Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:46:17.939Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Role of the Ant in the Biological Control of Homopterous Insects1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Stanley E. Flanders
Stanley E. Flanders
Affiliation:
Division of Biological Control, University of California, Citrus Experiment Station, Riverside
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The ant as a factor in “facultative helotism” plays an important role in the biological conrrol of certain agricultural pests. This phenomenon was noted by Linnè in 1758 (Jones 1929; Wheeler 1910), when he observed that honeydew-producing insects such as aphids, mealybugs, and scale insects often functioned as “cows of the ants.”

The importance of this function in the biological control of homopteroas insects lies in the fact that certain species are effectively controlled by their natural enemies when ants are absent, but not when ants are present. The ant, in gathering the honeydew supplied by such homopterous insects, tends more or less automatically to protect them from their natural enemies (Huber 1810). This apparently protective effect is not limited to the honeydew-producing species hut is often extended to other phytophagous forms such as the citrus red mite, Paratetranychus citri (McGregor), (Kenyon 1935; DeBach, Fleschner, and Dietrick 1951) and diaspid scale insects (Flanders 1945) when such forms happen to be within the area of ant activity.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 83 , Issue 4 , April 1951 , pp. 93 - 98
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1951

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

Literature Cited

Andrews, E. A. 1930. Honeydew reflexes. Physiol. Zool. 3: 467–484.Google Scholar
Barber, Ernest R. 1923. The sugar cane mealybug and its control in Louisiana. Louisiana Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 185: 1–16.Google Scholar
Bequaert, J. 1922. Ants in their diverse relation to the plant world. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. Bul. 45: 333–584.Google Scholar
Borden, Arthur D. 1923. Control of the common mealybug on citrus in California. U.S. Dept. Agr. Farmers' Bul. 1309: 1–10.Google Scholar
Bremner, O. H. 1931. Relation of ants to aphis control. California Cult. 77: 488–489.Google Scholar
Compere, Harold. 1940. Parasites of the black scale, Saissetia oleae, in Africa. Hilgardta 13: 387–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeBach, Paul, Fleschner, C. A., and Dietrick, E. J.. 1951. A biological check method for evaluating the effectiveness of entumophagous insects. (In preparation.)Google Scholar
Flanders, Stanley E. 1940. Environmental resistance to the establishment of parasitic Hymenoptera. Ent. Soc. Amer. Ann. 33: 245–253.Google Scholar
Flanders, Stanley E. 1942. Propagation of black scale on potato sprouts. Jour. Econ. Ent. 35: 687–689.Google Scholar
Flanders, Stanley E. 1943. The Argentine ant versus the parasites of the black scale. California Citrog. 28: 117–128, 137.Google Scholar
Flanders, Stanley E. 1945. Coincident infestations of Aonidiella citrina and Coccus hesperidum, a result of ant activity. Jour. Econ. Ent. 38: 711–712.Google Scholar
Flanders, Stanley E. 1950. Regulation of ovulation and egg disposal in the parasitic Hymenoptera. Canad. Ent. 82: 134–140.Google Scholar
Groff, G. W., and Howard, C. W.. 1924. The cultured ant of South China. Lingnan Agr. Rev. 2: 108–114.Google Scholar
Heim, F. 1898. The biologic relations between plants and ants. Smithsn. Inst. Ann. Rept. 1896: 411–455. [Translation from: de la 24me Sess. de l'Assoc. Franç, pour l'Avanc, des Sci. Compt. Rend. 1895: (pt. 1) 31–75.]Google Scholar
Herzig, J. 1937. Ameisen und Blattlause (Ein Beitrag sur Okologie aphidophiler Ameisen). Zeitschr. f. Angew. Ent. 24: 367–435.Google Scholar
Horton, J. R. 1918. The Argentine ant in relation to citrus groves. U.S. Dept. Agr. Bul. 647: 1–72.Google Scholar
Huber, J. P. 1810. Recherches sur les moeurs des fourmis indigènes. Paris and Geneva— 328 p.Google Scholar
Huber, J. P. 1820. The natural history of ants. (Trans. by Johnson, J. R..) London—389 p.Google Scholar
Jones, Charles R. 1929. Ants and their relation to aphids. Colorado Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 341: 1–96.Google Scholar
Klein, Jack. 1939. Ants and pest control. California Cult. 86: 423.Google Scholar
Kenyon, H. F. 1935. Spiders and ants. California Cult. 82: 224.Google Scholar
Marsh, H. O. 1910. Notes on a Colorado ant (Formica cinereorufibarbis Forel.) U.S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Ent. Bul. 64: 73–78.Google Scholar
Newell, Wilmon, and Barber, T. C.. 1913. The Argentine ant. U.S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Ent. Bul. 122: 1–98.Google Scholar
Phillips, John S. 1934. The biology and distribution of ants in Hawaiian pineapple fields. Hawaii Pineapple Prod. Sta. Bul. 15: 1–57.Google Scholar
Smith, Harry S. 1917. The Argentine ant as an orchard pest. California Citrog. 2(10): 16–17.Google Scholar
Smith, Harry S., and Armitage, H. M.. 1931. The biological control of mealybugs attacking citrus. California Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 509: 1–74.Google Scholar
Smith, Harry S., and Compere, Harold. 1926. The establishment in California of Coccopbagus modestus Silv. (Aphelinidae, Hymenoptera ). California Univ. Pubs. Ent. 4: 51–61.Google Scholar
Smith, M. R. 1942. The relationship of ants and other organisms to certain scale insects on coffee in Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico Univ. J. Agr. 26: 21–27.Google Scholar
Tissot, A. N. 1939. Notes on the Lachnini of Florida with description of two new species (Homoptera: Aphiidae). Florida Ent. 22(3): 33–44.Google Scholar
Van der Goot, P. 1916. Veredere onderzoekingen omtrent de oeconomische beteekensis der gramang-mier. Proefsta. Midden-Java, Salatiga, Meded. No. 22. 120 p.Google Scholar
Woglum, R. S. 1919. How nature assists in mealybug control. California Citrog. 4: 106, 141. University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Woglum, R. S. 1942. The Argentine Ant. California Citrog. 27: 155.Google Scholar