Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T03:45:40.931Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The biology of the ectoparasitoid wasp Eulophus pennicornis (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) on host larvae of the tomato moth, Lacanobia oleracea (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

G.C. Marris  and
J.P. Edwards
G.C. Marris*
Affiliation:
Central Science Laboratory, (MAFF), Slough, UK
J.P. Edwards
Affiliation:
Central Science Laboratory, (MAFF), Slough, UK
*
Dr G. C. Marris, Central Science Laboratory, London Road, Slough, Berks SL3 7HJ, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is a need to identify potential biological control agents for use against noctuid pests in greenhouses. The gregarious ectoparasitoid Eulophus pennicornis (Nees) attacks a limited range of macrolepidopterous larvae, including those of some important horticultural pest species. Laboratory trials designed to investigate the biology of E. pennicornis on larvae of the tomato moth, Lacanobia oleracea Linnaeus, reveal that wasps preferentially parasitize penulitmate (fifth) or final (sixth) instar hosts. More than two-thirds of wasps lay viable eggs, and individual females oviposit on up to four hosts during their lifespan. Wasp fecundity is high, preadult development is rapid, and offspring show a markedly female-biased sex ratio. Parasitized fifth instar L.oleracea hosts do not grow as quickly as unparasitized larvae, and neither do they undergo normal ecdysis to the final larval stadium. Furthermore, the consumption of artificial diet by parasitized fifth instar hosts is greatly reduced in comparison to that of unparasitized larvae (overall feeding-reduction over a 12 day period was 64.7%). Our results suggest that E. pennicornis affects both the developmental and feeding physiology of host larvae, and that inoculative releases of this parasitoid could provide effective biological control for L. oleracea and other greenhouse pests.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 85 , Issue 4 , December 1995 , pp. 507 - 513
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

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

Afify, A.M. & Matter, M.M. (1970) Zunemuende toleranz (LT-werte) von Anagasta kühniella Z. gegen Bacillus thuringiensis mit dem Alter der Larvalentwicklung. Anzeiger für Schädlingskunde und Pflanzenschutz 43, 97–100.Google Scholar
Askew, R.R. (1968) Hymenoptera 2. Chalcidoidea Section (b). Handbooks for the Identification of British Insects 8 (2b), 39 pp.Google Scholar
Boucček, Z. (1959) A study of the central European Eulophidae: I: Eulophinae. Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Prague 33, 117–170.Google Scholar
Crook, N.E. (1981) A comparison of the granulosis viruses from Pieris brassicae and Pieris rapae. Virology 115, 173–181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foster, G.N. (1979) Cultural factors affecting pest incidence in glasshouse tomato crops. Proceedings 1979 Crop Protection Conference - Pests and Diseases. 2, 441–445.Google Scholar
Foster, G.N. (1980) Possibilities for the control of tomato moth (Lacanobia oleracea). Bulletin IOBC/WPRS 3 (3), 45–52.Google Scholar
Foster, G.N. (1981) Pest problems of glasshouse tomatoes in the west of Scotland. Proceedings of Crop Protection in Northern Britain 1981. 1, 301–306.Google Scholar
Godfray, H.C.J. & Shaw, M.R. (1987) Seasonal variation in the reproductive strategy of the parasitic wasp Eulophus larvarum (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea: Eulophidae). Ecological Entomology 12, 251–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gradwell, G.R. (1957) Hosts of three species of Eulophus Geoffroy (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea), one new to science and another new to Britain. Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine 93, 140–142.Google Scholar
Hall, I.M. (1957) Use of a polyhedrosis virus to control the cabbage looper on lettuce in California. Journal of Economic Entomology 50, 551–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krieg, A. & Langenbruch, G.A. (1981) Susceptibility of arthropod species to Bacillus thuringiensis. pp. 837–896in Burges, H.D. (Ed.) Microbial control of pests and plant diseases 1970–1980. London, Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lenteren, J.C. van (1986) Parasitoids in the greenhouse: successes with seasonal inoculative release systems. pp. 341–374in Waage, J. & Greathead, D. (Eds.) Insect parasitoids. London, Academic Press (Symposium, Royal Entomological Society of London No. 13).Google Scholar
Lloyd, L. (1920) The habits of the glasshouse tomato moth Hadena (Polia) oleracea and its control. Annals of Applied Biology 7, 66–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marris, G.C. & Edwards, J.P. (1994) Eulophus pennicornis: a potential biocontrol agent against the tomato moth. Proceedings of the Brighton Conference on Crop Protection (Pests and Diseases 1994) 3, 1139–1140.Google Scholar
McConnell, E. & Cutkomp, L.K. (1954) Studies with Bacillus thuringiensis in relation to the European corn borer. Journal of Economic Entomology 47, 1074–1082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poitout, S. & Bues, R. (1970) Elevage de plusiers espèces de Lepidoptères Noctuidae sur milieu artificiel simplifié. Annales de Zoologie-Ecologie Animale 2, 79–91.Google Scholar
Poitout, S. & Bues, R. (1974) Elevage de chenilles de vingt-huit espèces de Lepidoptères Noctuidae et de deux espèces d’Arctiidae sur milieu artificiel simple.Particularitès de l’élevage selon les espèces. Annales de Zoologie-Ecologie Animale 6, 431–441.Google Scholar
Preuty, M. (1987) Eulophus pennicornis: un nou parazit pentru larvele de Pieris brassicae L. si Mamestra brassicae L. Buletinul de Protectia Plantelor 1, 39–41.Google Scholar
Shaw, M.R. (1981) Delayed inhibition of host development by nonparalyzing venoms of parasitic wasps. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 37, 215–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, M.R. (1987) Host associations of species of Eulophus in Britain (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae). Entomologist's Gazette 38, 59–63.Google Scholar
Sokal, R.R. & Rohlf, F.J. (1981) Biometry. 2nd edn. 859 pp. San Francisco, Freeman & Co.Google Scholar
Speyer, E.R. & Parr, W.J. (1948) Biology and economic status of the tomato moth (Diataraxia oleracea L.) and measures for its control in commercial glasshouse. Miscellaneous Publications Number 2, Experimental Research Station Cheshunt.Google Scholar
Thompson, W.R. (1946) A catalogue of the parasites and predators of insect pests. Section 1, Part 8: 479–481. Belleville, Ontario, The Imperial Parasite Service.Google Scholar
Veire, M. van de (1993) First observations in glasshouse sweet peppers in Belgium and laboratory rearing of the parasitic wasp Eulophus pennicornis (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae). Entomophaga 38, 61–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vinson, S.B. (1975) Biochemical coevolution between parasitoids and their hosts. pp. 14–48in: Price, P.W. (Ed.) Evolutionary strategies of parasitic insect and mites. New York, Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vinson, S.B. & Iwantsch, G.F. (1980) Host regulation by insect parasitoids. Quarterly Review of Biology 55, 143–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar