Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T18:25:06.397Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

LARVAL COMPETITION AMONG THREE HYMENOPTEROUS PARASITE SPECIES ON MULTIPARASITIZED HOUSEFLY (DIPTERA) PUPAE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

H. G. Wylie
H. G. Wylie
Affiliation:
Research Institute, Canada Department of Agriculture, Belleville, Ontario
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Only one parasite species survived on most housefly (Musca domestica L.) pupae multiparasitized by any two of Nasonia vitripennis (Walk.), Muscidifurax zaraptor K. & L., or Spalangia cameroni Perk. N. vitripennis and M. zaraptor were both intrinsically superior to S. cameroni if the attacks on the hosts by their females preceded, were simultaneous with, or followed by up to 48 hours those by females of S. cameroni. N. vitripennis was intrinsically superior to M. zaraptor if its attack preceded that by M. zaraptor by at least 24 hours; M. zaraptor survived when it oviposited before N. vitripennis; and neither species was consistently superior to the other when their attacks were simultaneous or that by N. vitripennis closely preceded that by M. zaraptor. N. vitripennis often survived on multiparasitized hosts because of its rapid development and rapid and thorough host utilization which caused its rivals to starve. In contrast, M. zaraptor’s success was a consequence of its prédation on eggs and larvae of its competitors and to a lesser extent its moderately rapid development and host utilization. S. cameroni was usually intrinsically inferior to both of the other species because, in spite of being predaceous on their larvae, it developed much more slowly and seldom attacked their eggs. The significance of these qualitative characteristics in insect parasites used in biological control programmes is discussed.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 104 , Issue 8 , August 1972 , pp. 1181 - 1190
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1972

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

Arthur, A. P., Stainer, J. E. R., and Turnbull, A. L.. 1964. The interaction between Orgilus obscurator (Nees) (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) and Temelucha interruptor (Grav.) (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae), parasites of the pine shoot moth, Rhyacionia buoliana (Schiff.) (Lepidoptera: Olethreutidae). Can. Ent. 96: 1030–1034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avidov, Z. and Gerson, U.. 1968. Some interactions of two hymenopterous parasites of the chaff scale. Researches Popul. Ecol. Kyoto Univ. 10: 171–176.Google Scholar
Bartlett, B. R. and Ball, J. C.. 1964. The developmental biologies of two encyrtid parasites of Coccus hesperidum and their intrinsic competition. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 57: 496–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bess, H. A. and Haramoto, F. H.. 1958. Biological control of the oriental fruit fly in Hawaii. Proc. 10th int. Congr. Ent. (Montreal, 1956), Vol. 4, pp. 835–840.Google Scholar
Boyce, H. R. and Dustan, G. G.. 1958. Prominent features of parasitism of twig-infesting larvae of the oriental fruit moth, Grapholitha molesta (Busck) (Lepidoptera: Olethreutidae) in Ontario, Canada. Proc. 10th int. Congr. Ent. (Montreal, 1956), Vol. 4, pp. 493–496.Google Scholar
Clausen, C. P. 1961. Biological control of western grape leaf skeletonizer (Harrisina brillians B. and McD.) in California. Hilgardia 31: 613–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Loach, C. J. and Rabb, R. L.. 1971. Life history of Winthemia manducae (Diptera: Tachinidae), a parasite of the tobacco hornworm. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 64: 399–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. C. 1961. A study in insect multiparasitism. II. The mechanism and control of competition for the host. J. exp. Biol. 38: 605–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1971. Multiple parasitism of armored coccids (Homoptera) by host-regulative aphelinids (Hymenoptera); ectoparasites versus endoparasites. Can. Ent. 103: 857–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Force, D. C. and Messenger, P. S.. 1965. Laboratory studies on competition among three parasites of the spotted alfalfa aphid Therioaphis maculata (Buckton). Ecology 46: 853–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Force, D. C. 1968. The use of laboratory studies of three hymenopterous parasites to evaluate their field potential. J. econ. Ent. 61: 1374–1378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinks, C. F. 1971. Observations on larval behaviour and avoidance of encapsulation of Perilampus hyalinus (Hymenoptera: Perilampidae) parasitic in Neodiprion lecontei (Hymenoptera: Diprionidae). Can. Ent. 103: 182–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hokyo, N. and Kiritani, K.. 1963. Two species of egg parasites as contemporaneous mortality factors in the egg population of the southern green stink bug, Nezara viridula. Jap. J. appl. Ent. Zool. 7: 214–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, D. J. 1964. Observations on the life-history of Mestocharis bimacularis (Dalman) (Hym. Eulophidae), a parasitoid of the eggs of Dytiscidae. Opusc. ent. 29: 81–97.Google Scholar
*Jones, E. P. 1937. The egg parasites of the cotton boll worm Heliothis armigera Hubn. (Obsoleta Fabr.) in Southern Rhodesia. Publs Br. S. Afr. Co. 6: 37–105.Google Scholar
Lloyd, D. C. 1940. Host selection by hymenopterous parasites of the moth Plutella maculipennis Curtis. Proc. R. Soc. (B) 128: 451–484.Google Scholar