Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T00:07:29.832Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

ORTHOSIA HIBISCI GUENÉE (LEPIDOPTERA: NOCTUIDAE): INDIGENOUS PARASITOIDS AND THE IMPACT OF EARINUS LIMITARUS (SAY) (HYMENOPTERA: ICHNEUMONIDAE) ON ITS HOST FEEDING ACTIVITY1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

J.E. Cossentine*
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Research Centre, Summerland, British Columbia, Canada V0H 1Z0
L.B. Jensen
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Research Centre, Summerland, British Columbia, Canada V0H 1Z0
*
2 Author to whom correspondence and reprint requests should be addressed.

Abstract

A 3-year survey of apple and cherry orchards in the interior of British Columbia revealed that speckled green fruitworm, Orthosia hibisci, is the dominant fruitworm species in the south of the Okanagan Valley. Larvae of speckled green fruitworm collected from orchards that used no or minimal insecticides experienced 22.5–29.0% parasitism in 1988–1990. Earinus limitarus was responsible for 98.9% of the parasitism in the 3 years. Parasitoids of minor significance included a Meteorus sp. (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) and Compsilura concinnata (Mg.) (Diptera: Tachinidae). Data from laboratory trials indicated that feeding by O. hibisci in the fifth and sixth instars was significantly (P < 0.05) reduced when larvae were parasitized by E. limitarus. Orthosia hibisci in the second through sixth instars in sleeve cages damaged developing apples in the field. Earinus limitarus appears able to reduce O. hibisci numbers for the following year as well as immediate host feeding damage in at least the last two instars.

Résumé

Un inventaire d’une durée de 3 ans dans des vergers de pommiers et de cerisiers, a l’intérieur des terres de la Colombie-Britannique, a révélé que l’Orthosie verte, Orthosia hibisci, est le principal parasite des fruits dans le sud de la vallée d’Okanagan. De 22,5 à 29,0% des larves de l’Orthosie verte capturées en 1988–1990 dans les vergers non traités (ou peu traités) aux insecticides étaient parasitées. Earinus limitarus s’est avéré le principal parasite (98,9%) au cours des 3 années qu’ont duré l’étude. Parmi les autres parasitoïdes recontrés, il faut mentionner un Meteorus (Hymenoptera : Braconidae) et Compsilura concinnata (Mg.) (Diptera : Tachinidae). Les résultats obtenus en laboratoire ont démontré que les larves de cinquième et sixième stades d’O. hibisci s’alimentaient significativement moins (P < 0,05) lorsqu’elles étaient parasitées par E. limitarus. Des larves d’O. hibisci des stades larvaires 2 à 6 enfermées dans des cages en manchon ont causé des dommages aux pommes en croissance dans les vergers. Earinus limitarus semble capable de réduire le nombre d’O. hibisci de l’année suivante et de limiter les dommages immédiats causés dans les vergers par l’alimentation des hôtes au cours de leurs deux derniers stades larvaires.

[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1995

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.)

Footnotes

1

Summerland Research Station Contribution No. 793.

References

Anonymous. 1994. Tree Fruit Production Guide. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Province of B.C.150 pp.Google Scholar
Beckage, N.E. 1990. Parasitic effects on host development. pp. 497515in New Directions in Biological Control: Alternatives for Suppressing Agricultural Pests and Diseases. Alan R. Liss, Inc., New York, NY.Google Scholar
Chapman, P.J., and Lienk, S.E.. 1974. Green Fruitworms. New York's Food and Life Sciences Bulletin 49: 14 pp.Google Scholar
Hajek, A.E. 1989. Food consumption by Lymantria dispar (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) larvae infected with Entomophaga maimaiga (Lygomycetes: Entomophthorales). Environmental Entomology 18(4): 723727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haley, S. 1986. Fruitworms and leafrollers on apple. Pesticide Reports from the 60th Annual Western Ontario Pest and Disease Management Conference, Portland. p. 54.Google Scholar
Judd, G.J.R., Cossentine, J.E., Gardiner, M.G.T., and Thomson, D.R.. 1994. Temperature-dependent development of the speckled green fruitworm, Orthosia hibisci Guenée (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). The Canadian Entomologist 126: 12631275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madsen, H.F. 1972. Biological notes on a green fruitworm, Lithophane georgii Grt (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) attacking apples in the Okanagan Valley of B.C. Journal of the Entomological Society of British Columbia 69: 3132.Google Scholar
Madsen, H.F., and Procter, P.J.. 1982. Insects and Mites of Tree Fruits in British Columbia. B.C. Ministry of Agriculture and Food. 70 pp.Google Scholar
Paradis, R.O. 1978. Orthosia hibisci (Guenée) (Lepidopteres: Noctuidae) dans les pommeraies du sud-ouest du Quebec. I–Description et comportement. Phytoprotection 59: 92100.Google Scholar
Parra, J.R., and Kogan, M.. 1981. Comparative analysis of methods for measurements of food intake and utilization using the soybean looper, Pseudoplusia includens and artificial media. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 30: 4557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rings, R.W. 1970. Contributions to the bionomics of the green fruitworms: The life history of Orthosia hibisci. Journal of Economic Entomology 63: 15621568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rings, R.W. 1975. Faunal composition of the green fruitworm complex. Journal of Economic Entomology 68: 178180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS. 1985. SAS User's Guide: Statistics, Version 5 ed. SAS Institute, Cary, NC. 956 pp.Google Scholar
Shorey, H.H., and Hale, R.L.. 1965. Mass-rearing of the larvae of nine noctuid species on a simple artificial medium. Journal of Economic Entomology 58: 522524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weires, R.W., Reissig, W.H., and McNicholas, F. J.. 1980. Control of Orthosia hibisci on apple. Journal of Economic Entomology 73: 748751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar