Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T11:28:36.231Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Biosystematics of the Cotesia Flavipes Species Complex (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), Parasitoids of the Gramineous Stemborers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2011

Susan W. Kimani-Njogu  and
William A. Overholt
Susan W. Kimani-Njogu
Affiliation:
International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology P.O. Box 30772, Nairobi, Kenya
William A. Overholt
Affiliation:
International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology P.O. Box 30772, Nairobi, Kenya
Get access

Abstract

The biosystematics of species in the Cotesia flavipes complex is reviewed with reference to studies conducted on their morphology, morphometrics, enzyme electrophoresis and hybridisation. A survey of 5 morphological characters scored from 17 populations indicated that the scuto-scutellar sulcus and the rugosity on the propodeum could be used to separate the species. The shape of the male genitalia was valid for separating the populations of C. flavipes from those of C. sesamiae and C. chilonis. Canonical variate analysis separated the complex into three distinct clusters with populations from Africa together, populations from Asia and the neotropics forming a second cluster, and material from China and Japan forming the third cluster. Electrophoretic studies showed that esterase, glucosephosphate isomerase, hexokinase, sorbital dehydrogenase and phosphogluconate dehydrogenase, among others, had fixed alelles and could be used to distinguish the species. Cladistic analysis of the allozyme data indicated that allopatric populations currently included in C. flavipes may not be a monophyletic group. Interspecific crosses revealed that males of C. sesamiae could mate with females of C. chilonis and produce viable females.

Résumé

La biosystématique des espèces au sein du complexe Cotesia flavipes est revue en référence à leurs morphologie, morphométrie, électrophorèse enzymatique et hybridation. Un examen de 5 caractères morphologiques relevés dans 16 populations indiqua que la sulcature scuto-scutellaire et la rugosité sur le propodéum pourraient être utilisés pour différencier des espèces. La forme des organes génitaux mâles était valide pour distinguer la population de C. flavipes de celles de C. sesamiae et C. chilonis. L'analyse de la variable canonique divisa le complexe en trois groupes, le premier groupe rassemblant les populations d'Afrique, les populations asiatiques néotropicales formant le deuxième et le matériel en provenace de Chine et du Japon constituant le troisième. Les études électrophorétiques montrèrent que l'estérase, le glucophosphate isomérase, l'hexokinase, le sorbitol dehydrogenase et le phosphogluconate, entre autres avaient fixé les allèles et pouvaient être utilisés pour distinguer les espèces. L'analyse cladistique des données d'allozymes indiqua que les populations généralement incluses dans G. flavipes pourraient ne pas être un groupe monophylétique. Des croisements interspécifiques révélèrent que des mâles de C. sesamiae pourraient s'accoupler avec des femelles de C. chilonis et produire de viables femelles.

Keywords

Cotesia flavipesCotesia chilonisCotesia sesamiaebiosystematicsCotesia flavipesCotesia chilonisCotesia sesamiaebiosystematique
Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Tropical Insect Science , Volume 17 , Special Issue 1: Ecology and Management of Tropical Gramineous Stemborers , March 1997 , pp. 119 - 130
Copyright
Copyright © ICIPE 1997

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

REFERENCES

Alam, M. M., Beg, M. N. and Ghani, M. A. (1972) Introduction of Apanteles spp. against graminaceous borers into Pakistan. Tech. Bull. Commonw. Inst. Biol. Contr. No. 15, 1–10.Google Scholar
Arakaki, N. and Ganaha, Y. (1986) Emergence pattern and mating behaviour of Apanteles flavipes (Cameron) (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Appl. Entomol. Zool. Tokyo 21, 382–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cracraft, J. (1989) Speciation and its ontology: The empirical consequences of alternative species concepts for understanding patterns and processes of differentiation, pp. 28–59. In Speciation and Its Consequences (Edited by Otte, D. and Endler, J. A.). Sinauer Associates Inc., Sunderland, Massachussetts, USA.Google Scholar
Ingram, W. R. (1983) Biological control of graminaceous stemborers and pod-borers. Insect Sci. Applic. 4, 205–209.Google Scholar
Kimani, S. W. and Overholt, W. A. (1995) Biosystematics of th. Cotesia flavipes Cameron complex (Hymenoptera: Braconidae): Interspecific hybridisation, sex pheromone and mating behaviour studies. Bull. Entomol. Res. 85, 379–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimani-Njogu, S. W., Overholt, W., Woolley, J. and Walker, A. (1997) Biosystematics of Cotesia flavipes complex (Hym.: Braconidae); morphometrics of selected allopatric populations. Bull. Entomol. Res. 87, 61–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menken, S. B. J. (1989) Electrophoretic studies on geographic populations, host races and sibling species of insect pests, Systematic Association Special Volume No. 39, pp. 181–202. In Electrophoretic Studies in Agricultural Pests (Edited by Loxdale, H. D. and den Hollander, J.). Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Menken, S. B. J. and Ulenberg, S. A. (1987) Biochemical characters in agricultural entomology. Agric. Zool. Rev. 2, 305–353.Google Scholar
Mohyuddin, A. I. (1971) Comparative biology and ecology o. A. flavipes (Cameron) and A. sesamiae Cameron as parasites of graminaceous borers. Bull. Entomol. Res. 61, 33–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagaraja, H. (1971) Morphological differences betwee. Apanteles chilonis (Munakata) and A. sesamiae (Cameron) (Hym.: Braconidae) parasites on graminaceous moth borers. Tech. Bull. Commonw. lnst. Biol. Contr. 14, 59–61.Google Scholar
Nagarkartti, S. and Fazaluddin, M. (1973) Biosystematic studies o. Trichogramma species (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae) II. Experimental hybridisation between some Trichogramma spp. from the New World. Sys. Zool. 22, 103–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nei, M. (1987) Definition and estimation of fixation indices. Evolution 40, 643–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nye, I. W. B. (1960) The insect pests of graminaceous crops in East Africa. Colonial Research Study 31, London. Her Majesty's Stationery Office. 48 pp.Google Scholar
Oatman, E. R., Platner, G. R. and Gonzalez, D. (1970) Reproductive differentiation o. Trichogramma pretiosum, T. semifumatum, T. minutum and T. evanescens, with notes on the geographic distribution of T. pretiosum in the southwestern United States and in Mexico (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 61, 956–959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Omwega, C. O., Kimani, S. W., Overholt, W. A. and Ogol, C. K. P. O. (1995) Evidence of the establishment of th. Cotesia flavipes (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) in continental Africa. Bull. Entomol. Res. 85, 525–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Overholt, W. A., Ochieng, J. O., Lammers, P. and Ogedah, K. (1994) Rearing and field release methods for Cotesia flavipes Cameron (Hym.: Braconidae), a parasitoid of tropical gramineous stemborers. Insect Sci. Applic. (in press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinto, D. J., Stouthamer, R., Platner, G. R. and Oatman, R. (1991) Variation in reproductive compatibility i. Trichogramma and its taxonomic significance (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 84, 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polaszek, A. and Walker, A. K. (1991) The Cotesia flavipes species-complex. Parasitoids of cereal stem borers in thetropics. Redia LXXIV, 335–341.Google Scholar
Rao, S. V. and Debach, P. (1969) Experimental studies on hybridisation and sexual isolation between som. Aphytis species (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae). I. Experimental hybridisation and an interpretation of evolutionary relationships among the species. Hilgardia 39, 515–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rao, V. P. and Nagaraja, H. (1967) Validity of the specific status o. A. chilonis. Tech. Bull. Commonw. lnst. Biol. Contr. 9, 45–52.Google Scholar
Rogers, J. S. (1972) Measures of genetic similarity and genetic distance, pp. 145–153. In Studies in Genetics VII. University of Texas Publication vol. 7213.Google Scholar
Shami, S. K. (1990) Suitability of three strains of Apanteles flavipes (Cameron) and one of Apanteles sesamiae (Cameron) for biological control of gramineous borers in Pakistan and effects of feeding of A. flavipes larvae on development of its hosts. PhD Thesis. University of India, Punjab, India.Google Scholar
Sigwalt, B. and Pointel, J. G. (1980) Statut spécifique et séparation des Apanteles du sous-groupe flavipes (Hym.: Braconidae) utilisées en lutte biologique. Ann. Soc. Entomol. France (N.S.) 16, 109–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Hamburg, H. (1979) Die bio-ekologie van die kafferkoring-stamruspe. MSc Thesis. University of Pretoria.Google Scholar
Wiedenmann, R. N. and Smith, J. W. Jr (1995) Parasitization o. Diatraea saccharalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) by Cotesia chilonis and C. flavipes (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Environ. Entomol. 24, 950–961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar