Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T14:57:46.172Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

INTERACTIONS BETWEEN THE DOUGLAS-FIR SEED CHALCID, MEGASTIGMUS SPERMOTROPHUS (HYMENOPTERA: TORYMIDAE), AND THE WESTERN CONIFER SEED BUG, LEPTOGLOSSUS OCCIDENTALIS (HEMIPTERA: COREIDAE)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

S.E. Blatt  and
J.H. Borden
S.E. Blatt
Affiliation:
Centre for Pest Management, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada V5A 1S6
J.H. Borden
Affiliation:
Centre for Pest Management, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada V5A 1S6
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In two laboratory experiments, adult western conifer seed bugs, Leptoglossus occidentalis Heidemann, did not feed on seed infested by the Douglas-fir seed chalcid, Megastigmus spermotrophus Wachtl. When presented with seed lots containing 0, 20, 40, 60, 80, or 100% chalcid-infested seed, seed bugs fed on uninfested seed only when the percent chalcid infestation was ≤ 40% (Exp. 1), ≤ 20% (Exp. 2, females), or ≤ 60% (Exp. 2, males). In a third experiment, nymphs exposed to similar seed lots did not feed on M. spermotrophus when sound seeds were present. However, when exposed to 100% chalcid-infested seed, nymphs in two of 10 replicates fed on M. spermotrophus. Feeding by seed bugs caused seeds to lose 51% of their weight on average, but 18% of 43 test seeds on which seed bugs had fed germinated. In three Douglas-fir orchards surveyed, both species exhibited a clonal preference, but the ranking of clones preferred by each species was not the same. These results suggest that the impacts of L. occidentalis and M. spermotrophus are segregated and additive.

Résumé

Au cours de deux expériences en laboratoire, des punaises des graines de résineux Leptoglossus occidentalis Heidemann ont refusé de se nourrir de graines infestées par le Chalcis du Douglas, Megastigmus spermotrophus Wachtl. En présence de lots de graines contenant 0, 20, 40, 60, 80 et 100% de graines infestées, les punaises se sont nourries de graines saines seulement dans les lots infestés à ≤ 40% (exp. 1) ou à ≤ 20% (exp. 2, femelles), ou à ≤ 60% (exp. 2, mâles). Au cours d’une troisième expérience, des larves exposées aux mêmes conditions ont refusé de se nourrir de graines infestées lorsque des graines saines étaient présentes. Cependant, en présence de lots de graines infestés à 100%, les larves de deux des 10 groupes expérimentaux se sont nourries de graines infestées. L’alimentation des punaises sur les graines a réduit la masse des graines de 51% en moyenne, mais, parmi les graines expérimentales à même lesquelles les punaises s’étaient nourries, seulement 18% ont germé. Dans quatre plantations de sapins de Douglas, les deux espèces ont montré des préférences pour certains clones, mais l’ordre de préférence des clones différait chez les deux espèces. Ces résultats semblent indiquer que les impacts respectifs de L. occidentalis et M. spermotrophus sont distincts et cumulatifs.

[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 130 , Issue 6 , December 1998 , pp. 775 - 782
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 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

Blatt, S.E., and Borden, J.H.. 1996. Distribution and impact of Leptoglossus occidentalis Heidemann (Hemiptera: Coreidae) in seed orchards in British Columbia. The Canadian Entomologist 128: 1065–1076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, R.W., and Quinn, G.P.. 1989. Comparison of treatments after an analysis of variance in ecology. Ecological Monographs 59: 433–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedlin, A.F., and Ruth, D.S.. 1978. Examination of Douglas-fir clones for differences in susceptibility to damage by cone and seed insects. Journal of the Entomological Society of British Columbia 75: 33–34.Google Scholar
Hedlin, A.F., Yates, H.O. III, Cibrian-Tovar, D., Ebel, B.H., Koerber, T.W., and Merkel, E.P.. 1980. Cone and seed insects of North American conifers. Canadian Forest Service, USDA Forest Service, and Secretaria de Agricultura y Recursos Hidraulicos, Mexico.Google Scholar
Keddy, P.A. 1989. Competition. Chapman and Hall, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kermode, A.R., and Bewley, J.D.. 1985. The role of maturation drying in the transition from seed development to germination. Journal of Experimental Botany 36: 1906–1915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattson, W.J. 1986. Competition for food between two principal cone insects of red pine, Pinus resinosa. Environmental Entomology 15: 88–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niemczyk, E. 1978. Campylomma verbasci Meyer (Heteroptera: Miridae) as a predator of aphids and mites in apple orchards. Polski Pismo Entomologica 43: 221–235.Google Scholar
Rappaport, N., and Roques, A.. 1991. Resource use and clonal differences in attack rate by the Douglas-fir seed chalcid, Megastigmus spermatrophus Wachtl (Hymenoptera: Torymidae), in France. The Canadian Entomologist 123: 1219–1228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowan, S.J., and DeBarr, G.L.. 1974. Moldy seed and poor germination linked to seed bug damage in slash pine. Tree Planters Notes 25: 24–27.Google Scholar
Schowalter, T.D. 1997. Conifer seed losses to Leptoglossus occidentalis in Northwestern North America. in DeBarr, G.L., Turgeon, J.J., Roques, A., and Zhang, Y.L. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Cone and Seed Insects Working Party Conference (IUFRO S2.07-01), Beijing and Harbin 1992. USDA Forest Service Southeast Experimental Station. In press.Google Scholar
Schowalter, T.D., and Haverty, M.I.. 1989. Influence of host genotype on Douglas-fir seed losses to Contarinia oregonensis (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) and Megastigmus spermotrophus (Hymenoptera: Torymidae) in western Oregon. Environmental Entomology 18: 94–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schowalter, T.D., Haverty, M.I., and Koerber, T.W.. 1985. Cone and seed insects in Douglas-fir, Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco, seed orchards in the western United States: distribution and relative impact. The Canadian Entomologist 117: 1223–1230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steele, M.A., Knowles, T., Budle, K., and Simms, E.L.. 1993. Tannins and partial consumptioin of acorns: implications for dispersal of oaks by seed predators. American Midland Naturalist 130: 229–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weckerly, F.W., Sugg, D.W., and Semlitsch, R.D.. 1989. Germination success of acorns (Quercus): insect predation and tannins. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 19: 811–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar