Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:11:40.743Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Biology of the Diamondback Moth, Plutella maculipennis (Curt.) (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae), in Eastern Ontario III. Natural Enemies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

D. G. Harcourt
D. G. Harcourt
Affiliation:
Entomology Research Institute, Research Branch, Canada Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, Ontario
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The diamondback moth, Plutella maculipennis (Curt.), is a sporadic pest of cruciferous crops throughout Canada. It is normally held in check by a multiplicity of environmental factors, chiefly biotic; however, serious outbreaks do occur (MacNay, 1948, 1953, 1957, 1959). In eastern Ontario it has been extremely numerous since late 1951, and during the present study, 1952 – 1956, it was more abundant than the imported cabbageworm, Pieris rapae (L.), or the cabbage looper, Trichoplusia ni (Hbn.) . Two earlier papers (Harcourt, 1956, 1957) presented the history, distribution, and synonymy of the insect, giving general descriptions of the stages and many aspects of its biology in eastern Ontario. This article gives the relative abundance of its parasites and predators, and discusses certain population relationships.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 92 , Issue 6 , June 1960 , pp. 419 - 428
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1960

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

Burnett, Thomas. 1951. Effects of temperature and host density on the rate of increase of an insect parasite. Am. Nat. 85: 337–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnett, Thomas. 1958. Effect of host distribution on the reproduction of Encarsia formosa Gahan (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidae). Canadian Ent. 90: 179–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunningham, G. H. 1927. Natural control of weeds and insects by fungi. New Zealand J. Agr. 34: 244–251.Google Scholar
DeBach, P., and Smith, H. S.. 1941. The effect of host density on the rate of reproduction of entomophagous parasites. J. Econ. Ent. 34: 741–745.Google Scholar
DeBach, P., and Smith, H. S.. 1947. Effects of parasite population density on rate of change of host and parasite populations. Ecology 28: 290–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunn, D. 1917. The small cabbage moth (Plutella maculipennis Curtis). Un. S. Africa Dept. Agr. Bull. 8.Google Scholar
Harcourt, D. G., Backs, R. H., and Cass, L. M.. 1955. Abundance and relative importance of caterpillars attacking cabbage in eastern Ontario. Canadian Ent. 87: 400–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harcourt, D. G. 1956. Biology of the diamondback moth, Plutella maculipennis (Curt.) Lepidoptera: Plutellidae), in eastern Ontario. I. Distribution, economic history, synonymy, and general descriptions. 37th Rept. Quebec Soc. Prot. Plants, 1955, pp. 155–160.Google Scholar
Harcourt, D. G. 1957. Biology of the diamondback moth, Plutella maculipennis (Curt.) (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae), in eastern Ontario. II. Life-history, behaviour, and host relationships. Canadian Ent. 89: 554–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardy, J. E. 1938. Plutella maculipennis Curt., its natural and biological control in England. Bull. Ent. Res. 29: 343–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holling, C. S. 1959. The components of predation as revealed by a study of small-mammal predation of the European pine sawfly. Canadian Ent. 91: 293–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanervo, V. 1936. The diamondback moth (Plutella maculipennis Curt.) as a pest of cruciferous plants in Finland. [In Finnish, with summary in English]. Agr. Expt. Activities of the State. 86.Google Scholar
Kanervo, V. 1946. Sporadic observations concerning diseases in certain species of insects. 3. Diseases attacking Plutella maculipennis Curt. [In Finnish, with summary in English]. Ann. Ent. Fenn. 12: 143–153.Google Scholar
King, K. M. 1929. Insects affecting field crops and gardens in Saskatchewan, 1922–1927. Sci. Agr. 9: 373–390.Google Scholar
Knowlton, G. F., and Janes, M. J.. 1930. Notes on parasitic Hymenoptera, Utah. Proc. Utah Acad. Sci. 7: 73–74.Google Scholar
Lloyd, D. C. 1940. Host selection by hymenopterous parasites of the moth Plutella maculipennis Curtis. Proc. Roy. Soc. London 128 (B): 451–484.Google Scholar
MacNay, C. G. 1948. A summary of the more important insect infestations and occurrences in Canada in 1947. Ann. Rept. Ent. Soc. Ontario 78: 71–89.Google Scholar
MacNay, C. G. 1953. Summary of important insect infestations, occurrences, and damage in Canada in 1952. Ann. Rept. Ent. Soc. Ontario 83: 66–94.Google Scholar
MacNay, C. G. 1957. Summary of important insect infestations, occurrences, and damage in Canada in 1956. Ann. Rept. Ent. Soc. Ontario 87: 86–102.Google Scholar
MacNay, C. G. 1959. Summary of important insect infestations, occurrences, and damage in Canada in 1958. Ann. Rept. Ent. Soc. Ontario 89: 73–87.Google Scholar
Marsh, O. H. 1917. The life history of Plutella maculipennis, the diamondback moth. J. Agr. Res. 10: 1–10.Google Scholar
Miller, C. A. 1955. A technique for assessing spruce budworm larval mortality caused by parasitism. Canadian J. Zool. 33: 5–17.Google Scholar
Miller, C. A. 1959. The interaction of the spruce budworm, Choristoneura fumiferana (Clem.), and the parasite Apanteles fumiferanae Vier. Canadian Ent. 91: 457–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muesebeck, C. F. W., Krombein, K. V., Townes, H. K., and others. 1951. Hymenoptera of America north of Mexico. Synoptic catalog. U.S. Dept. Agr., Agr. Monogr. 2.Google Scholar
Muggeridge, J. 1930. The diamond-back moth. Its occurrence and control in New Zealand. New Zealand J. Agr. 41: 253–264.Google Scholar
Robertson, P. L. 1939. Diamond-back moth investigation in New Zealand. New Zealand J. Sci. and Tech. 20(A): 330–339, 341–364.Google Scholar
Robertson, P. L. 1948. Eupteromalus sp. as a hyperparasite. Some indication of its influence on the establishment of Angitia cerophaga in New Zealand. New Zealand J. Sci. and Tech. 29(B): 257–265.Google Scholar
Romanova, V. P. 1930. On pests of mustard in the Northern Caucasus. [In Russian]. Bull. N. Caucasus Pl. Prot. Sta., pp. 133–138. (Rev. Appl. Ent., A, 19: 564, 1930)Google Scholar
Poos, F. W. 1928. An annotated list of some parasitic insects. Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash. 30: 145–150.Google Scholar
Tanada, Y. 1956. Microbial control of some lepidopterous pests of crucifers. J. Econ. Ent. 49: 320–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Telenga, N. A. 1929. Hymenopterous parasites of the family Ichneumonidae reared at the Kuban Plant Protection Station in 1927. [In Russian]. Plant Prot. 6: 225–226. (Rev. Appl. Ent., A, 19: 289, 1930).Google Scholar
Thompson, W. R. 1957. A catalogue of the parasites and predators of insect pests. Sect. 2. Pt. 4. Hosts of the Hymenoptera (Ichneumonidae). Comm. Inst. Biol. Cont. Ottawa.Google Scholar
Ullyett, G. C., and D. B., Schonken. 1940. A fungus disease of Plutella maculipennis Curt., in South Africa, with notes on the use of entomogenous fungi in insect control. Union S. Africa Dept. Agr. and Forestry Sci. Bull. 218.Google Scholar
Ullyett, G. C. 1947. Mortality factors in populations of Plutella maculipennis Curtis, and their relation to the problem of control. S. Africa Dept. Agr. and Forestry. Ent. Mem. 2: 77–202.Google Scholar
Ullyett, G. C. 1949b. Distribution of progeny by Chelonus texanus Cress. (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Canadian Ent. 81: 25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullyett, G. C. 1949b. Distribution of progeny by Cryptus inornatus Pratt (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae). Canadian Ent. 81: 285–299.Google Scholar
Veitch, R. 1929. Report of the Chief Entomologist. In Ann. Rept. Dept. Agr. and Stock, 1928–1929, pp. 67–71. Queensland.Google Scholar
Watt, K. E. F. 1959. A mathematical model for the effect of densities of attacked and attacking species on the number attacked. Canadian Ent. 91: 129–144.Google Scholar