Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T11:42:18.998Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IMPLICATIONS OF TREE MICROHABITAT PREFERENCES OF COMPSILURA CONCINNATA (DIPTERA: TACHINIDAE) FOR ITS EFFECTIVENESS AS A GYPSY MOTH PARASITOID

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Ronald M. Weseloh
Ronald M. Weseloh
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, New Haven 06504
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Tethered gypsy moth larvae, Lymantria dispar (L.) (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae), placed in various tree microhabitats were most heavily parasitized by Compsilura concinnata (Meigen) (Diptera: Tachinidae) near the ground especially on leaves. In laboratory experiments, hosts were parasitized primarily between 6:00 AM and 6:00 PM (E.S.T.), with little parasitism at night. These data suggest that in the field, this tachinid will most efficiently attack young gypsy moth caterpillars, as instars 1 to 3 are the only ones consistently on or near foliage during daylight. C. concinnata females successfully parasitized young hosts, but larval development on 2nd instars was twice as long as that on 4th instars. Thus, only one generation of parasitoids on gypsy moths is likely per year. Results indicate that methods for improving the effectiveness of this parasitoid should emphasize increasing adult numbers early in the season.

Résumé

L'incidence la plus élevée du parasitisme de Compsilura concinnata (Meigen) (Diptera : Tachinidae) sur des chenilles de la spongieuse, Lymantria dispar (L.) (Lepidoptera : Lymantriidae) attachées et placées dans divers microhabitats sur des arbres, a été observée près du sol spécialement sur les feuilles. Lors d'expériences en laboratoire, des hôtes furent parasités surtout entre 0600 h et 1800 h (HNE), peu de parasitisme ayant été observé la nuit. Ces données indiquent que sur le terrain, l'attaque de cette tachinide aura le plus d'impact sur les jeunes chenilles, car les stades 1 à 3 sont les seuls à se trouver régulièrement sur ou près du feuillage durant le jour. Les femelles de C. concinnata ont réussi à parasiter de jeunes hôtes, mais le développement larvaire sur des stades deux s'est avéré 2 fois plus long que sur des stades quatre. Ainsi, il ne devrait y avoir qu'une génération du parasitoïde par an. Les résultats indiquent que les tentatives d'améliorer l'efficacité de ce parasitoïde devraient être concentrées sur l'augmentation du nombre d'adultes tôt en saison.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 114 , Issue 7 , July 1982 , pp. 617 - 622
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1982

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

Barbosa, P., Capinero, J. L., and Harrington, E. A.. 1975. The gypsy moth parasitoid complex in western Massachusetts, a study of parasitoids in areas of high and low host density. Environ. Ent. 4: 842–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumenthal, E. M., Fusco, R. A., and Reardon, R. C.. 1979. Augmentative release of two established parasite species to suppress populations of the gypsy moth. J. econ. Ent. 72: 281–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culver, J. J. 1919. A study of Compsilura concinnata, an imported tachinid parasite of the gipsy moth and the brown-tail moth. U.S. Dep. Agric. Bull. 766.Google Scholar
Doutt, R. L. 1959. The biology of parasitic Hymenoptera. A. Rev. Ent. 4: 161–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrebout, W. M. 1960. Host selection in the parasitic fly, Eucarcelia rutilla Vill. Arch. Neerland. Zool. 13: 626.Google Scholar
Herrebout, W. M. and van der Veer, J.. 1969. Habitat selection in Eucarcelia rutilla VII. (Diptera: Tachinidae) III: Preliminary results of olfactometer experiments with females of known age. Z. angew. Ent. 65: 55–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonard, D. E. 1970. Feeding rhythm in larvae of the gypsy moth. J. econ. Ent. 63: 1454–1457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monteith, L. G. 1955. Host preferences of Drino bohemica Mesn. (Diptera: Tachinidae), with particular references to olfactory responses. Can. Ent. 85: 509–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monteith, L. G. 1958. Influence of food plant of host on attractiveness of the host to tachinid parasites with notes on preimaginal conditioning. Can. Ent. 90: 478–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monteith, L. G. 1960. Influence of plants other than food plants of their host on host-finding by tachinid parasites. Can. Ent. 92: 641–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwenke, W. 1958. Local dependence of parasitic insects and its importance for biological control. Proc. 10th int. Congr. Ent. 4: 851–854.Google Scholar
Tigner, T. C., Palm, C. E., and Jackson, J. J.. 1974. Gypsy moth parasitism under and outside burlap skirts at two heights. Appl. For. Res. Inst. Res. Rep. 20.Google Scholar
Weseloh, R. M. 1974 a. Relationships between different sampling procedures for the gypsy moth, Porthetria dispar (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) and its natural enemies. Can. Ent. 106: 225–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weseloh, R. M. 1974 b. Host related microhabitat preferences of the gypsy moth larval parasitoid, Parasetigena agilis. Environ. Ent. 3: 363–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weseloh, R. M. 1976. Diel periodicity and host selection, as measured by ovipositional behavior, of the gypsy moth parasite, Parasetigena silvestris, in Connecticut woodlands. Environ. ent. 5: 514–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weseloh, R. M. 1980. Host recognition behavior of the tachinid parasitoid, Compsilura concinnata. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 73: 593–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weseloh, R. M. 1981. Relationship between colored sticky panel catches and reproductive behavior of forest tachinid parasitoids. Environ. Ent. 10: 131–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar