, Semanotus bifasciatus, and Xylotrechus buqueti (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Journal of Economic Entomology. 2016; 109(5): 2243–2246. 10.1093/jee/tow187 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37.Liu XH, Zhang M, Shi JN, Li K, Zhang D. Ultrastructure of antennal sensilla of a parasitoid fly, Pales pavida Meigen (Diptera: Tachinidae). Micron. 2013; 54–55: 36–42. 10.1016/j.micron.2013.08.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241115.r001

Decision Letter 0

Yulin Gao

26 Aug 2020

PONE-D-20-25310

First description and comparison of the morphological and ultramicro characteristics of the antennal sensilla of two fir longhorn beetles

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lu,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 10 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Yulin Gao

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the collection site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

3. Please ensure that you include a title page within your main document. We do appreciate that you have a title page document uploaded as a separate file, however, as per our author guidelines (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-title-page) we do require this to be part of the manuscript file itself and not uploaded separately.

Could you therefore please include the title page into the beginning of your manuscript file itself, listing all authors and affiliations.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

"This research was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (31660626). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. "

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

"This work was also supported financially by degree construction - funds for doctoral study abroad of Guangxi University in 2019."

5. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The study proposed by Done et. al is based on antennal morphology analyses of A. asiaticus and C. villosulum using scanning electron microscopy based approach. The study described in this manuscript was conducted in China and it reports the first comprehensive list of antennal sensilla of two fir longhorn beetles, important pests in this region of the world. The overall objective of the study was accomplished as stated. The new information reported in the study builds upon what is already known about the antennal sensilla of other insects. The comparative analyses also validate some of the previously published information on morphological and ultramicro of antennal sensilla in other insect pests. Information from this study, can provide a better understanding of the molecular basis of olfaction and other chemical cues that regulate behavior in A. asiaticus and C. villosulum. This in turn, can provide a basis for developing alternative and better methods of controlling this pest.

This study is the first of its type on A. asiaticus and C. villosulum and it provides useful information on the comparative morphological and ultramicro analyses on the economically important insect pests. I believe it will contribute to the body of knowledge that is available on A. asiaticus and C. villosulum. In this regard I will recommend the manuscript for acceptance for publication subject to the comments addressed here.

1. As a whole，this article is tedious and repeated, such as the abstract, which should be compressed to more describe morphological and ultramicro characteristics.

2. There are many logical problems in this paper, such as “the study on the comparison between…” (lines 316-319), “during field trials, C. villosulum shown…” (lines 368-371) and “this is related to the identification of…” (lines 378-383), move logically from one idea to the nextlogically from one idea to the next and don't skip steps, revise it again.

3. Overall, the authors paid attention to details in writing of the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: In this study, the authors compared the antennal morphology and sensilla ultrastructure between A. asiaticus and C. villosulum and between the sexes of each species via scanning electron microscopy (SEM) techniques. The findings of the current study can contribute to a better understanding of the differences in their living habits and behaviors. Meanwhile, this descriptive work will also provide the theoretical basis for future work on pheromone identification and development of prevention and control techniques for these two pests. Overall, this study is interesting, the methods used are standard, the manuscript is well written scientifically and the data is sufficient to support its main conclusion. However, I have a few comments for improvement in my view.

Some suggestions:

Lines 15-17: Please rewrite this sentence more clearly.

Lines 21-22: I think no need of this sentence.

Lines 26-29: The given reference focus Chinese firs only in Fujian Province, China. Please provide references for their distribution in other countries or revised the statement which focus only China.

Lines 31: Replace indigenous by Indigenous..

Lines 43-45: Please provide references for these sentences.

Lines 108: Please use full scientific name at the start of a sentence. Check whole MS and correct it.

Lines 110-114: The use of three adversative conjunction ‘Interestingly’, ‘Meanwhile’ and ‘Nevertheless’ led to a logic miss. Please consider to rewrite these three sentences. Also, please check whole MS regarding this kind of mistakes.

Lines 131-132: P should be italic. Correct this in whole MS.

Lines 142-143: A. asiaticus and C. villosulum, should be italic.

Lines 158: Remove “a large” from sentence.

Lines 159: Replace sex by “sexes”.

Lines 177; 297-299; 378-379: The contractions in English should be avoided in scientific article. Please remove "What's more" and revise the sentence accordingly.

Lines 302: Replace significant by “significantly”

Lines 314-315: Please add references.

Lines 368-369: Replace “One past study” by “Previous study”. Also, please provide references.

Lines 401-404: Please remove “Generally speaking” and revise the sentence accordingly.

Lines 412-430: The conclusion section is too large, please reduce the text and conclude concisely.

PLoS One. 2020 Oct 30;15(10):e0241115. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241115.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

13 Sep 2020

Dear Academic Editor,

We really appreciate your earnest and careful review of our manuscript ID PONE-D-20-25310 entitled “First description and comparison of the morphological and ultramicro characteristics of the antennal sensilla of two fir longhorn beetles”. We also thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to consider again our revised paper.

Constructive comments from the reviewer was appreciated and carefully considered with a complete revision.

The response to manuscript revision instructions and reviewer’s comments point by point as listed below. Revised contents are showed by red fonts in the revised version.

Sincerely,

Zishu Dong

30 August, 2020

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response to Manuscript revision instruction:

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. In the revised version, revised contents is mainly shown in the following aspects:

(1)Revised contents are showed by red fonts in the revised version.

(2)We have checked carefully that our manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements.

(3)We’ve integrated title page and main body together to make sure that the title page within our main document.

(4)Sorry for we forgot to provide a statement in our methods section that the works are feasibly. And we have added a statement in the methods section of manuscript and in the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form.

(5)For the acknowledgments section, we have revised according to your suggestion which avoided the appearance of any funding-related text in this manuscript. And we make sure that the funding information doesn’t appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of our manuscript. Besides, we have provided funding information that is currently declared in our Funding Statement. Moreover, we include the updated Funding Statement in your cover letter. Our final Funding Statement is “This research was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (31660626). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript”. We have deleted the study abroad fund program of Guangxi University in 2019. The cover letter also clearly states that the project only supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (31660626). What's more, we also make a selection mark in the selection box of Current Funding Sources List of funding imformation.

(6)Corresponding author have completed the authorization process of ORCID iD.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response to reviewer 1:

Comments 1: “As a whole，this article is tedious and repeated, such as the abstract, which should be compressed to more describe morphological and ultramicro characteristics”.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. In the revised version, we rephrased our abstract (P. 2, L. 17-22) and conclusions (P. 26, L. 428-439) according to your comments.

Comments 2: “There are many logical problems in this paper, such as “the study on the comparison between…” (lines 316-319), “during field trials, C. villosulum shown…” (lines 368-371) and “this is related to the identification of…” (lines 378-383), move logically from one idea to the nextlogically from one idea to the next and don't skip steps, revise it again”.

Response: Thank you for your meaningful suggestions. After careful verification and cautious thinking, we revised the sentences respectively :

(1)At present, the study of antennae ultrastructure of longicorn beetles is focused on the comparison between male and female adults of each species. However, the interspecific comparison of antennae ultrastructure of different longicorn beetles with the same host plants is very rare (P. 22, L. 330-333).

(2)The results of field trials show that C. villosulum shown specific attraction to the blend of 3-hydroxyhexan-2-one and the pyrrole, while A. asiaticus was only specifically attracted to the pyrrole as a single component (P. 24, L. 384-386).

(3)This result suggests that these two sensilla very likely involved in the identification of sex pheromone components (P. 24, L. 395-396).

Comments 3: “Overall, the authors paid attention to details in writing of the manuscript”.

Response: Thanks for your recognition of our work. What’s more, we are also particularly grateful to you for your careful review and appropriate evaluation of our article.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response to reviewer 2:

Comments 1: “Lines 15-17: Please rewrite this sentence more clearly”.

Response: According to your suggestion. We rephrased the sentence into “ Four types (ten subtypes) of sensilla were both found on the antennae of these two fir longhorn beetles, named Böhm bristle (Bb), sensilla trichodea (ST I and II), sensilla basiconica (SB I, II and III), sensilla chaetica (SCh I, II, III and IV) ” (P. 2, L. 26-28).

Comments 2: “Lines 21-22: I think no need of this sentence”.

Response: We have deleted this sentence according to your comments (P. 2, L. 31).

Comments 3: “Lines 26-29: The given reference focus Chinese firs only in Fujian Province, China. Please provide references for their distribution in other countries or revised the statement which focus only China”.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have replaced a new reference (P. 3, L. 39).

Earle CJ. Cunninghamia. The Gymnosperm Database. 2020 May 20. Available from: https://www.conifers.org/cu/Cunninghamia.php

Comments 4: “Lines 31: Replace indigenous by Indigenous”.

Response: We have revised it according to your suggestion (P. 3, L. 41).

Comments 5: “Lines 43-45: Please provide references for these sentences”.

Response: Sorry for my inappropriate expression. This is our own statement without reference. So, we change the sentence into “ To avoid its proliferation in other regions of the world, it is necessary to systematically study the two beetles in order to plan preventive measures such as developing detection tools” (P. 3, L. 43-45).

Comments 6: “Lines 108: Please use full scientific name at the start of a sentence. Check whole MS and correct it”.

Response: Thank you for your reminder. We have checked whole MS, and just found the problem in this sentence. We changed this sentence into ‘There is a great difference between A. asiaticus and C. villosulum in the shape of the flagellum’ (P. 6, L. 119-120).

Comments 7: “Lines 110-114: The use of three adversative conjunction ‘Interestingly’, ‘Meanwhile’ and ‘Nevertheless’ led to a logic miss. Please consider to rewrite these three sentences. Also, please check whole MS regarding this kind of mistakes”.

Response: This is a meanful suggestion. We have rephrased this sentence as your comments (P. 6, L. 122-125). After checked whole MS, we also rephrased some sentence with similar problem (P. 22, L. 330-333; P. 24, L. 384-386; P. 24, L. 395-396).

Comments 8: “Lines 131-132: P should be italic. Correct this in whole MS”.

Response: We examined the whole MS carefully, and all p have been kept italic according to your comments ( P. 7, L. 142; P. 8, L. 143, 145-148; P. 9, L. 155, 158; P. 10, L. 160-162; P. 21, L. 314, 318).

Comments 9: “Lines 142-143: A. asiaticus and C. villosulum, should be italic”.

Response: We examined the whole MS carefully, and all latin names have been kept italic according to your comments (P. 6, L. 108-109; P. 9, L. 154-155).

Comments 10: “Lines 158: Remove ‘a large’ from sentence”.

Response: We have removed ‘a large’ from sentence according to your comments (P. 10, L. 171).

Comments 11: “Lines 159: Replace sex by ‘sexes’ ”.

Response: We have replaced ‘sex’ by ‘sexes’ according to your comments (P. 10, L. 172).

Comments 12: “Lines 177; 297-299; 378-379: The contractions in English should be avoided in scientific article. Please remove ‘What's more’ and revise the sentence accordingly”.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have rephrased this sentence according to your comments (P. 11, L. 187-188). And we also have removed ‘What's more’ and revise the sentence accordingly (P. 21, L. 311-314; P. 25, L. 392-394).

Comments 13: “Lines 302: Replace significant by ‘significantly’ ”.

Response: We have replaced ‘significant’ by ‘significantly’ according to your comments (P. 21, L. 316).

Comments 14: “Lines 314-315: Please add references”.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have added reference for this sentence (P. 22, L. 329).

Comments 15: “Lines 368-369: Replace ‘One past study’ by ‘Previous study’. Also, please provide references”.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have rephrased this sentence according to your comments (P. 24, L. 382-384.)

Comments 16: “Lines 401-404: Please remove ‘Generally speaking’ and revise the sentence accordingly”.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have rephrased this sentence according to your comments (P. 26, L. 417-419).

Comments 17: “Lines 412-430: The conclusion section is too large, please reduce the text and conclude concisely”.

Response: We rephrased our conclusion according to your comments (P. 26, L. 428-439).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(26.5KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241115.r003

Decision Letter 1

Yulin Gao

9 Oct 2020

First description and comparison of the morphological and ultramicro characteristics of the antennal sensilla of two fir longhorn beetles

PONE-D-20-25310R1

Dear Dr. Lu,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Yulin Gao

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241115.r004

Acceptance letter

Yulin Gao

19 Oct 2020

PONE-D-20-25310R1

First description and comparison of the morphological and ultramicro characteristics of the antennal sensilla of two fir longhorn beetles

Dear Dr. Lu:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Yulin Gao

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

S1 File. Supplement tables.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(74.5KB, xlsx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(26.5KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

[pone.0241115.ref001] 1.Earle CJ. Cunninghamia. The Gymnosperm Database. 2020 May 20. Available from: https://www.conifers.org/cu/Cunninghamia.php.

[pone.0241115.ref002] 2.Cocquempot C, Mifsud D. First European interception of the brown fir longhorn beetle, Callidiellum villosulum (Fairmaire, 1900) (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). Bulletin of the Entomological Society of Malta. 2013; 6: 143–147. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0241115.ref003] 3.Wickham JD, Lu W, Zhang LW, Chen Y, Zou YF, Hanks LM, et al. Likely Aggregation-Sex Pheromones of the Invasive Beetle Callidiellum villosulum, and the Related Asian Species Allotraeus asiaticus, Semanotus bifasciatus and Xylotrechus buqueti (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Journal of Economic Entomology. 2016; 109(5), 2243–2246. 10.1093/jee/tow187 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0241115.ref004] 4.Hua LZ, Nara H, Samuelson GA, Lingafelter SW. Iconography of Chinese Longicorn Beetles (1406 Species) in Color. Sun Yat-sen University Press; 2009. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0241115.ref005] 5.Longhorned beetles found in Christmas trees. EBSCO Host. 2004; 39(12): 6 Available from: http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/16525212/longhorned-beetles-found-christmas-trees. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0241115.ref006] 6.Iwata R, Kawakami Y, Niisato T. Occurrence of Callidiellum villosum (Fairmaire) (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) from an imitation christmas tree manufactured in China. House and Household Insect Pests. 2006; 28(1): 85–89. (In Jepanese). [Google Scholar]

[pone.0241115.ref007] 7.Lu W, Wang Q, Tian MY, Xu J, Qin AZ, He L, et al. Host Selection and colonization strategies with evidence for a female-produced oviposition attractant in a longhorn beetle. Environmental Entomology. 2011; 40(6): 1487–1493. 10.1603/EN10280 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0241115.ref008] 8.Wang Q. Cerambycidae of the world: Biology and pest management. CRC Press; 2017. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0241115.ref009] 9.Men J, Zhao B, Cao DD, Wang WC, Wei JR. Evaluating host location in three native Sclerodermus species and their ability to cause mortality in the wood borer Aromia bungii (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in laboratory. Biological Control. 2019; 134: 95–102. 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2019.04.007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0241115.ref010] 10.Lu W, Wang Q, Tian MY, He XZ, Zeng XL, Zhong YX. Mate Location and Recognition in Glenea cantor (Fabr.) (Coleoptera:Cerambycidae: Lamiinae): Roles of Host Plant Health, Female Sex Pheromone, and Vision. Environmental Entomology. 2007; 36(4): 864–870. 10.1603/0046-225x(2007)36[864:mlarig]2.0.co;2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0241115.ref011] 11.Lu W, Wang Q, Tian MY, Xu J, Lv J, Qin AZ. Mating behavior and sexual selection in a polygamous beetle. Current Zoology. 2013; 59(2): 257–264. 10.1093/czoolo/59.2.257 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0241115.ref012] 12.Li Y, Li HE, Wang ZG, Gao DY, Xiao K, Yan AH. Cloning, localization and bioinformatics analysis of a gene encoding an odorant-binding protein (OBP) in Anoplophora glabripennis (Motschulsky). Invertebrate Neuroscience. 2018; 18(3): 10 10.1007/s10158-018-0214-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0241115.ref013] 13.Miyatake T, Katayama K, Takeda Y, Nakashima A, Sugita A, Mizumoto M. Is death-feigning adaptive? Heritable variation in fitness difference of death-feigning behaviour. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences. 2004; 271: 2293–2296. 10.1098/rspb.2004.2858 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0241115.ref014] 14.Reagel PF, Ginzel MD, Hanks LM. Aggregation and mate location in the red milkweed beetle (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Journal of Insect Behavior. 2002; 15(6): 811–830. 10.1023/a:1021127624215 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0241115.ref015] 15.Ma MH. Odor and pheromone sensing via chemoreceptors. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology. 2012; 739: 93–106. 10.1007/978-1-4614-1704-0_6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0241115.ref016] 16.Merivee E, Rahi M, Luik A. Antennal sensilla of the click beetle, Melanotus villosus (Geoffroy) (Coleoptera: Elateridae). International Journal of Insect Morphology & Embryology. 1999; 28(1–2): 41–51. 10.1016/s0020-7322(98)00032-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0241115.ref017] 17.Antonella DP, Marco P, Raffaele G, Antonio PG, Giacinto SG. Scanning electron microscopy of the antennal sensilla and their secretion analysis in adults of aromia bungii (Faldermann, 1835) (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). Insects. 2019; 10(4): 22 10.3390/insects10040088 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0241115.ref018] 18.Michel JF, Tamás N, Robin K. Comparative antennal morphology of agriotes (Coleoptera: Elateridae), with special reference to the typology and possible functions of sensilla. Insects. 2020; 11(3): 137 10.3390/insects11020137 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0241115.ref019] 19.Wang Y, Jolanta B, Dai W. Morphological disparity of the mouthparts in polyphagous species of Largidae (Heteroptera: Pentatomomorpha: Pyrrhocoroidea) reveals feeding specialization. Insects. 2020; 11(3): 145 10.3390/insects11030145 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0241115.ref020] 20.Yuvaraj JK, Andersson MN, Anderbrant O, Lofstedt C. Diversity of olfactory structures: A comparative study of antennal sensilla in Trichoptera and Lepidoptera. Micron. 2018; 111: 9–18. 10.1016/j.micron.2018.05.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0241115.ref021] 21.Schneider D. Insect antennae. Annual Review of Entomology. 1964; 9: 103–122. 10.1146/annurev.en.09.010164.000535 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0241115.ref022] 22.Zacharuk RY. Comprehensive insect physiology, biochemistry and pharmacology. New York: Pergamon Press; 1985. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0241115.ref023] 23.Olson DM, Andow DA. Antenna sensilla of female Trichogramma nubilale (Ertle and Davis) (Hymenoptera, Trichogrammatidae) and comparisons with other parasitic Hymenoptera. In ternational Journal of Insect Morphology & Embryology. 1993; 22(5): 507–520. 10.1016/0020-7322(93)90037-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0241115.ref024] 24.Merivee E, Ploomi A, Rahi M, Bresciani J, Ravn HP, Luik A, et al. Antennal sensilla of the ground beetle Bembidion properans Steph. (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Micron. 2002; 33(5): 429–440. 10.1016/s0968-4328(02)00003-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0241115.ref025] 25.Zhang YJ, Chen DY, Chao XT, Dong ZS, Huang ZY, Zheng XL, et al. Morphological characterization and distribution of antennal sensilla of Diaphania angustalis Snellen (Lepidoptera: Crambidae). Microscopy Research and Technique. 2019; 82(10): 1632–1641. 10.1002/jemt.23329 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0241115.ref026] 26.Chen JM, Qiao HL, Chen J, Xu CQ, Liu S, Lian ZM, et al. Observation of antennal sensilla in Xylotrechus grayii (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) with scanning electron microscopy. Microscopy Research and Technique. 2014, 77(4), pp. 264–273. 10.1002/jemt.22338 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0241115.ref027] 27.MacKay CA, Sweeney JD, Hillier NK. Morphology of antennal sensilla of the brown spruce longhorn beetle, Tetropium fuscum (Fabr.) (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Arthropod Structure & Development. 2014; 43(5): 469–475. 10.1016/j.asd.2014.04.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0241115.ref028] 28.Ali S, Ali SAI, Wagan TA, Waris MI, Wang MQ. Morphology and ultrastructure of the antennal sensilla of Japanese sawyer beetle Monochamus alternatus Hope (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society. 2017; 90(3): 241–251. 10.2317/0022-8567-90.3.241 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0241115.ref029] 29.Hansson BS, Stensmyr MC. Evolution of Insect Olfaction. Neuron. 2011; 72(5): 698–711. 10.1016/j.neuron.2011.11.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0241115.ref030] 30.Hu F, Zhang GN, Wang JJ. Scanning electron microscopy studies of antennal sensilla of bruchid beetles, Callosobruchus chinensis (L.) and Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Micron. 2009; 40(3): 320–326. 10.1016/j.micron.2008.11.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0241115.ref031] 31.Cao YK, Huang M. A SEM study of the antenna and mouthparts of Omosita colon (Linnaeus) (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae). Microscopy Research and Technique. 2016; 79(12): 1152–1164. 10.1002/jemt.22770 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0241115.ref032] 32.Liu ZP, Yu W, Wu X. Ultrastructure of sensilla on the maxillary and labial palps of three species (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae: Staphylininae). Entomological Research. 2019; 49(8): 386–397. 10.1111/1748-5967.12389 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0241115.ref033] 33.Yang W, Zhou ZJ, Ye WJ, Zeng CH, Yang DM. Study on the damage characteristics and countermeasure of Callidium villosulum Fairmaire in Sichuan Province. Journal of Sichuan Forestry Science and Technology. 1997; 18(003): 38–41. 10.16779/j.cnki.1003-5508.1997.03.009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0241115.ref034] 34.Dong ZS, Yang YB, Dou FG, Zhang YJ, Huang HX, Zheng XL, et al. Observations on the Ultrastructure of Antennal Sensilla of Adult Glenea cantor (Cerambycidae: Lamiinae). Journal of Insect Science. 2020; 20(2): 7; 1–9. 10.1093/jisesa/ieaa006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0241115.ref035] 35.Gao Y, Luo LZ, Hammond A. Antennal morphology, structure and sensilla distribution in Microplitis pallidipes (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Micron. 2007; 38(6): 684–693. 10.1016/j.micron.2006.09.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0241115.ref036] 36.Wickham JD, Lu W, Zhang LW, Chen Y, Zou YF, Hanks LM, et al. Likely Aggregation-Sex Pheromones of the Invasive Beetle Callidiellum villosulum, and the Related Asian Species Allotraeus asiaticus, Semanotus bifasciatus, and Xylotrechus buqueti (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Journal of Economic Entomology. 2016; 109(5): 2243–2246. 10.1093/jee/tow187 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0241115.ref037] 37.Liu XH, Zhang M, Shi JN, Li K, Zhang D. Ultrastructure of antennal sensilla of a parasitoid fly, Pales pavida Meigen (Diptera: Tachinidae). Micron. 2013; 54–55: 36–42. 10.1016/j.micron.2013.08.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

First description and comparison of the morphological and ultramicro characteristics of the antennal sensilla of two fir longhorn beetles

Zishu Dong

Fugen Dou

Yubin Yang

Jacob D Wickham

Rong Tang

Yujing Zhang

Zongyou Huang

Xialin Zheng

Xiaoyun Wang

Wen Lu

Roles

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Insects

Fig 1.

Scanning electron microscopy

Dates collection and analysis

Results

Gross morphology of antennae of A. asiaticus and C. villosulum

Shape characteristics

Fig 2. Morphological characteristics of antennae of A. asiaticus and C. villosulum.

Fig 3. General morphological characteristics of antennae of A. asiaticus and C. villosulum.

Table 1. Length (μm) and width (μm) of spine of both sexes in A. asiaticus.

Length and width of antennae

Table 2. Length (mm) and width (mm) of antennal segments of both sexes in A. asiaticus and C. villosulum.

Types of antennal sensillum of A. asiaticus and C. villosulum

Fig 4. Number and distribution of sensilla on the antennae of different segments of both sexes of A. asiaticus and C. villosulum (mean ± SE, n = 5).

Table 3. Morphological characteristics of the antennal sensilla of both sexes in A. asiaticus and C. villosulum.

Sensilla chaetica

Fig 5. Number and distribution of SCh (I, II, III, IV) on different segments of antennae in both sexes of A. asiaticus and C. villosulum (mean ± SE, n = 5).

Fig 6. The morphology of sensilla chaetica on the antennae of A. asiaticus and C. villosulum.

Böhm bristles

Fig 7. Number and distribution of ST, SB, Bb, SCa on different segments of antennae in both sexes of A. asiaticus and C. villosulum (mean ± SE, n = 5).

Fig 8. The morphology of ST, Bb and SCa on antennae of A. asiaticus and C. villosulum.

Sensilla trichodea

Table 4. Number and distribution of ST and SB in the dorsal and ventral surface of different antennae segments in both sexes of A. asiaticus and C. villosulum.

Sensilla campaniformia

Sensilla basiconic

Fig 9. High-resolution images for types of SB on the antennae of A. asiaticus and C. villosulum.

Discussion

Fig 10. Mean (± SE) numbers per replicate of adult beetles of different genders of A. asiaticus and C. villosulum that were caught during a field experiment conducted in Guangxi Autonomous Region, China, during March to April 2016.

Conclusions

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Yulin Gao

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Yulin Gao

Roles

Acceptance letter

Yulin Gao

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases