Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-04T09:26:28.135Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of the Food Plant of California Red Scale, Aonidiella aurantii (Mask.) on Reproduction of its Hymenopterous Parasites1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

J. Morris Smith
J. Morris Smith
Affiliation:
Entomology Laboratory, Belleville, Ontario
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Discrepancies in the degree of biological control of insect pests where the food plant species of the host were the only known variants in the environment have been subjects of scattered observations in the literature by Morgan (1910), Compere (1936), Gilmore (I938), and others.

A long period of speculation on the existence of strains of California red scale, Aonidiella aurantii (Mask.) immune to attack by parasites culminated in the discovery by Flanders (1939a, 1942a) that the hymenopterous parasite Habrolepis rouxi comp. reproduced satisfactorily on A. aurantii on Citrus spp. but that verv few emerged from the same species of scale on sago palm, Cycas revoluta Thunb. This was considered to be the reason for Compere's early failure to bring the hymenopterous parasite, Comperiella bifasciata How, from the Orient to California on scale-infested sago palm; Smith (1942) concluded: “Recognition must be given to the possibility that the host plant may confer on the host insect a kind of immunity to parasitization”.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 89 , Issue 5 , May 1957 , pp. 219 - 230
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1957

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

Bliss, C. I., Broadbent, B. M., and Watson, S. A.. 1931. The life history of California red scale Chrysomphalus aurantii Maskell. J. Econ. Ent. 24(6): 1222–1229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunson, M. H. 1937. The influence of instars of the host larvae on the sex progeny of Tiphia popilliavora. Science, 86: 197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clausen, C. P. 1939. The effect of host size upon the sex ratio of hymenopterous parasites and its relation to methods of rearing and colonization, J. New York Ent. Soc. 47: 1–9.Google Scholar
Compere, H. 1926. New coccid-inhabiting parasites (Encyrtidae, Hymenoptera) from Japan and California. Univ. California Pub. Ent. 4(2): 33–50.Google Scholar
Compere, H. 1936. A new species of Habrolepis parasitic on Chrysomphalus aurantii Maskell. Bull. Ent. Res. 27: 493–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Compere, H. 1955. A systematic study of the genus Aphytis Howard (Hym.: Aphelinidae) with descriptions of new species. Univ. California Pub. Ent. 10(4): 271–320.Google Scholar
Compere, H. and Smith, H. S.. 1927. Notes on the life history of two oriental chalcidoid parasites of Chrysomphalus. Univ. California Pub. Ent. 4(4): 63–73.Google Scholar
De Bach, P., Fleschner, C. A., and Dietrick, E. J.. 1949. California red scale—studies in possible control by employment of natural enemies. Calif. Agr. 3(3): 12, 15.Google Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1935. Host influence on the prolificacy and size of Trichogramma. Pan-Pacific Ent. 11: 175–177.Google Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1937. Ovipositional instincts and developmental sex differences in the genus Coccophagus. Univ. California Pub. Ent. 6(15): 401–422.Google Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1938. Starvation of developing parasites as an explanation of immunity. J. Econ. Ent. 30(6): 970.Google Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1939a. The practical application of biological studies on parasites employed in biological control. Proc. 6th Pacific Sci. Cong. 4: 373–381.Google Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1939b. Environmental control of sex in hymenopterous insects. Ann. Ent. Soc. America. 32(1): 11–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1939c. A black scale parasite with promising qualities, J. Econ. Ent. 32(1): 152.Google Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1940. Environmental resistance to the establishment of parasitic Hymenoptera. Ann. Ent. Soc. America. 33(2): 245–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1942a. Abortive development in parasitic Hymenoptera induced by the food plant of the insect host. J. Econ. Ent. 35(6): 834–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1942b. Sex ratio in the Hymenoptera: A function of the environment. Ecol. 23(1): 120–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1943a. Mass production of the California red scale and its parasite Comperiella bifasciata. J. Econ. Ent. 36(2): 233–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1943b. Red scale parasites. Comparison of Oriental races of Compertella bifasciata in California. California Citrograph 28(3): 78.Google Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1943c. The role of mating in the reproduction of parasitic Hymenoptera: J. Econ. Ent. 36(5): 802–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1944a. Introduction and establishment of Habrolepis rouxi in California. J. Econ. Ent. 37(3): 444–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1944b. Observations on Comperiella bifasciata, an endoparasite of diaspine coccids. Ann. Ent. Soc. America. 37(3): 365–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1944c. Observations on Prospaltella perniciosi and its mass production. J. Econ. Ent. 37(2): 105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1945a. The bisexuality of uniparental Hymenoptera, a function of the environment. American Nat. 79: 122–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1945b. Uniparentalism in the Hymenoptera and its relation to polyploidy. Science, 100(2591): 168–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1947a. Elements of host discovery as exemplified by the parasitic Hymenoptera. Ecol. 28(3): 299–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1947b. Use of potato tubers in mass culture of diaspine scale insects. J. Econ. Ent. 40(5): 746–747.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flanders, S. E. 1949a. George Compere—Pioneer in the biological control of red scale. California Citrograph. 34(4): 160–162.Google Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1949b. Using black scale as a “foster host”. California Citrograph. 34(5): 222–224.Google Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1951. Mass culture of California red scale and its golden chalcid parasites. Hilgardia, 21(1): 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilmore, J. U. 1938. Notes on Apanteles congregatus (Say) as a parasite of the tobacco hornworms. J. Econ. Ent. 31(6): 712–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, D. J. 1937. Host-selection in Pimpla examinator F. (Hymenoptera). Proc. Roy. Ent. Soc. London, 12(A): 81–91.Google Scholar
Jones, E. P. 1936. The bionomics and ecology of red scale—Aonidiella aurantii Mask.—in Southern Rhodesia. Mazoe Citrus Expt. Sta. Ann. Rept. for 1955, British South Africa Co. Pub. No. 5.Google Scholar
Laing, J. 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(2): 298–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laing, J. 1938. Host finding by insect parasites. II. The chance of Trichogramma evanescens finding its hosts. J. Expt. Biol. 15(3): 281–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, D. C. 1938. A study of some factors governing the choice of hosts and distribution of progeny by the chalcid Ooencyrtus kuvanae Howard. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, B. 229: 275–322.Google Scholar
Mittler, S. 1946. Production of female offspring by virgin females in the greenhouse white-fly, Trialeurodes vaporariorum under the influence of high temperatures. American Nat. 80: 532–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, A. C. 1910. Observations recorded at the 236th regular meeting of the Entomological Society of Washington. Proc. Ent. Soc. Washington. 12: 72.Google Scholar
Simmonds, H. W. 1944. The effect of the host fruit upon the scale Aonidiella aurantii Mask. in relation to its parasite Comperiella bifasciata How. J. Australian Inst. Agr. Sci. 10: 38–39.Google Scholar
Smith, H. S. 1923. Biological control work. California Dept. Agr. Mon. Bull. 12: 334–342.Google Scholar
Smith, H. S. 1929. The utilization of entomophagous insects in the control of citrus pests. Proc. 4th Int: Congr. Ent., Ithaca, 1928. 2: 191–198.Google Scholar
Smith, H. S. 1942. A race of Comperiella bifasciata successfully parasitizes California red scale, J. Econ. Ent. 35(6): 809–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, H. S. 1946. The biological control program in relation to California agriculture. California Citrograph. 31(9): 414–415, 452–453.Google Scholar
Smith, H. S., and Flanders, S. E.. 1948. Search for parasites is re-oriented. California Citrograph. 34(1): 4, 17, 18, 20.Google Scholar
Smith, H. S., and Flanders, S. E.. 1949. Recent introductions of entomophagous insects into California. J. Econ. Ent. 42 (6): 995–996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, W. R., and Parker, H. L.. 1927. The problem of host relations with special reference to entomophagous parasites. Parasit. 19(1): 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorpe, W. H., and Caudle, H. B.. 1938. A study of the olfactory responses of insect parasites to the food plant of their host. Parasit. 30(4): 523–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullyett, G. C. 1936. Host selection by Microbracon fuscipennis Zett. (Chalcidae, Hymenoptera). Proc. Roy. Soc. London, B. 120: 253–291.Google Scholar
Varley, G. C. 1941. On the search for hosts and the egg distribution of some chalcid parasites of the knapweed gall-fly. Parasit. 33(1): 47–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yust, H. R. 1943. Productivity of the California red scale on lemon fruits. J. Econ. Ent. 36(6): 868–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar