Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T23:08:59.029Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies on the Association of the Ant Oecophylla longinoda (Latr.) (Formicidae) with the Scale Insect Saissetia zanzibarensis Williams (Coccidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

M. J. Way
M. J. Way
Affiliation:
Clove Research Scheme, Zanzibar.*
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A close association exists between the ant Oecophylla longinoda (Latr.) and the scale insect Saissetia zanzibarensis Williams.

Several factors cause the scale to be rare in the absence of the ant. Contamination by honey-dew and sooty moulds prevents increase of the S. zanzibarensis population above a relatively low level, while, in addition, insect parasites and probably predators virtually exterminate the scale. A fungal parasite may destroy honey-dew-contaminated S. zanzibarensis under humid conditions.

The attendant O. longinoda prevents contamination of the scale by honeydew. It gives absolute protection from Coccinellid predators and, although parasitism by Coccophagus spp. and predation by Eublemma spp. is not prevented, the mortality of S. zanzibarensis which they cause is thought to be of little significance.

O. longinoda workers benefit S. zanzibarensis in other ways. They remove débris from the scale clusters; they transport the nymphs and establish them at suitable feeding sites. The effect of these benefits is most marked when the ant population is high relative to that of the scale.

The silken shelters built by O. longinoda over S. zanzibarensis clusters protect the ant during adverse weather and may only incidentally benefit the scales.

S. zanzibarensis and other honey-dew-producing Homoptera are the major food source for O. longinoda. Other sources are sufficient to maintain only relatively low populations of the ant.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , March 1954 , pp. 113 - 134
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1954

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

Barber, E. R. (1923). The Sugar-cane Mealy Bug and its control in Louisiana.—Bull. La agric. Exp. Sta., no. 185, 16 pp.Google Scholar
*Bünzli, G. H. (1935). Untersuchungen über coccidophile Ameisen aus den Kaffeefeldern von Surinam.—Mitt. schweiz. ent. Ges., 16, pp. 453–593. (R.A.E., (A) 23, p. 679.)Google Scholar
Carter, W. (1933). The Pineapple Mealy Bug, Pseudococcus brevipes, and wilt of pineapples.—Phytopathology, 23, pp. 207–242.Google Scholar
Dutt, G. R. (1912). Life histories of Indian insects. IV. (Hymenoptera).—Mem. Dep. Agric. India (Ent.), 4, pp. 183–267.Google Scholar
Flanders, S. E. (1945). Coincident infestations of Aonidiella citrina and Coccus hesperidum, a result of ant activity.—J. econ. Ent., 38, pp. 711–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herzig, J. (1937). Ameisen und Blattläuse.—Z. angew. Ent., 24, pp. 367–435. (R.A.E., (A) 26, p. 195.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hough, W. S. (1922). Observations on two mealy bugs, Trionymus trifolii, Forbes, and Pseudococcus maritimus Ehrh. (Hom., Coccidae).—Ent. News, 33, pp. 171–176. (R.A.E., (A) 10, p. 416.)Google Scholar
Ibbotson, A. & Kennady, J. S. (1951). Aggregation in Aphis fabae Scop. I. Aggregation on plants.—Ann. appl. Biol., 38, pp. 65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Kirkpatrick, T. W. (1927). The Common Coffee Mealybug (Pseudococcus lilacinus, Ckll.) in Kenya Colony.—Bull. Dep. Agric. Kenya, no. 18, 110 pp. (R.A.E., (A) 16, p. 308.)Google Scholar
Lubbock, J. (1882). Ants, bees and wasps.—3rd edn.448 pp. London.Google Scholar
*Negi, P. S., Misra, M. P. & Gupta, S. N. (1930). Ants and the Lac Insect (Laccifer lacca).—J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc., 34, pp. 182–188. (R.A.E., (A) 18, p. 385.)Google Scholar
Nixon, G. E. J. (1951). The association of ants with Aphids and Coccids.—36 pp. London, Commonw. Inst. Ent.Google Scholar
Nutman, F. J. & Sheffield, F. M. L. (1949). Studies of the clove tree. I. Sudden-death disease and it epidemiology.—Ann. appl. Biol., 36, pp. 419–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Perkins, R. C. L. (1913). Introduction, being a review of the land-fauna of Hawaii.—In Sharp, D. Ed. Fauna Hawaiiensis, 1, pt. 6, pp. xli & ci.Google Scholar
Phillips, J. S. (1940). Immature nutfall of coconuts in the Solomon Islands.—Bull. ent. Res., 31, pp. 295–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serrano, F. B. (1934). Pineapple mealy-bug wilt in the Philippines.—Philipp. J. Sci., 55, pp. 363–377.Google Scholar
Smith, H. S. & Armitage, H. M. (1931). The biological control of mealybugs attacking citrus.—Bull. Calif. agric. Exp. Sta., no. 509, 74 pp.Google Scholar
Smith, M. R. (1942). The relationship of ants and other organisms to certain scale insects on coffee in Puerto Rico.—J. Agric. Univ. Puerto Rice, 26, pp. 21–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strickland, A. H. (1947). Coccids attacking cacao (Theobroma cacao, L.) in West Africa, with descriptions of five new species.—Bull. ent. Res., 38, pp. 497–523.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strickland, A. H. (1951). The entomology of swollen shoot of cacao. II. The bionomics and ecology of the species involved.—Bull. ent. Res., 42, pp. 65–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Way, M. J. (1953). The relationship between certain ant species with particular reference to biological control of the Coreid, Theraptus sp.—Bull. ent. Res., 44, pp. 669–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Way, M. J. (1954). Studies on the life history and ecology of the ant Oecophylla longinoda Latreille.—Bull. ent. Res., 45, pp. 93–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, W. M. (1927). The ants of the Canary Islands.—Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts. Sci., 62, pp. 93–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, W. M. (1934). Revised list of Hawaiian ants.—Occ. Pap. Bishop Mus., 10, no. 21, 21 pp.Google Scholar
Woglum, R. S. (1919). How nature assists in mealy bug control.—Calif. Citrogr., 4, p. 106.Google Scholar