Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T18:30:14.571Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evidence for the occurrence of sibling species in Eubazus spp. (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), parasitoids of Pissodes spp. weevils (Coleoptera: Curculionidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

M. Kenis  and
N.J. Mills
M. Kenis*
Affiliation:
International Institute of Biological Control, European Station, Chemin des Grillons 1, 2800 Delémont, Switzerland:
N.J. Mills
Affiliation:
lnsect Biology, Wellman Hall, Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-3112, USA
*
* Fax: 41 32 422 4824 E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Comparative studies were made on three presumed sibling species of the genus Eubazus, parasitoids of European Pissodes spp. weevils, to clarify their taxonomy and define diagnostic characters. Several populations of E. semirugosus (Nees), E. robustus (Ratzeburg) and Eubazus sp. were compared with respect to their morphology (mainly through morphometric analyses), fecundity, isoenzyme patterns and host preference. Crosses were made to assess the genetic and behavioural compatibility of the populations. In addition, the North American E. crassigaster (Provancher), a parasitoid of Pissodes strobi (Peck), was compared to E. semirugosus, a species selected for introduction against P. strobi in Canada. The ratio of the length of the ovipositor sheath to the fore wing length was the most discriminating morphometric variable, but discriminant analyses including several measurements were needed to completely separate European species. A canonical discriminant function provided a total separation between males of E. crassigaster and E. semirugosus, but not between females. Eubazus crassigaster and E. semirugosus were totally separated by the banding pattern of the enzyme phosphogluconate dehydrogenase whereas hexokinase and esterase provided a diagnostic separation between Eubazus sp. and E. robustus. Eubazus sp. differed from all the other species by having a greater number of ovarioles and, consequently, a higher potential fecundity. In a two-choice oviposition test, E. semirugosus and Eubazus sp. showed a significant preference for their natural host, P. castaneus De Geer and P. piceae (Illiger), respectively. A similar test made with their progenies reared under standard conditions showed that the difference in host preference was genetically fixed. Males and females of different species did not mate readily, in contrast to individuals from the same species. All attempts to interbreed E. robustus and Eubazus sp. failed, but a few crosses between E. semirugosus and the two other European species produced fertile offspring. These observations strongly suggest that the complex of Eubazus spp. parasitoids attacking Pissodes spp. in Europe is composed of at least three sibling species, two of which appear to have specialized on distinct host species that occupy exclusive microhabitats.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 88 , Issue 2 , April 1998 , pp. 149 - 163
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Achterberg, C. van (1988) Revision of the subfamily Blacinae Foerster (Hymenoptera, Braconidae). Zoologische Verhandelingen 249, 1–324.Google Scholar
Achterberg, C. van (1990) Revision of the genera Foersteria Szépligeti and Polydegmon Foerster (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), with the description of a new genus. Zoologische Verhandelingen 257, 1–32.Google Scholar
Alauzet, C. (1982) Biocenose de Pissodes notatus F. ravageur des pins maritimes en forêt de Bouconne (Haute-Garone: France). Nouvelle Revue d'Entomologie 12, 81–89.Google Scholar
Alfaro, R.I. (1982) Fifty-year-old Sitka spruce plantations with a history of intense weevil attack. Journal of the Entomological Society of British Columbia 79, 62–65.Google Scholar
Annila, E. (1975) The biology of Pissodes validirostrisGyll. (Col., Curculionidae) and its harmfulness, especially in Scots pine seed orchards. Communicationes Instituti Forestalis Fenniae 85, 1–95.Google Scholar
Beckendorf, S.K. & Hoy, M.A. (1985) Genetic improvement of arthropod natural enemies through selection, hybridization or genetic engineering techniques. pp. 167–187in Hoy, M.A. & Herzog, D.C. (Eds) Biological control in agricultural IPM systems. Orlando, Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bush, G.L. (1975) Sympatric speciation in phytophagous parasitic insects. pp. 187–207in Price, P.W. (Ed.) Evolutionary strategies of parasitoids. New York, Plenum.Google Scholar
Caltagirone, L.E. (1985) Identifying and discriminating among biotypes of parasites and predators. pp. 189–200in Hoy, M.A. & Herzog, D.C. (Eds) Biological control in agricultural IPM systems. Orlando, Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeBach, P. (1958) Selective breeding to improve adaptations of parasitic insects. Proceedings of the X International Congress of Entomology 4, 759.Google Scholar
DeBach, P. & Rosen, D. (1991) Biological control by natural enemies. 2nd edn.440 pp. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Diehl, S.R. & Bush, G.L. (1984) An evolutionary and applied perspective of insect biotypes. Annual Review of Entomology 29, 471–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehler, L.E. (1990) Introduction strategies in biological control of insects. pp. 111–134in Mackauer, M., Ehler, L.E. & Roland, J. (Eds) Critical issues in biological control. Andover, Intercept.Google Scholar
Fahringer, J. (1934) Opuscula Braconologia, palaearktische region Bd. 2. pp. 321–594Wien.Google Scholar
Gauld, I.D. (1986) Taxonomy, its limitations and its role in understanding parasitoid biology. pp. 1–21in Waage, J. & Greathead, D.J. (Eds) Insect parasitoids. London, Academic Press.Google Scholar
Godfray, H.C.J. (1994) Parasitoids. Behavioral and evolutionary ecology. 473 pp. Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haeselbarth, E. (1962) Zur Biologie, Entwicklungsgeschichte und Oekologie von Brachistes atricornis Ratz. als eines Parasiter von Pissodes piceae. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Entomologie 49, 233–289.Google Scholar
Holler, C. (1991) Evidence for the existence of a species closely related to the cereal aphid parasitoid Aphidius rhopalosiphi De Stefani-Perez based on host ranges, morphological characters, isoelectric focusing banding patterns, crossbreeding experiments and sex pheromone specificities (Hymenoptera, Braconidae, Aphidiinae). Systematic Entomology 16, 15–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, K.R., Roush, R.T. & Powell, W. (1993) Management of genetics of biological control introductions. Annual Review of Entomology 38, 27–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoy, M.A. (1990) Genetic improvement of arthropod natural enemies: becoming a conventional tactic? pp. 405–415in Baker, R.R. & Dunn, P.E. (Eds) New directions in biological control. New York, Alan R. Lyss.Google Scholar
Kenis, M. (1994) Variations in diapause among populations of Eubazus semirugosus (Nees) (Hym.: Braconidae), a parasitoid of Pissodes spp. (Col.: Curculionidae). Norwegian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, Supplement 16, 77–82.Google Scholar
Kenis, M. & Mills, N.J. (1994) Parasitoids of European species of the genus Pissodes(Col: Curculionidae) and their potential for the biological control of Pissodes strobi (Peck) in Canada. Biological Control 4, 14–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenis, M., Hulme, M.A. & Mills, N.J. (1996) Comparative developmental biology of populations of three European and one North American Eubazus spp. (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), parasitoids of Pissodes spp. weevils. Bulletin of Entomological Research 86, 143–153.Google Scholar
Kishi, Y. (1970) Difference in sex ratio of the pine bark weevil parasite, Dolichomitus sp. (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) emerging from different host species. Applied Entomology and Zoology 5, 126–132.Google Scholar
Kudela, M. (1974) Curculionidae, Pissodini. pp. 299–310in Schwenke, W. (Ed.) Die Forstschädlinge Europas 2 Band. Hamburg, Paul Pareys.Google Scholar
Kudon, L.H. & Berisford, C.W. (1980) Influence of brood hosts on host preference of bark beetle parasites. Nature 283, 288–289.Google Scholar
Laidlaw, W.B.R. (1933) Two British parasites of Pissodes. Scottish Forestry Journal 47, 24–31.Google Scholar
Lavallée, R. & Benoit, P. (1989) Le Charançon du pin Blanc. Foréts Canada, Feuillet d'information, CLF 18, 1–13.Google Scholar
Lovaszy, P. (1941) Zur Kenntnis der Schlupwespen einiger schädlicher Rüsselkäfer. Annales Entomologica Fennici 7, 194–204.Google Scholar
Marshall, (1888) Species des hymenoptères d'Europe et d'Algérie, tome quatrième. 609 pp. Beaune (France).Google Scholar
Marshall, (1891) Species des hymenoptères d'Europe et d'Algérie, tome cinquième. 635 pp. Gray (France), Bouffaut Frères.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1942) Systematics and the origin of species, from the viewpoint of a zoologist. New York, Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Mendel, Z. (1986) Hymenopterous parasitoids of bark beetles (Scolytidae) in Israel: relationships between host and parasitoid size, and sex ratio. Entomophaga 31, 127–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, N.J. & Fisher, P. (1986) The entomophage complex of Pissodes weevils, with emphasis on the value of P. validirostris as a source of parasitoids for use in biological control. PP. 297–305in Roques, A. (Ed.) Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference IUFRO Cone and Seed Insects Working Party, Briançon,September 1986.Olivet (France),INRA.Google Scholar
Murphy, R.W., Sites, J.W., Buth, D.G. & Haufler, C.H. (1990) Proteins 1: isozyme electrophoresis. pp. 45–126in Hillis, D.M. & Moritz, C. (Eds) Molecular systematics. Sunderland, Massachussets, Sinauer.Google Scholar
O'Brien, C.W. (1989a) Revision of the weevil genus Pissodes in Mexico with notes on the neotropical Pissodini (Coleoptera, Curculionidae). Transactions of the American Entomological Society 115, 415–432.Google Scholar
O'Brien, L.B. (1989b) A catalog of the Coleoptera of America north of Mexico. Family Curculionidae, subfamily Pissodinae Bedell 1888. Agriculture Handbooks. 529–143d, 1–8.Google Scholar
Powell, W. & Walton, M.P. (1989) The use of electrophoresis in the study of hymenopteran parasitoids of agricultural pests. pp. 343–365in Loxdale, H.D. & Den Hollander, J. (Eds) Electrophoretic studies on agricultural pests. Oxford, Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Price, P.W. (1975) Reproductive strategies of parasitoids. pp. 87–111in Price, P.W. (Ed.) Evolutionary strategies of parasitoids. New York, Plenum.Google Scholar
Ratzeburg, J.T.C. (1844) Die Ichneumonen der Forstinsekten, Bd. 1. 226 pp. Berlin.Google Scholar
Ratzeburg, J.T.C. (1848) Die Ichneumonen der Forstinsekten, Bd. 2. 238 pp. Berlin.Google Scholar
Reyment, R.A., Blackith, R.E. & Campbell, N.A. (1984) Multivariate morphometrics. 233 pp. London, Academic Press.Google Scholar
Roques, A. (1975) Etude de la mérocénose des cônes de pins sylvestres en forêt de Fontainebleau. 164 pp. Thèse 3e cycle, Paris VI.Google Scholar
SPSS(1993) SPSS for Windows, advanced statistics, Release 6.0. 578 pp. Chicago, SPSS Inc.Google Scholar
Turlings, T.C.J., Wäckers, F.L., Vet, L.E.M., Lewis, W.J. & Tumlinson, J.H. (1993) Learning of host-finding cues by hymenopterous parasitoids. pp. 51–78in Lewis, A.C. & Papaj, D.R. (Eds) Insects learning: ecological and evolutionary perspectives. New York, Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Vet, L.E.M., Janse, C.J., van Achterberg, C. & van Alphen, J.J.M. (1984) Microhabitat location and niche segregation in two sibling species of drosophilid parasitoids: Asobara tabida (Nees) and A. rufescens (Foerster) (Braconidae: Alysiinae). Oecologia 61, 182–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar