CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 363Insect Utilization and EffectsInsect behavior and control techniquesDiptera species taxonomy and behavior

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Selected Life-History Traits of Black Soldier Flies (Diptera: Stratiomyidae) Reared on Three Artificial Diets

Tomberlin, Jeffery K., Sheppard, D. Craig, Joyce, John A.·2002·Annals of the Entomological Society of America
DOI 10.1603/0013-8746(2002)095[0379:slhtob]2.0.co;2
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Hermetia illucens (L.) was reared on three larval diets to determine their effects on preimaginal development and selected adult life-history traits. Prepupal and adult characteristics were examined for individuals reared on each diet and compared with field-collected prepupae and corresponding emergent adults. Diet did not significantly influence development or survivorship to the prepupal stage. However, adult emergence for all diets was significantly less than that determined for the wild population. Development time from egg to adult for individuals reared on the diets at 27°C ranged from 40 to 43 d with the larval stage lasting 22–24 d. We observed >96% larval survivorship to the prepupal stage and 21–27% adult emergence. Females accounted for 55–60% of emergent adults across treatments. Specimens reared on each diet were reduced in size, longevity, and calorie content in comparison to specimens from the wild population. Males within diet treatments and field-collected specimens were significantly smaller than females and emerged 1–2 d before females. Additionally, males reared on the diets and provided water lived for 9 d, whereas females lived for 8 d. This information indicates the diets might be used for rearing soldier flies. However, further refinement is needed to produce adults similar to those found in nature.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1603/0013-8746(2002)095[0379:slhtob]2.0.co;2

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 22 · Cited by 363

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. Axtell, 1990, Annu. Rev. Entomol, 35, 101, 10.1146/annurev.en.35.010190.000533 · DOI
  2. Beard, 1973, Environ. Entomol, 2, 801, 10.1093/ee/2.5.801 · DOI
  3. Bondari, 1981, Aquaculture, 24, 103, 10.1016/0044-8486(81)90047-8 · DOI
  4. Booth, 1984, Environ. Entomol, 13, 421, 10.1093/ee/13.2.421 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Chippindale, 1993, J. Evol. Biol, 6, 171, 10.1046/j.1420-9101.1993.6020171.x · DOI
  6. Dicke, 1989, J. Appl. Entomol, 107, 462, 10.1111/j.1439-0418.1989.tb00480.x · DOI
  7. Dutcher, 1983, J. Ga. Entomol. Soc, 18, 208
  8. Foster, 1995, J. Insect Physiol, 42, 657, 10.1016/0022-1910(96)00012-1 · DOI
  9. Furman, 1959, J. Econ. Entomol, 52, 917, 10.1093/jee/52.5.917 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Gonzalez, 1963, Agric. Tec. Mex, 2, 53
  11. Hogsette, 1985, J. Econ. Entomol, 85, 2291, 10.1093/jee/85.6.2291 · DOI
  12. James, 1935, Bull. Brooklyn Entomol. Soc, 30, 165
  13. Johannsen, 1922, J. N.Y. Entomol. Soc, 30, 141
  14. May, 1961, N.Z. J. Sci, 4, 55
  15. Morgan, 1975, Israel J. Entomol, 10, 73
  16. Newton, 1977, J. Anim. Sci, 44, 395, 10.2527/jas1977.443395x · DOI
  17. Rogers, 1994, Environ. Entomol, 23, 322, 10.1093/ee/23.2.322 · DOI
  18. Sheppard, 1983, Environ. Entomol, 12, 1439, 10.1093/ee/12.5.1439 · DOI
  19. Sheppard, 1994, Bioresource Tech, 50, 275, 10.1016/0960-8524(94)90102-3 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Stephens, 1975, Trop. Agric. (Trinidad), 52, 173
  21. Tingle, 1975, J. Ga. Entomol. Soc, 10, 179

Metadata

Authors
Tomberlin, J. K., Sheppard, D. C., & Joyce, J. A.
Affiliations
University of Georgia (US)
ORCID
Tomberlin, Jeffery K.
Venue
Annals of the Entomological Society of America
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2002-05-01
Volume
95
Issue
3
Pages
379-386
ISSN
0013-8746 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1603/0013-8746(2002)095[0379:slhtob]2.0.co;2
OpenAlex
W2173317729
Cited by
363
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 4
FWCI
1.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annals of the Entomological Society of America (publishedVersion)
  • BioOne Complete (BioOne) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Insect Utilization and Effects
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Insect behavior and control techniques
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Diptera species taxonomy and behavior
Keywords
Hermetia illucens, Stratiomyidae, artificial diet, larval rearing, life-history traits, adult emergence, development time, larval survival, sex differences, body size, longevity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review