Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T06:30:55.060Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

SOME EFFECTS OF HOST SIZE ON NASONIA VITRIPENNIS AND MUSCIDIFURAX RAPTOR (HYMENOPTERA: PTEROMALIDAE)

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

Female Nasonia vitripennis (Walk.) discover large housefly (Musca domestica L.) puparia more easily than small ones, and select for drilling a larger percentage of the large ones that they discover. If exposed only to small hosts instead of large ones, the parasites attack more of them in a given time, laying fewer eggs on each. This probably results because changes in parasitized hosts, leading to rejection by the females, occur sooner in small than in large fly pupae. Survival of immature N. vitripennis and of another pteromalid, Muscidifurax raptor G. & S., is greater on large hosts than on small ones. Sex ratio of both parasite species is unaffected by host size.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 99 , Issue 7 , July 1967 , pp. 742 - 748
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1967

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

Aubert, J. F. 1959. Biologie de quelques Ichneumonidae Pimplinae et examen critique de la théorie de Dzierzon. Entomophaga 4: 75–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beard, R. L. 1964. Pathogenic stinging of house-fly pupae by Nasonia vitripennis (Walker). J. Insect Pathol. 6: 1–7.Google Scholar
Brunson, M. H. 1937. The influence of the instars of host larvae on the sex of the progeny of Tiphia popilliavora Roh. Science, N.Y. 86: 197.Google Scholar
Hoel, P. G. 1954. Introduction to mathematical statistics. 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
Jackson, D. J. 1937. Host selection in Pimpla examinator F. (Hymenoptera). Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. (A) 12: 81–91.Google Scholar
Jackson, D. J. 1958. Observations on the biology of Carapbractus cinctus Walker (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae), a parasitoid of the eggs of Dytiscidae. I. Methods of rearing and numbers bred on different host eggs. Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 110: 533–554.Google Scholar
Salt, G. 1940. Experimental studies in insect parasitism. VII. The effects of different hosts on the parasite Trichogramma evanescens Westw. (Hym. Chalcidoidea). Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. (A) 15: 81–95.Google Scholar
Wylie, H. G. 1958. Factors that affect host finding by Nasonia vitripennis (Walk.) (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae). Can. Ent. 90: 597–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wylie, H. G. 1965. Discrimination between parasitized and unparasitized house fly pupae by females of Nasonia vitripennis (Walk.) (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae). Can. Ent. 97: 279–286.Google Scholar
Wylie, H. G. 1966. Some mechanisms that affect the sex ratio of Nasonia vitripennis (Walk.) (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) reared from superparasitized housefly pupae. Can. Ent. 98: 645–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar