Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-01T11:14:10.537Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Experimental Studies in Insect Parasitism. VI.—Host Suitability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

George Salt
George Salt
Affiliation:
Fellow of King's College, Cambridge. (From the Zoological Laboratory, Cambridge.)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. For the purposes of this paper a suitable host is defined as one on which the parasitoid can generally reproduce fertile offspring.

2. To be suitable for Trichogramma, a host must satisfy conditions required by two generations of the parasite: it must be such that it can be actually parasitized by the adult parasitoid; and it must provide an environment in which the parasite offspring can develop.

3. Some hosts prevent the attack of Trichogramma leading to parasitization by the physical resistance of their chorion; others by inhibiting the impulse to oviposition.

4. Five physical characteristics of the hosts of Trichogramma are investigated: the permeability, rigidity, and hardness of the egg-shell; and the fluidity and quantity of the egg-contents (pp. 226 to 231).

5. Eggs of Sialis lutaria, Tenebrio molitor, and Bruchus obtectus are chemically unsuitable for Trichogramma evanescens as food.

6. Two biological characteristics of the host, its viability and its age, do not directly affect its suitability for Trichogramma; a third, the ability of the embryo to move, is of some importance.

7. The various known factors of host unsuitability are given in tabular form (p. 239).

8. In spite of numerous attempts during several years it has not been possible to develop a strain of Trichogramma evanescens which could use Bruchus obtectus as a host.

9. The host list of most groups of parasites is greatly limited by the inaccessibility of many species; it is further restricted in some groups (e.g., the parasitoid Hymenoptera) by the selection exercised by the parasite; it is finally limited in all groups (and especially the parasitoid Diptera) by the unsuitability of many infected animals.

10. The division of the problem of host specificity into the three parts, host finding, host selection, and host suitability, is fundamental.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 29 , Issue 3 , October 1938 , pp. 223 - 246
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1938

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

Balfour-Browne, F. (1922). On the life-history of Melittobia acasta, Walker; a Chalcid parasite of bees and wasps.—Parasitology 14, pp. 349–370, 1 pl.Google Scholar
Cendaña, S. M. (1937). Studies on the biology of Coccophagus.—Univ. Calif. Publ. Ent. 6, pp. 337–399, 48 figs.Google Scholar
Clausen, C. P., Jaynes, H. A. & Gardner, T. R. (1933). Further investigations of the parasites of Popillia japonica in the Far East.—Tech. Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric. 366, pp. 1–59, 18 figs.Google Scholar
Compere, H. & Smith, H. S. (1927). Notes on the life history of two oriental Chalcidoid parasites of Chrysomphalus.—Univ. Calif. Publ. Ent. 4, pp. 63–73, 13 figs.Google Scholar
Compere, H. & Smith, H. S. (1932). The control of the citrophilus mealybug, Pseudococcus gahani, by Australian parasites.—Hilgardia 6, pp. 585–618, 7 figs.Google Scholar
Crossman, S. S. (1925). Two imported egg parasites of the gipsy moth, Anastatus bifasciatus Fonsc. and Schedius kuvanae Howard.—J. Agric. Res. 30, pp. 643–675, 11 figs.Google Scholar
Cushman, R. A. (1913). The Calliephialtes parasite of the Codling moth.—J. Agric. Res. 1, pp. 211–238, 15 figs., 1 pl.Google Scholar
Fiske, W. F. & Thompson, W. R. (1909). Notes on the parasites of the Saturniidae.—J. Econ. Ent. 2, pp. 450–460.Google Scholar
Flanders, S. E. (1930). Mass production of egg parasites of the genus Trichogramma.—Hilgardia 4, pp. 465–501, 17 figs.Google Scholar
Flanders, S. E. (1935). Host influence on the prolificacy and size of Trichogramma.—Pan-Pacif. Ent. 11, pp. 175–177.Google Scholar
Flanders, S. E. (1936). A biological phenomenon affecting the establishment of Aphelinidae as parasites.—Ann. Ent. Soc. Amer. 29, pp. 251–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbush, E. H. & Fernald, C. H. (1896). The Gypsy Moth.—Boston, Mass., xii + 495 pp., 66 pls.Google Scholar
Hase, A. (1925). Beiträge zur Lebensgeschichte der Schlupfwespe Trichogramma evanescens Westwood.—Arb. biol. Abt. (Anst.-Reichsanst.) Berlin, 14, pp. 171–224, 9 figs.Google Scholar
Howard, L. O. (1910). The parasites reared or supposed to have been reared from the eggs of the gipsy moth.—Tech. Ser. U.S. Bur. Ent. 19, pp. 1–12, 7 figs.Google Scholar
Howard, L. O. & Fiske, W. F. (1911). The importation into the United States of the parasites of the gipsy moth and the brown-tail moth.—Bull. U.S. Bur. Ent. 91, pp. 1–312, 74 figs., 28 pls.Google Scholar
James, H. C. (1928). On the life-histories and economic status of certain Cynipid parasites of Dipterous larvae.—Ann. Appl. Biol. 15, pp. 287–316, 12 figs.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laing, Joyce. (1937). Host-finding by insect parasites. I. Observations on the finding of hosts by Alysia manducator, Mormoniella vitripennis, and Trichogramma evanescens.—J. Anim. Ecol. 6, pp. 298–317, 5 figs.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchal, P. (1936). Recherches sur la biologie et le développement des Hyménoptères parasites: Les Trichogrammes.—Ann. Épiphyt. Phytogén. 2, pp. 447–550, 23 figs., 1 pl.Google Scholar
Mokrzecki, S. A. & Bragina, A. P. (1916). The rearing of Trichogramma semblidis, Aur., and T. fasciatum, P., in the laboratory.—Abstract in Rev. Appl. Ent. Ser. A. 5, pp. 155–156.Google Scholar
Muesebeck, C. F. W. (1931). Monodontomerus aereus Walker, both a primary and a secondary parasite of the brown-tail moth and the gipsy moth.—J. Agric. Res. 43, pp. 445–460, 3 figs.Google Scholar
Muesebeck, C. F. W. & Dohanian, S. M. (1927). A study in hyperparasitism, with particular reference to the parasites of Apanteles melanoscelus (Ratzeburg).—Dep. Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric. 1487, pp. 1–36, 10 figs.Google Scholar
Needham, J. (1931). Chemical Embryology. Cambridge. Vol. I (of 3) xxii + 613 pp., 104 figs.Google Scholar
Oldroyd, H. & Ribbands, C. R. (1936). On the validity of trichiation as a systematic character in Trichogramma.—Proc. R. Ent. Soc. Lond. 5, pp. 148–152, 3 figs.Google Scholar
Pantin, C. F. A. (1930). On the physiology of amoeboid movement. V. Anaerobic movement.—Proc. Roy. Soc. B, 105, pp. 538–555, 6 figs.Google Scholar
Parker, H. L. (1931). Macrocentrus gifuensis Ashmead, a polyembryonic Braconid parasite in the European corn-borer.—Tech. Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric. 230, pp. 1–63, 21 figs.Google Scholar
Salt, G. (1931). Parasites of the wheat-stem sawfly, Cephus pygmaeus, Linn., in England.—Bull. Ent. Res. 22, pp. 479–545, 29 figs.Google Scholar
Salt, G. (1934). Experimental studies in insect parasitism. I. Introduction and technique.—Proc. Roy. Soc. B, 114, pp. 450–454, 2 figs., 1 pl.Google Scholar
Salt, G. (1935). III. Host selection.—Proc. Roy. Soc. B, 117, pp. 413–435, 1 fig.Google Scholar
Salt, G. (1936). IV. The effect of superparasitism on populations of Trichogramma evanescens.—J. Exp. Biol. 13, pp. 363–375, 1 fig.Google Scholar
Salt, G. (1937, a). V. The sense used by Trichogramma to distinguish between parasitized and unparasitized hosts.—Proc. Roy. Soc. B, 122, pp. 57–75.Google Scholar
Salt, G. (1937, b). The egg-parasite of Sialis lutaria: a study of the influence of the host upon a dimorphic parasite.—Parasitology 29, pp. 539–553, 5 figs.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seifriz, W. (1936). Protoplasm.—New York, x+584 pp., 179 figs.Google Scholar
Steenburgh, W. E. van. (1934). Trichogramma minutum Riley as a parasite of the oriental fruit moth (Laspeyresia molesta Busck) in Ontario.—Can. J. Res. 10, pp. 287–314, 6 figs.Google Scholar
Strickland, E. H. (1923). Biological notes on parasites of prairie cutworms.—Bull. Dep. Agric. Can. 26, pp. 1–40, 20 figs.Google Scholar
Strickland, E. H. (1930). Phagocytosis of internal insect parasites.—Nature, Lond. 126, p. 95.Google Scholar
Taylor, T. H. C. (1937). The biological control of an insect in Fiji.—London (Imp. Inst. Entom.), 239 pp., 17 figs., 23 pls., 2 maps.Google Scholar
Thompson, W. R. (1930). Reaction of the phagocytes of arthropods to their internal insect parasites.—Nature, Lond. 125, pp. 565–566.Google Scholar
Thompson, W. R. (1934). The Tachinid parasites of woodlice.—Parasitology 26, pp. 378–448, 5 figs., 8 pls.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, W. R. & Parker, H. L. (1927). The problem of host relations with special reference to entomophagous parasites.—Parasitology 19, pp. 1–34.Google Scholar
Thompson, W. R. & Parker, H. L. (1930). The morphology and biology of Eulimneria crassifemur, an important parasite of the European corn borer.—J. Agric. Res. 40, pp. 321–345, 7 figs.Google Scholar
Timberlake, P. H. (1912). Experimental parasitism: a study of the biology of Limnerium validum (Cresson).—Tech. Ser. U.S. Bur. Ent. 19, pp. 71–92, 10 figs.Google Scholar
Tothill, J. D. (1922). The natural control of the fall webworm (Hyphantria cunea Drury).—Bull. Dep. Agric. Can. 3, pp. 1–107, 99 figs., 6 pls.Google Scholar
Ullyett, G. C. (1936). Host selection by Microplectron fuscipennis, Zett.—Proc. Roy. Soc. B, 120, pp. 253–291, 6 figs.Google Scholar
Vance, A. M. (1931). Apanteles thompsoni Lyle, a Braconid parasite of the European corn borer.—Tech. Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric. 233, pp. 1–28, 7 figs.Google Scholar
Webber, R. T. & Schaffner, J. V. (1926). Host relations of Compsilura concinnata Meigen.—Dep. Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric. 1363. pp. 1–32.Google Scholar
Willard, H. F. (1927). Parasites of the pink bollworm in Hawaii.—Tech. Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric. 19, pp. 1–16, 6 figs.Google Scholar