Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-k7p5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-15T23:25:52.590Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

HOST SPECIFICITY OF LIRIOMYZA SONCHI HENDEL (DIPTERA: AGROMYZIDAE), A POTENTIAL BIOLOGICAL AGENT FOR THE CONTROL OF WEEDY SOW-THISTLES, SONCHUS SPP., IN CANADA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Diether P. Peschken  and
Jo-Anne L. Derby
Diether P. Peschken
Affiliation:
Agriculture Canada Research Station, Box 440, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada S4P 3A2
Jo-Anne L. Derby
Affiliation:
Agriculture Canada Research Station, Box 440, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada S4P 3A2
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Liriomyza sonchi Hendel was screened for its host specificity as a potential biological control agent against sow-thistles (Sonchus spp.). Recent literature indicated that L. sonchi is recorded frequently from Sonchus spp., but also from Arnoseris minima Schweigger and Koerte and Reichardia arabicum Hochstetter and Steudel. A total of 78 plant species were tested, including 37 species in the Cichorieae (Compositae). In no-choice tests, feeding punctures were observed on species in the closely related genera Aetheorrhiza, Crepis, Lactuca, and Taraxacum, and such distantly related species as Helichrysum bracteatum Andrews var. monstrosum Hortorum (Inuleae tribe, Compositae) and Pisum sativum L. (Leguminosae). From 0.04 to 0.67 adults per female were produced on Aetheorrhiza bulbosa (L.), Crepis dioscordis L., C. rubra L., Leontodon hispidus L., and Taraxacum officinale Weber as compared with about 23 per female on its host, Sonchus arvensis L. No species in these genera other than Sonchus are reported as hosts in the field in Europe and they are therefore considered to be cage-induced hosts. Because of its economic importance, 10 cultivars of lettuce, Lactuca sativa L., were exposed to a total of 837 females in no-choice tests. One puparium and one adult (0.006 per female) were produced. In one replicated choice test with 150 females, no mines were produced on lettuce. It is concluded that the field host range of L. sonchi is restricted to Sonchus spp.

Résumé

Liriomysa sonchi Hendel a été sélectionné pour la spécificité de l’hôte comme agent de lutte biologique potentiel contre des laiterons (Sonchus spp.). De récentes publications scientifiques révèlent que L. sonchi est souvent signalé chez des espèces de Sonchus, mais également chez Arnoseris minima Schweigger et Koerte et Reichardia arabicum Hochstetter et Steudel. Les auteurs ont testé un total de 78 espèces végétales, y compris 37 espèces de Cichorieae (Composées). Dans les tests à choix obligatoires, des piqûres de nutrition ont été observées sur des espèces des genres étroitement apparentés Aetheorrhiza, Crepis, Lactuca et Taraxacum, et sur des espèces apparentées de loin comme Helichrysum bracteatum Andrews var. monstrosum Hortorum (tribu des Inulés, Composées) et Pisum sativum L. (Légumineuses). De 0,04 à 0,67 adulte par femelle a été produit sur Aetheorrhiza bulbosa (L.), Crepis dioscoridis L., C. rubra L., Leontodon hispidus L. et Taraxacum officinale Weber, comparativement à environ 23 par femelle sur son hôte, soit Sonchus arvensis L. Aucune espèce de ces genres autres que Sonchus n’est signalée comme hôte dans les champs d’Europe et ceux-ci sont donc considérés comme des hôtes captifs. À cause de l’importance économique de cet agent de lutte biologique, 10 cultivars de laitue (Lactuca sativa L.) ont été exposés à un total de 837 femelles dans des essais à choix obligatoire. Un puparium et un adulte (0,006 par femelle) ont été produits. Dans un essai répété avec 150 femelles, aucun amas d’oeufs n’a été produit sur la laitue. Les auteurs en concluent que l’éventail des hôtes de L. sonchi en plein champ est restreint aux espèces de Sonchus.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 120 , Issue 6 , June 1988 , pp. 593 - 600
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1988

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

Babcock, E.B., and Stebbins, G.L.. 1943. Systematic studies in the Cichoriae. II. The genus Aetheorrhiza. Univ. Calif. Publ. 18: 235–240.Google Scholar
Bailey, L.H., and Bailey, E.Z.. 1976. Hortus Third. A Concise Dictionary of Plants Cultivated in the United States and Canada. MacMillan, New York. XIV + 1290 pp.Google Scholar
Boller, E.F. 1968. An artificial oviposition device for the European cherry fruit fly, Rhagoletis cerasi. J. econ. Ent. 61: 850–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goeden, R.D. 1983. Critique and revision of Harris' scoring system for insect agents in biological control of weeds. Protection Ecol. 5: 287–301.Google Scholar
Hendel, F. 1931–1936. 59. Agromyzidae. pp. 1–570in Lindner, E. (Ed.), Die Fliegen der palaearktischen Region. Schweizerbart'sche Verlagsbuchh., Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Hendrickson, R.M., and Barth, S.E.. 1978. Biology of the alfalfa blotch leafminer. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 71: 295–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hering, E.M. 1957. Bestimmungstabellen der Blattminen von Europa einschleisslich des Mittelmeerbeckens und der kanarischen Inseln. I–III. Junk, 's-Gravenhage.Google Scholar
Heywood, V.H., Harborne, J.B., and Turner, B.L. (Eds.). 1977. The Biology and Chemistry of Compositae. Acad. Press, London. 1189 pp.Google Scholar
Nowakowski, J.T. 1962. Introduction to a systematic revision of the family Agromyzidae (Diptera) with some remarks on host plant selection by these flies. Annls. Zool. Warsz. 20(8): 67–183.Google Scholar
Peschken, D.P. 1982. Host specificity and biology of Cystiphora sonchi (Dip.: Cecidomyiidae), a candidate for the biological control of Sonchus species. Entomophaga 27: 405–416.Google Scholar
Peschken, D.P. 1984. Sonchus arvensis, perennial sow-thistle, S. oleraceus, annual sow-thistle and S. asper (L.) Hill, spiny annual sow-thistle (Compositae). pp. 205–209in Biological Control Programmes against Insects and Weeds in Canada 1969–1980. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau, Slough.Google Scholar
Schroeder, D. 1974. The phytophagous insects attacking Sonchus (Compositae) in Europe. Proc. 3rd. Int. Symp. Biol. Control Weeds. Montpellier, France. C.I.B.C. Misc. Publ. 8: 90–96.Google Scholar
Scoggan, H.J. 1979. The flora of Canada. Publications in botany, Nr. 7. part 4. Museum of Natural Sciences, Ottawa. 1117–1711 pp.Google Scholar
Sehgal, V.K. 1971. Biology and host-plant relationships of an oligophagous leaf miner Phytomyza matricariae Hendel (Diptera: Agromyzidae). Quaest. Ent. 7: 255–280.Google Scholar
Spencer, K.A. 1971. A revision of the British Agromyzidae (Diptera), including the description of 14 new species. Ent. Gaz. 22: 141–195.Google Scholar
Spencer, K.A. 1972. Diptera. Agromyzidae. Handbooks for the Identification of British Insects 10(5). Royal ent. Soc. London. 136 pp.Google Scholar
Spencer, K.A. 1973. Agromyzidae (Diptera) of economic importance. Series Entomologica. 9. Junk, The Hague. 418 pp.Google Scholar
Spencer, K.A. 1976. The Agromyzidae (Diptera) of Fennoscandia and Denmark. 5 (1). Scandinavian Science Press, Klampenborg. 305 pp.Google Scholar
Tutin, T.G., Heywood, V.H., Burges, N.A., Moore, D.M., Valentine, D.H., Walters, S.M., and Webb, D.A.. 1976. Flora Europaea. Vol. 4. Plantaginaceae to Compositae (and Rubiaceae). Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge. XXIX + 505 pp.Google Scholar
Wapshere, A.J. 1974. A strategy for evaluating the safety of organisms for biological weed control. Ann. appl. Biol. 77: 301–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwölfer, H., and Harris, P.. 1971. Host specificity determination of insects for biological control of weeds. A. Rev. Ent. 16: 159–178.Google Scholar