Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T03:08:09.283Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

DEVELOPMENTAL, SURVIVAL, AND REPRODUCTIVE PARAMETERS OF BERTHA ARMYWORM, MAMESTRA CONFIGURATA (LEPIDOPTERA: NOCTUIDAE) ON FOUR PLANT SPECIES1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

W. J. Turnock
Affiliation:
Agriculture Canada Research Station, 195 Dafoe Road, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2M9

Abstract

The species of plant on which larvae of Mamestra configurata (Wlk.) fed had significant effects on the rate of larval development, larval and pupal survival, pupal weight, the percentage of females that mated, and the number of fertile eggs/mated female. Among the four plant species tested, using living plants, the canola cultivars (Brassica napus cv. Regent and B. campestris cv. Candle) were approximately equal in suitability, lamb's-quarters (Chenopodium album) was less suitable, and lentils (Lens culinaris cv. Chilean) was unsuitable as food for M. configurata. The parameters recorded for larval survival, pupal weight, and the number of eggs/female on the most suitable food plants were higher than those recorded previously for larvae reared on excised leaves of suitable hosts.

Résumé

Les espèces de végétaux attaqués par les larves de Mamestra configurata (Wlk.) influent significativement sur le taux de développement larvaire, la survie des larves et des pupes, le poids des pupes, le pourcentage de femelles accouplées et le nombre d'oeufs fertiles par femelle accouplée. Parmi les quatre espèces testées au moyen de plantes vivantes, les cultivars de colza canola (Brassica napus cv. Regent et B. campestris cv. Candie) s'avèrent d'une acceptabilité à peu près égale, le chénopode blanc (Chenopodium album) est moins convenable et la lentille (Lens culinaris cv. Chilean) s'avère inacceptable comme aliment pour M. configurata. Les paramètres enregistrés pour la survie des larves, le poids des pupes et le nombre d'oeufs par femelle sur les hôtes alimentaires les plus appropriés sont plus accentués que ceux déjà enregistrés pour les larves élevées sur des feuilles excisées d'hôtes convenables.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1985

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

Al-Hitty, A.A. 1983. Effects of feeding of different varieties of Brassica spp. on the growth and survival of bertha armyworm, Mamestra configurata Walker (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). M.Sc. thesis, Univ. of Manitoba.Google Scholar
Bailey, C.G. 1976. A quantitative study of consumption and utilization of various diets in the bertha armyworm, Mamestra configurata (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Can. Ent. 108: 13191326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, S.D., and Maxwell, F.G.. 1976. Use of plant resistance. In Huffaker, C.B., and Messingr, P.S. (Eds.), Theory and practice of biological control. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Beirne, B.P. 1971. Pest insects of annual crop plants in Canada. Mem. ent. Soc. Can. 78.Google Scholar
Blau, P., Feeney, A., and Contardo, L.. 1978. Allylglucosinolate and herbivorous caterpillars: a contrast in toxicity and tolerance. Science 200: 12961298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bracken, G.K. 1982. The bertha armyworm, Mamestra configurata (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Effects of dietary linolenic acid on pupal syndrome, wing syndrome, survival and fat composition. Can. Ent. 114: 567573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucher, G.E., and Bracken, G.K.. 1976. The bertha armyworm, Mamestra configurata (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae): artificial diet and rearing technique. Can. Ent. 108: 13271338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kapatsa, G.M. 1979. Growth, development and survival of Mamestra configurata Walker on various reported food plants. M.Sc. thesis, Univ. of Manitoba.Google Scholar
King, K.M. 1928. Barathra configurata (Wlk.), an armyworm with important potentialities on the Northern Prairies. J. econ. Ent. 21: 279293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar