Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:38:16.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Competition and Cooperation Among Parasitic Hymenoptera Related to Biological Control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

S. E. Flanders
S. E. Flanders*
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Control, University of California Citrus Research Center and Agricultural Experiment Station, Riverside
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Since the earliest days of this century the interactions of parasitic Hymenoptera that attack the same host species have been reported from time to time in connection with studies on the natural enemy fauna of pest insects. These studies indicate that the synchronous attack by two or more parasitic species on an individual of a host population, multiple parasitism, is of little, if any, importance in the economy of that population, whereas the attack by two or more parasitic species on a sequence of a host’s developmental stages and instars, sequential parasitism, may be highly important, especially from the standpoint of host regulation. Since the host-regulating capacity of a parasite species may vary both seasonally and geographically, sequential parasitism is highly conducive to continuity in the conservation of the host’s food supply, the practical measure of regulative parasitism. The cooperative as well as the competitive aspects of sequential parasitism are discussed. The parasite fauna of the black scale, Saissetia oleae (Bernard), is used to exemplify these aspects of parasitism.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 97 , Issue 4 , April 1965 , pp. 409 - 422
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1965

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

Arthur, A. P., and Juillet, J. A.. 1961. The introduced parasites of the European pineshoot moth, Rhyacionia buoliana (Schiff.) (Lepidoptera: Alethreutidae), with a critical evaluation of their usefulness as control agents. Canad. Ent. 93: 297–312.Google Scholar
Bartlett, B. R., and Ball, J. C.. 1964. The developmental biologies of two encyrtid parasites of Coccus hesperidum and their intrinsic competition. Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 57: 496–503.Google Scholar
Benjamin, D. M. 1955. The biology and ecology of the redheaded pine sawfly. U. S. Dep. Agric. Tech. Bull. 1118. 57 pp.Google Scholar
Clausen, C. P., Jaynes, H. A. and Gardner, T. R.. 1933. Further investigations of the parasites of Popillia japonica in the Far East. U. S. Dep. Agric. Tech. Bull. 366. 58 pp.Google Scholar
Compere, H. 1922. The black scale problem. Calif. Cultivator 59: 29–30.Google Scholar
Compere, H. 1940. Parasites of the black scale, Saissetia oleae, in Africa. Hilgardia 13: 387–425.Google Scholar
Compere, H., and Smith, H. S.. 1932. The control of the citrophilus mealybug Pseudococcus gahani by Australian parasites. Hilgardia 6: 585–618.Google Scholar
Crombie, A. C. 1947. Interspecific competition. J. Anim. Ecol. 16: 44–73.Google Scholar
Davis, E. G. 1944. Apanteles diatraeae, a braconid parasite of the Southwestern corn borer. U. S. Dep. Agric. Tech. Bull. 871. 19 pp.Google Scholar
DeBach, P., and Sundby, R. A.. 1963. Competitive displacement between ecological homologues. Hilgardia 34: 105–166.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. C. 1961. A study in insect multiparasitism. I. Host selection and oviposition. J. exp. Biol. 38: 267–275.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. C. 1962. The effect of multiparasitism on populations of two parasites and their host. Ecology 43: 314–316.Google Scholar
Fiske, W. F. 1910. Parasites of the gypsy and brown-tail moths. Wright and Patter Printing Co., State Printers, Boston. 56 pp.Google Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1947. Elements of host discovery exemplified by parasitic Hymenoptera. Ecology 28: 259–309.Google Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1952. Biological observations on parasites of black scale. Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 45: 543–549.Google Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1958a. Moranila californica as a usurped parasite of Saissetia oleae. J. econ. Ent. 51: 247–248.Google Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1958b. The role of the ant in the biological control of scale insects in California. Proc. 10th Int. Cong. Ent., Montreal, 1956. 4: 579–584.Google Scholar
Flanders, S. E., and Badgley, M. E.. 1963. Prey-predator interactions in self-balanced laboratory populations. Hilgardia 35: 145–183.Google Scholar
Gahan, A. B. 1933. The serphoid and chalcidoid parasites of the Hessian Fly. U. S. Dep. Agric. Misc. Publ. 174. 147 pp.Google Scholar
Graham, A. R. 1949. Developments in the control of the larch casebearer, Coleophora laricella (Hbn.). 79th Rep. ent. Soc. Ont. 1948, 45–50.Google Scholar
Graham, A. R. 1958. Effectiveness of two introduced parasites of the larch case-bearer, Coleophora laricella (Hbn.) in Ontario. 79th Rep. ent. Soc. Ont. 88: 37–41.Google Scholar
Greathead, D. J. 1962. A review of the insect enemies of Acridoidea (Orthoptera). Trans. roy. Soc. London 114: 437–517.Google Scholar
Gressitt, J. L. 1958. Ecology of Promecotheca papuana (Csiki), a coconut beetle. Proc. 10th Int. Congr. Ent., Montreal, 1956. 2: 747–753.Google Scholar
Hartley, E. A. 1922. Some bionomics of Aphelinus semiflavus (Howard). Ohio J. Sci. 22: 209–236.Google Scholar
Howard, L. O. 1924. On entomological societies. Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 26: 25–46.Google Scholar
Lawson, F. R. 1958. Some features of the relation of insects to their ecosystems. Ecology 39: 515–521.Google Scholar
Lloyd, D. C. 1942. Further experiments on host selection by hymenopterous parasites of the moth Plutella maculipennis Curtis. Rev. canad. Biol. 1: 633–645.Google Scholar
Nicholson, A. J. 1933. The balance of animal populations. J. Anim. Ecol. 2: 132–178.Google Scholar
Pemberton, C. E., and Willard, H. F.. 1918. Interrelations of fruit-fly parasites in Hawaii. J. agric. Res. 12: 285–295.Google Scholar
Salt, G. 1960. Competition among insect parasitoids. Symp. Soc. exptl. Biol. 15: 96–119.Google Scholar
Silvestri, F. 1932. The biological control of insects and weed pests. J. South-Eastern Agric. Coll., Wye, Kent, No. 30: 87–96.Google Scholar
Smith, H. S. 1921. Biological control of the black scale. Calif. Citrograph 6: 108, 131.Google Scholar
Smith, H. S. 1929. Multiple parasitism: its relation to the biological control of insect pests. Bull. ent. Res. 20: 141–149.Google Scholar
Smith, H. S. 1937. Review of “The Biological Control of Insects” by Harvey L. Sweetman. J. econ. Ent. 30: 218–220.Google Scholar
Smith, H. S. 1942. Biological control of the black scale. Calif. Citrograph 27: 266, 290–291.Google Scholar
Smith, H. S., and Compere, H.. 1926. The establishment in California of Coccophagus modestus Silv. (Aphelinidae, Hymenoptera). Univ. Calif. Publ. Ent. 4: 51–61.Google Scholar
Smith, H. S., and Compere, H.. 1928. A preliminary report on the parasites of the black scale, Saissetia oleae (Bern.). Univ. Calif. Publ. Ent. 4: 231–234.Google Scholar
Smith, H. S., and DeBach, P.. 1953. Artificial infestations of plants with pest insects as an aid in biological control. Proc. 7th Pacif. Sci. Congr., Auckland, 4: 255–259.Google Scholar
Solomon, M. E. 1949. The natural control of animal populations. J. Anim. Ecol. 18: 1–35.Google Scholar
Sundby, R. 1957. The parasites of Phyllocnistis labyrinthella Bjerk. and their relation to the population dynamics of the leaf-miner. Norsk ent. Tidsskr. Suppl. 2: 153 pp.Google Scholar
Taylor, T. H. C. 1937. The biological control of an insect in Fiji. Imp. Inst. Ent., London, 239 pp.Google Scholar
Thompson, W. R. 1923. A criticism of the “sequence” theory of parasitic control. Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 16: 115–128.Google Scholar
Thompson, W. R., and Parker, H. L.. 1928. The European cornborer and its controlling factors in Europe. U. S. Dep. Agric. Tech. Bull 59. 62 pp.Google Scholar
Tothill, J. D. 1922. The natural control of the fall webworm (Hyphantria cunea Drury) in Canada. Can. Dep. Agric. Bull. 3: (N.S.).Google Scholar
Turnbull, A. L., and Chant, D. A.. 1961. The practice and theory of biological control of insects in Canada. Canad. J. Zool. 39: 697–753.Google Scholar
van den Bosch, R., Bartlett, B. R. and Flanders, S. E.. 1955. A search for natural enemies of lecaniine scale insects in northern Africa for introduction into California. J. econ. Ent. 48: 53–55.Google Scholar
van den Bosch, R., and Haramoto, A. H.. 1953. Competition among parasites of the oriental fruit fly. Proc. Hawaiian ent. Soc. 15: 201–206.Google Scholar
van den Bosch, R., Schlinger, E. I., Dietrick, E. J., Hall, J. C. and Puttler, B.. 1964. Studies on succession, distribution, and phenology of imported parasites of Therioaphis trifolii (Monell) in southern California. Ecology 45: 602–621.Google Scholar
van der Vecht, J. 1953. On some aspects of the numerical variation of insects in the tropics. Trans. 9th Int. Congr. Ent., Amsterdam, 1951, 2: 272–277.Google Scholar
van Steenburgh, W. E., and Boyce, H. R.. 1938. Simultaneous propagation of Macrocentrus ancylivorus Rohwer and Ascogaster carpocapsae (Vierick) on the peach moth. A study in multiple parasitism. 68th Annu. Rep. ent. Soc. Ontario, 1937: 24–26.Google Scholar
Varley, G. C. 1959. The biological control of insect pests. J. roy. Soc. Arts 107: 475–490.Google Scholar
Vickery, R. A. 1929. Studies on the fall army worm in the Gulf Coast district of Texas. U. S. Dep. Agric. Tech. Bull. 138. 63 pp.Google Scholar