Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T08:43:33.526Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

SUITABILITY OF ANAITIS PLAGIATA (GEOMETRIDAE) FOR BIOCONTROL OF HYPERICUM PERFORATUM IN DRY GRASSLAND OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

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

Abstract

The suitability of a European moth Anaitis plagiata (L.) for the biological control of the weed Hypericum perforatum L. in British Columbia is evaluated. It is concluded that the introduction of the moth is justified as it offers prospects of reducing the weed density without damage to economic plants. A. plagiata is preadapted to dry habitats and ecologically restricted to them. Its high fecundity and two generations a year should enable it to reach an effective population level rapidly and the early spring feeding by the overwintered larvae should damage the weed when it is most vulnerable. It was shown by feeding tests that the larvae are restricted to plants in the genus Hypericum. Furthermore, all the known hosts of the genus Anaitis are restricted to the genus Hypericum which indicates that the insect-host plant relationship is an old and highly stable one. Larval feeding was found to be partly in response to a chemical compound present in the cuticular waxes of the host plant.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 99 , Issue 12 , December 1967 , pp. 1304 - 1310
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

Allen, P. B. M. 1949. Larval Food Plants, London.Google Scholar
Amenta, J. S. 1964. A rapid chemical method for quantification of lipids separated by thinlayer chromatography. J. Lipid Res. 5: 270–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blasche, P. 1914. Die Raupen Europas mit ihren Futterpflanzen—Annaberg.Google Scholar
Blasche, P. 1955. Raupenkalender für das mitteleuropälische Faunengebiet—Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Currie, G. A., and Fyfe, R. V.. 1938. The fate of certain European insects introduced into Australia for the control of weeds. J. Coun. scient. ind. Res. Aust. 11(4): 289–301.Google Scholar
Fisher, G. A., and Kabara, J. J.. 1964. Simple, multibore columns for superior fractionation of lipids. Analyt. Biochem. 9(3): 303–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garthside, S. 1929–1938. Unpublished reports. Quarterly reports prepared for CSIRO, Australia.Google Scholar
Johansson, S. 1962. Insects associated with Hypericum L. and Lepidoptera. Diptera, Hymenoptera, Homoptera and general remarks. Opusc. ent. 27: 175–192.Google Scholar
Kennedy, J. S., and Booth, C. O.. 1950. Methods for microscopy and investigating the host relations of Aphis fabae Scop. Ann. appl. Biol. 37: 451–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathis, C., and Ourisson, G.. 1963. Étude chimio-taxonomique du genre Hypericum. I. Répartition de l'hypéricine. Phytochemistry 2: 157–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathis, C., and Ourisson, G.. 1964. Étude chimio-taxonomique du genre Hypericum. III. Répartition des carbures saturés et des monoterpènes dans les huiles essentielles d'Hypericum. Phytochemistry 3: 133–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, D. 1949. Anaitis plagiata L. Entomologist's Rec. 61: 87–89.Google Scholar
Prout, L. B. 1915. Die spannerartigen Nachtfalter, in Die Gross-Schmetterlinge des paläarktischen Faunengebiets. Von A. Seitz Vol. 4: 175–178.Google Scholar
Smith, J. M. 1958. Biological control of Klamath weed, Hypericum perforatum L., in British Columbia. Proc. 10th Int. Congr. Ent. (Montreal, 1956). Vol. 4. pp. 561–565.Google Scholar
Wilson, F. 1960. A review of the biological control of insects and weeds in Australia and Australian New Guinea. Tech. Commun. Commonw. Inst. biol. Control 1.Google Scholar