Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T09:01:23.205Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Summer diapause in Chrysolina hyperici and C. quadrigemina (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in relation to biological control of St John's wort, Hypericum perforatum (Clusiaceae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

K. Schöps ,
P. Syrett  and
R.M. Emberson
K. Schöps*
Affiliation:
Zoologisches Institut der Universität Kiel, Germany
P. Syrett
Affiliation:
Manaaki Whenua — Landcare Research, Lincoln, New Zealand
R.M. Emberson
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology and Animal Ecology, Lincoln University, New Zealand
*
Correspondence and present address: K. Schöps, Department of Entomology and Animal Ecology, Lincoln University, PO Box 84, Lincoln, Canterbury, New Zealand.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The success of the chrysomelid beetles, Chrysolina hyperici (Forster) and C. quadrigemina (Suffrian), used widely for biological control of St John's wort (Hypericum perforatum) seems to depend on the synchronization of their phenologies with climate. The factors governing the termination of diapause in the field and laboratory were assessed in New Zealand. Before summer diapause, C. hyperici made up more than 70% of adult beetles in the field. Both species entered summer diapause at the beginning of January, but C. quadrigemina terminated diapause 3–4 weeks earlier (early March) than C. hyperici. Both male and female C. quadrigemina and male C. hyperici adults became sexually mature during summer diapause but C. hyperici females still had immature ovaries. Females of C. quadrigemina began laying eggs immediately after summer diapause but females of C. hyperici did not oviposit until more than 2 weeks after they terminated diapause in late March. In the laboratory summer diapause was terminated in both species by short day length, not by simulated rainfall, contradicting previous assumptions that autumn rainfall is the critical factor. The demonstrated differences in phenology are reflected in different overwintering strategies for the two species. Because C. hyperici overwinters in the egg stage, this species will be a more successful biological control agent of St John's wort in countries with cold winters than C. quadrigemina, which overwinters in the more vulnerable larval stage. However, in countries with mild winters C. quadrigemina is more successful in controlling St John's wort than C. hyperici, since it has a developmental lead with its larvae feeding and growing during the winter.

Type
Review Article
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 86 , Issue 5 , October 1996 , pp. 591 - 597
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

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

Beck, S. (1980) Insect photoperiodism. 2nd edn.382 pp. London, Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bontems, C. (1988) Localisation of spermatozoa inside viviparous and oviparous females of Chrysomelidae. pp. 299–315in Jolivet, P. & Hsiao, T.H. (Eds) Biology of Chrysomelidae. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, W.J. (1962) The American species of Chrysolina Mots. (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae). Canadian Entomologist 94, 58–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, L.R. (1953) The ecology of Chrysomela gemellata Rossi and C. hyperici Forst. and their effects on St. John's wort in the Bright District, Victoria. Australian Journal of Zoology 1, 1–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Currie, G.A. & Garthside, S. (1932) The possibility of the entomological control of St. John's wort in Australia–progress report. 28 pp. Melbourne, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Australia.Google Scholar
Fraser, B. & Emberson, R. (1987) Rediscovery of Chrysolina quadrigemina (Suffrian) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in New Zealand. New Zealand Entomologist 9, 57–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, B. & Emberson, R. (1989) Photoperiod and reproductive summer diapause in the St. John's wort beetle, Chrysolina hyperici. pp. 323–328in Delfosse, E.S. (Ed.) Proceedings of the VII International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds.Rome,Institute Sperimentale per la Patologia Vegetale, (Ministero dell' Agricoltura e delle Foreste).Google Scholar
Freude, H., Harde, K.W. & Lohse, G.A. (1983) Die Käfer Mitteleuropas Vol. 1. 285 pp. Krefeld, Goecke & Evers Verlag.Google Scholar
Grime, J.P., Hodgson, J.G. & Hurt, R. (1988) Comparative plant ecology: A functional approach to common British species. 742 pp. London, Academic Division of Unwin Hyman Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hancox, N.G., Syrett, P. & Scott, R.R. (1986) Biological control of St. John's wort (Hypericum perforatum) in New Zealand: A review. Plant Protection Quarterly 1, 152–155.Google Scholar
Harris, P. (1962) Effect of temperature on fecundity and survival of Chrysolina quadrigemina (Suffr.) and C. hyperici (Forst.) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Canadian Entomologist 94, 774–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, P. & Maw, M. (1984) Hypericum perforatum L., St. John's-wort (Hypericaceae). pp. 171–177in Kelleher, J.S. & Hulme, M.A. (Eds) Biological control programmes against weeds and insects in Canada 1969–1980. CIBC & USDA.Google Scholar
Harris, P., Peschken, D. & Milroy, J. (1969) The status of biological control of the weed Hypericum perforatum in British Columbia. Canadian Entomologist 101, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huffaker, C.B. (1967) A comparison of the status of biological control of St. Johnswort in California and Australia. Mushi 39 (Suppl.), 51–73.Google Scholar
Huffaker, C.B. & Kennett, C.E. (1952) Ecological tests on Chrysolina gemellata (Rossi) and C. hyperici (Forst.) in the biological control of Klamath weed. Journal of Economic Entomology 45, 1061–1064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, S. (1962) Insects associated with Hypericum L. Opuscula Entomologica 27 (Suppl.), 128–146.Google Scholar
Johnson, C.G. (1974) Insect migration: Physiological aspects. pp. 279–334in Rockstein, M. (Ed.) The physiology of insects III 2nd edn.London, Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Julien, M.H. (1992) Biological control of weeds: A world catalogue of agents and their target weeds. 3rd edn.186 pp. Wallingford, UK, CAB International.Google Scholar
Masaki, S. (1980) Summer diapause. Annual Review of Entomology 25, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maunder, W.J. (1965) Climatic character. pp. 46–68in Lister, R.G. & Hargreaves, R.P. (Eds) Central Otago, a symposium to mark the centenary of the “Golden decade” of the 1860's in Central Otago. Christchurch, Caxton Press.Google Scholar
Miller, D. (1970) Biological control of weeds in New Zealand 1927–48. 104 pp. DSIR Information Series 74.Google Scholar
Syrett, P. (1989) Hypericum perforatum, L., St. John's wort, pp. 353–356in Cameron, P.J., Hill, R.L., Bain, J. & Thomas, W.P. (Eds) A review of biological control of invertebrate pests and weeds in New Zealand 1874–1987. CAB International Institute of Biological Control, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
Tisdale, E.W. (1976) Vegetation changes following biological control of Hypericum Perforatum in Idaho. Northwest Science 50, 61–75.Google Scholar
Wapshere, A.J. (1985) Effectiveness of biological control agents for weeds: present quandaries. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 13, 261–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, F. (1943) The entomological control of St. John's wort (Hypericum perforatum L.) with particular reference to the insect enemies of the weed in southern France. 87 pp. CSIR (Australia) Bulletin 169.Google Scholar
Winston, P.W. & Bates, D.H. (1960) Saturated solutions for the control of humidity in biological research. Ecology 41, 232–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwölfer, H. (1967) Insect introductions and biological control. pp. 141–150 in Proceedings and Papers of the 10th Technical Meeting of IUCN.Lucerne 1966.Google Scholar