Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:40:28.701Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EMERGENCE AND CALLING RHYTHMS, AND MATING BEHAVIOUR OF THE ORANGE WHEAT BLOSSOM MIDGE, SITODIPLOSIS MOSELLANA (GÉHIN) (DIPTERA: CECIDOMYIIDAE)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Kenneth A. Pivnick  and
Edith Labbé
Kenneth A. Pivnick
Affiliation:
Agriculture Canada Research Station, 107 Science Place, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada S7N 0X2
Edith Labbé
Affiliation:
Département de biologie, Université Laval, Québec, Québec, Canada G1K 7P4
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In laboratory and field observations, male and female orange wheat blossom midge, Sitodiplosis mosellana (Géhin), emerged in late afternoon and early evening, with males emerging 1–2 h before females on average within a given day. Under laboratory conditions, males also emerged on average 0–3 days before females in three different experiments. Within 1 h of emergence, virgin females began to extend their ovipositors much of the time. This behaviour ceased upon mating, and was presumed to be calling behaviour: behaviour associated with pheromone release. Calling behaviour exhibited a daily rhythm both under controlled and field conditions. Females gradually increased the time spent calling in the last few hours of the photophase and called more than two-thirds of the time during the scotophase. Mating was preceded by wing vibration in the male prior to and during a walking approach. Receptive females spread their wings which facilitated mating. Mean duration of mating was 171 ± 15 s (±SE).

Résumé

L’émergence des cécidomyies du blé, Sitodiplosis mosellana (Géhin), a été observé en laboratoire et au champ vers la fin de l’après-midi et tôt le soir. Les mâles émergeaient en moyenne 1–2 h avant les femelles dans une journée donnée et émergeaient aussi 0–3 jours en moyenne avant les femelles. Moins de 1 h après l’émergence, les femelles vierges ont commencé à appeler en déployant leurs ovipositeurs. Ce comportement a cessé après l’accouplement. En laboratoire et au champs, le comportement d’appel a suivi un rhythme journalier. Les femelles augmentaient graduellement le temps passé en appel pendant les dernières heures de la photophase et, pendant la scotophase, elles continuaient à appeler pendant plus des deux tières du temps. L’accouplement était précédé par les vibrations d’aile chez le mâle avant et pendant l’approche qui se faisait en marchant. Les femelles réceptives écartaient leurs ailes, facilitant ainsi l’accouplement. L’accouplement durait en moyenne 171 ± 15 s (±ES).

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 124 , Issue 3 , June 1992 , pp. 501 - 507
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1992

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

Barnes, H.F. 1953. The wheat blossom midges. New Biol. 14: 82–103.Google Scholar
Barnes, H.F. 1956. Gall Midges of Economic Importance. Vol. VII: Gall Midges of Cereal Crops. Crosby, Lockwood & Son, London. pp. 40–80.Google Scholar
Borkent, A. 1989. A review of the wheat blossom midge, Sitodiplosis mosellana (Géhin) (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) in Canada. Tech. Bull. 1989-5E. Research Branch, Agriculture Canada. 24 pp.Google Scholar
Cartwright, W.B. 1922. Sexual attraction of the female Hessian fly (Phytophaga destructor Say). Can. Ent. 54: 154–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiang, H.C., Mettler, B.J., Okubo, A., and Robbins, A.S.. 1978. Coupling of midge individuals in a swarm, Anarete pritchardi (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae). Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 71: 859–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, S.P., Harris, M.O., and Millar, J.G.. 1991. Identification of the sex pheromone of the Hessian fly, Mayetiola destructor (Say). Naturwissenschaften 78: 130–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J.H., and Lee, H.P.. 1985. Studies on the sex pheromone and antennal ultrastructure of the pine gall midge (Thecodiplosis japonensis Uchida et Inouye). Korean J. Ent. 15: 31–40.Google Scholar
McKay, P.A., and Hatchett, J.H.. 1984. Mating behavior and evidence of a female sex pheromone in the Hessian fly, Mayetiola destructor (Say) (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae). Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 77: 616–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, G.E., and Borden, J.H.. 1984. Reproductive behaviour of the Douglas-fir cone gall midge, Contarinia oregonensis (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae). Can. Ent. 116: 607–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olfert, O.O., Mukerji, M.K., and Doane, J.F.. 1985. Relationship between infestation levels and yield loss caused by wheat midge, Sitodiplosis mosellana (Géhin) (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae), in spring wheat in Saskatchewan. Can. Ent. 117: 593–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sain, M., and Kalode, M.B.. 1985. Traps to monitor gall midge population in rice. Current Science 54: 876–877.Google Scholar
Summers, C.G. 1975. Daily adult emergence in the sorghum midge, Contarinia sorghicola. Environ. Ent. 4: 495–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornhill, R., and Alcock, J.. 1983. The Evolution of Insect Mating Systems. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. pp. 97–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wall, C., Pickett, J.A., Garthwaite, D.G., and Morris, N.. 1985. A female sex pheromone in the pea midge, Contarinia pisi. Entomologia exp. appl. 39: 11–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, I.H., and Martin, A.P.. 1986. Evidence for a female sex pheromone in the brassica pod midge, Dasineura brassicae. Physiol. Ent. 11: 353–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar