Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T07:34:49.320Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE IMPORTANCE OF COINCIDENCE IN THE FUNCTIONAL AND NUMERICAL RESPONSES OF TWO PARASITES OF THE EUROPEAN PINE SAWFLY, NEODIPRION SERTIFER*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

K. J. Griffiths
K. J. Griffiths
Affiliation:
Forest Research Laboratory, Department of Fisheries and Forestry, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The possibility of imperfect coincidence between the appropriate stages of Neodiprion sertifer (Geoff.) and two of its important parasites was demonstrated. One of the parasites, the indigenous ichneumonid Exenterus canadensis Prov., which attacks late-stage larvae, has good spatial coincidence; but some members of each generation suffer from imperfect temporal coincidence, or asynchrony, caused by the interaction of temperature influence on parasite development rate and temperature variability between development sites in the litter. The second parasite, Pleolophus basizonus (Grav.), is an introduced, multivoltine ichneumonid cocoon parasite. It may be imperfectly synchronized in its first generation each year and may show imperfect spatial coincidence in all generations through its inability to attack host cocoons beneath approximately 1 in. or more of litter.The intricate relations between parasite and host density, time, attack, and coincidence were investigated using the basic functional response submodel developed by Holling, a submodel that describes changes in oviposition behaviour with time, and a submodel that predicts the number of hosts attacked, given the number of eggs laid and data on the distribution of eggs among hosts. In the two species studied, the effect of asynchrony in one generation cannot be considered without considering the influence of superparasitism. At low host densities, superparasitism largely buffers the effects of decreased synchrony. This buffering effect decreases as host density increases until when each parasite is attacking all the hosts it can, it is almost eliminated. Imperfect spatial coincidence in one generation merely lowers the usable host density. Thus its effect can be seen in the functional response of the parasite to host density. When host–parasite interactions over 25 to 35 host generations were simulated, using initial conditions resembling those ensuing when small numbers of both host and parasite invade a previously unattacked stand, populations became stable after passing through one or more oscillations. Decreasing temporal or spatial coincidence increased host and parasite densities at the peaks of oscillations and increased the ultimate steady density of host and parasite, until coincidence was reduced to nearly half. At this level, the host escaped the regulating ability of both species of parasites.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 101 , Issue 7 , July 1969 , pp. 673 - 713
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1969

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

Bailey, V. A., Nicholson, A. J., and Williams, E. J.. 1962. Interaction between hosts and parasites when some host individuals are more difficult to find than others. J. theoret. Biol. 3: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barclay, J. M. 1938. The oviposition habits of some species of the genus Exenterus parasitic on sawfly larvae. 69th Ann. Rep. ent. Soc. Ont., pp. 29–31.Google Scholar
Bartlett, B. R. 1964. Patterns in the host-feeding habit of adult parasitic Hymenoptera. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 57: 344–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buck, J., and Keister, M.. 1956. Host-parasite relations in Agapema pupae. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 49: 94–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doutt, R. L. 1959. The biology of parasitic Hymenoptera. A. Rev. Ent. 4: 161–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, R. L. 1954. The effect of diet on egg maturation and resorption in Mormoniella vitripennis (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae). Q. Jl microsc. Sci. 95: 459–468.Google Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1950. Regulation of ovulation and egg disposal in the parasitic Hymenoptera.Can. Ent. 82: 134–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1953. Variations in susceptibility of citrus-infesting coccids to parasitization. J. econ. Ent. 46: 266–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franz, J. M. 1964. Dispersion and natural-enemy action. Ann. appl. Biol. 53: 510–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, K. J. 1959. Observations on the European pine sawfly, Neodiprion sertifer (Geoff.), and its parasites in southern Ontario. Can. Ent. 91: 501–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, K. J. 1961. The life history of Aptesis basizona (Grav.) on Neodiprion sertifer (Geoff.) in southern Ontario. Can. Ent. 93: 1005–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, K. J., and Holling, C. S.. 1969. A competition submodel for parasites and predators. Can. Ent. In press.Google Scholar
Hamilton, C. C. 1943. The pine sawfly Neodiprion sertifer (Geoff.) and its control with concentrated lead arsenate sprays. J. econ. Ent. 36: 236–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawboldt, L. S. 1947. Bessa selecta (Meigen) as a parasite of Gilpinia hercyniae (Htg.). Can. Ent. 79: 84–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holling, C. S. 1959 a. The components of predation as revealed by a study of small mammal predation of the European pine sawfly. Can. Ent. 91: 293–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holling, C. S. 1959 b. Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism. Can. Ent. 91: 385–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klomp, H. 1958. On the synchronization of the generations of the tachinid Carcelia obesa Zett. (= rutilla B.B.) and its host Bupalus piniarius L. Z. angew. Ent. 42: 210–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lees, A. D. 1955. The physiology of diapause in Arthropods. Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, L. A. 1963. The European pine sawfly, Neodiprion sertifer (Geoff.) (Hymenoptera: Diprionidae). A review with emphasis on studies in Ontario. Proc. ent. Soc. Ont. 94: 5–37.Google Scholar
McGugan, B. M., and Coppel, H. C.. 1962. A review of the biological control attempts against insects and weeds in Canada. II. Biological control of forest insects, 1910–1958. Tech. Commun. Commonw. Inst. biol. Control.Google Scholar
Pimentel, D., Nagel, W. P., and Madden, J. L.. 1963. Space-time structure of the environment and the survival of parasite-host systems. Am. Nat. 97: 141–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raizenne, H. 1957. Forest sawflies of southern Ontario and their parasites. Can. Dep. Agric., For. Biol. Div. Publ. 1009.Google Scholar
Salt, G. 1935. Experimental studies in insect parasitism. III. Host selection. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. (B) 117. 413–435.Google Scholar
Schaffner, J. V. Jr. 1939. Neodiprion sertifer (Geoff.), a pine sawfly accidentally introduced into New Jersey from Europe. J. econ. Ent. 32: 887–888.Google Scholar
Schoonhoven, L. M. 1962. Diapause and the physiology of host-parasite synchronization in Bupalus piniarius L. (Geometridae) and Eucarcelia rutilla Vill. (Tachinidae). Archs néerl. Zool. 15: 111–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sippell, W. L., Dance, B. W., and Rose, A. H.. 1965. Ontario region forest insect and disease survey in A. Rep. For. Ins. and Dis. Surv. Can. Dep. For.Google Scholar
Thalenhorst, W. 1950. Die Koinzidenz als gradologisches Problem. Eine synokologische Studie. Z. angew. Ent. 32: 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, D. R., and Sullivan, C. R.. 1963. Laboratory and field investigations of the effect of temperature on the development of Neodiprion sertifer (Geoff.) in the cocoon. Can. Ent. 95: 1051–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watt, K. E. F. 1959. A mathematical model for the effect of densities of attacked and attacking species on the number attacked. Can. Ent. 91: 129–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watt, K. E. F. 1961. Mathematical models for use in insect pest control. Can. Ent. Suppl. 19.Google Scholar