Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T00:46:14.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Native range assessment of classical biological control agents: impact of inundative releases as pre-introduction evaluation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 October 2009

W.H. Jenner ,
P.G. Mason ,
N. Cappuccino  and
U. Kuhlmann
W.H. Jenner*
Affiliation:
CABI Europe – Switzerland, 1 Rue des Grillons, Delémont, CH-2800, Switzerland
P.G. Mason
Affiliation:
Eastern Cereal and Oilseed Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 960 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, ON, K1A 0C6
N. Cappuccino
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, ON, K1S 5B6, Canada
U. Kuhlmann
Affiliation:
CABI Europe – Switzerland, 1 Rue des Grillons, Delémont, CH-2800, Switzerland
*
*Author for correspondence Fax: +41-32-421-4871 E-mail: w.jenner@cabi.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Diadromus pulchellus Wesmael (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) is a pupal parasitoid under consideration for introduction into Canada for the control of the invasive leek moth, Acrolepiopsis assectella (Zeller) (Lepidoptera: Acrolepiidae). Since study of the parasitoid outside of quarantine was not permitted in Canada at the time of this project, we assessed its efficacy via field trials in its native range in central Europe. This was done by simulating introductory releases that would eventually take place in Canada when a permit for release is obtained. In 2007 and 2008, experimental leek plots were artificially infested with pest larvae to mimic the higher pest densities common in Canada. Based on a preliminary experiment showing that leek moth pupae were suitable for parasitism up to 5–6 days after pupation, D. pulchellus adults were mass-released into the field plots when the first host cocoons were observed. The laboratory-reared agents reproduced successfully in all trials and radically reduced leek moth survival. Taking into account background parasitism caused by naturally occurring D. pulchellus, the released agents parasitized at least 15.8%, 43.9%, 48.1% and 58.8% of the available hosts in the four release trials. When this significant contribution to leek moth mortality is added to previously published life tables, in which pupal parasitism was absent, the total pupal mortality increases from 60.1% to 76.7%. This study demonstrates how field trials involving environmental manipulation in an agent's native range can yield predictions of the agent's field efficacy once introduced into a novel area.

Keywords

Acrolepiopsis assectellaclassical biological controlDiadromus pulchellusefficacyfield trial
Type
Research Paper
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 100 , Issue 4 , August 2010 , pp. 387 - 394
Creative Commons
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
Copyright
Copyright © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Published by Cambridge University Press 2009

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

Abbott, W.S. (1925) A method of computing the effectiveness of an insecticide. Journal of Economic Entomology 18, 265–267.Google Scholar
Abera-Kalibata, A.M., Hasyimb, A., Gold, C.S. & Van Driesche, R. (2006) Field surveys in Indonesia for natural enemies of the banana weevil, Cosmopolites sordidus (Germar). Biological Control 37, 16–24.Google Scholar
Bigler, F., Babendreier, D. & Kuhlmann, U. (Eds) (2006) Environmental Impact of Invertebrates for Biological Control of Arthropods: Methods and Risk Assessment. Wallingford, UK, CABI Publishing.Google Scholar
Browne, L.B. & Withers, T.M. (2002) Time-dependent changes in the host-acceptance threshold of insects: implications for host specificity testing of candidate biological control agents. Biocontrol Science and Technology 12, 677–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etzel, L.K. & Legner, E.F. (1999) Culture and colonisation. pp. 125–197in Bellows, T.S. & Fisher, T.W. (Eds) Handbook of Biological Control. San Diego, CA, USA, Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frediani, D. (1954) Ricerche morfo-biologiche sull'Acrolepia assectella Zell. (Lep. Plutellidae) nell'Italia centrale. Redia 39, 187–249.Google Scholar
French, D.R. & Travis, J.M.J. (2001) Density-dependent dispersal in host-parasitoid assemblages. Oikos 95, 125–135.Google Scholar
Fretwell, S.D. & Lucas, H.L. Jr., (1970) On territorial behaviour and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. I. Theoretical development. Acta Biotheoretica 19, 16–36.Google Scholar
Greenstone, M.H. (2006) Molecular methods for assessing insect parasitism. Bulletin of Entomological Research 96, 1–13.Google Scholar
Gurr, G.M., Barlow, N.D., Memmott, J., Wratten, S.D. & Greathead, D.J. (2000) A history of methodological, theoretical and empirical approaches to biological control. pp. 3–37in Gurr, G. & Wratten, S. (Eds) Biological Control: Measures of Success. Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Hubbard, S.F. & Cook, R.M. (1978) Optimal foraging by parasitoid wasps. Journal of Animal Ecology 47, 593–604.Google Scholar
Jary, S.G. & Rolfe, S.W. (1945) The leek moth. Agriculture 52, 35–37.Google Scholar
Jenner, W.H. (2008) Evaluation of a Candidate Classical Biological Control Agent and Critical Assessment of Suggested Host Specificity Testing Guidelines. 156 pp. PhD thesis, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada.Google Scholar
Jenner, W.H. & Kuhlmann, U. (2005) Biological control of leek moth, Acrolepiopsis assectella. Annual Report 2004/2005. 13 pp. Delémont, Switzerland, CABI Europe – Switzerland.Google Scholar
Jenner, W.H. & Kuhlmann, U. (2008) Ecological theory vs. practice: Have non-target concerns led to increased use of monophagous agents? pp. 45–55in Mason, P.G., Gillespie, D.R. & Vincent, C. (Eds) Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Biological Control of Arthropods. USDA Forest Service, FHTET, Morgantown, WV, USA, 8–13 February 2009, Christchurch, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Jenner, W.H., Kuhlmann, U., Cossentine, J.E. & Roitberg, B.D. (2004) Phenology, distribution, and the natural parasitoid community of the cherry bark tortrix. Biological Control 31, 72–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenner, W.H., Kuhlmann, U., Mason, P.G. & Cappuccino, N. (2009) Comparative life tables of leek moth, Acrolepiopsis assectella (Zeller) (Lepidoptera: Acrolepiidae), in its native range. Bulletin of Entomological Research doi: 10.1017/S0007485309006804.Google Scholar
King, B.H. (2007) The effect of exposure to conspecifics on restlessness in the parasitoid wasp Nasonia vitripennis (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae). Canadian Entomologist 139, 678–684.Google Scholar
Labeyrie, V. (1960) Contribution a l'étude de la dynamique des populations d'insectes. I. Influence stimulatrice de l'hote Acrolepia assectella Z. sur la multiplication d'un hymenoptère Ichneumonidae (Diadromus sp.). 193 pp. PhD thesis, L'Université de Paris, France.Google Scholar
Labeyrie, V. (1966) Sous-famille des Acrolepiinae. pp. 233–249in Balachowsky, A.S. (Ed.). Entomologie Appliquée à l'Agriculture. Tome II, Lépidoptères, vol. 1. Paris, Masson et Cie.Google Scholar
Landry, J.-F. (2007) Taxonomic review of the leek moth genus Acrolepiopsis (Lepidoptera: Acrolepiidae) in North America. Canadian Entomologist 139, 319–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markula, M. (1981) Pests of cultivated plants in Finland in 1980. Annales Agriculturae Fenniae 20, 25–27.Google Scholar
Mason, P.G., Appleby, M., Callow, K., Allen, J., Fraser, H. & Landry, J.-F. (2006) Leek moth Acrolepiopsis assectella (Lepidoptera: Acrolepiidae) a pest of Allium spp.: biology and minor use insecticide registration. 31 pp. Final Project Report to ‘Improving Farming Systems Program’, May 15 2006, AAFC Pest Management Centre.Google Scholar
Sarfraz, M., Keddie, B.A. & Dosdall, L.M. (2005) Biological control of the diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella: a review. Biocontrol Science and Technology 15, 763–789.Google Scholar
SPSS Inc. (2005) SPSS Base 14.0 User's Guide. Chicago, SPSS Inc.Google Scholar
Van Driesche, R.G. & Hoddle, M.S. (2000) Classical arthropod biological control: measuring success, step by step. pp. 39–75in Gurr, G. & Wratten, S. (Eds) Biological Control: Measures of Success. Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Varone, L., Bruzzone, O. & Logarzo, G.A. (2007) Egg limitation and the functional response of the parasitoid Campoletis grioti (Hym: Ichneumonidae). Biocontrol Science and Technology 17, 945–955.Google Scholar
Velitchkevitch, A.I. (1924) Biological observations on A. assectella, Zell. in the Novgorod government (abstract). Review of Applied Entomology 12, 356.Google Scholar
Wanner, H., Gu, H., Hattendorf, B., Günther, D. & Dorn, S. (2006) Using the stable isotope marker 44Ca to study dispersal and host-foraging activity in parasitoids. Journal of Applied Ecology 43, 1031–1039.Google Scholar
Zhang, F., Toepfer, S., Riley, K. & Kuhlmann, U. (2004) Reproductive Biology of Celatoria compressa (Diptera: Tachinidae), a Parasitoid of Diabrotica virgifera virgifera (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Biocontrol Science and Technology 14, 5–16.Google Scholar