Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:20:36.420Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

HOST SELECTION AND OVIPOSITION BEHAVIOR OF NASONIA VITRIPENNIS (HYMENOPTERA: PTEROMALIDAE) ON TWO HOST SPECIES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

G. J. C. Smith
G. J. C. Smith
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology and Limnology, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The oviposition behavior of the pteromalid parasitoid Nasonia vitripennis (Walker) was investigated in an attempt to explain the difference in population density maintained on two species of host, the housefly, Musca domestica L., and the blowfly, Phaenicia sericata (Meigen). The behavior of a female wasp was significantly affected by the species of host to which she was exposed. When presented with 10 pupae for 24 hours she averaged 14.2 eggs on 3.0 housefly hosts and 8.3 eggs on 7.2 blowfly hosts of the same size.The importance of the alteration in behavior to the population density of Nasonia became apparent when the suitability of the two host species was examined. At all densities of eggs more wasps matured on blowfly pupae than on housefly pupae of the same size. Survival on both hosts decreased as the density of Nasonia eggs increased. The difference in egg distribution, coupled with lower survival on housefly pupae and at increased density suggests a considerably lower production by this parasitoid on housefly hosts, compared with that on blowfly pupae.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 101 , Issue 5 , May 1969 , pp. 533 - 538
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1969

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

Doutt, R. L. 1959. The biology of parasitic Hymenoptera. A. Rev. Ent. 4: 111–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, R. L. 1954. The host finding and oviposition behavior of Mormoniella vitripennis (Walker) (Hym., Pteromalidae), a parasite of muscoid flies. Behavior 7: 88–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pimentel, D., Nagel, W. P., and Madden, J. L.. 1963. Space-time structure of the environment and the survival of parasite host systems. Am. Nat. 47: 141–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salt, G. 1938. Experimental studies in insect parasitism: VI. Host suitability. Bull. ent. Res. 29: 223–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salt, G. 1940. Experimental studies in insect parasitism: VII. The effects of different hosts on the parasite Trichogramma evanescens (Chalcidoidae). Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. (A) 15: 81–95Google Scholar
Smith, G. J. C., and Pimentel, D.. 1969. The effect of two host species on the longevity and fertility of Nasonia vitripennis (Walk.). Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 62: 305–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, W. R., and Parker, H. L.. 1927. The problem of host relations with special reference to entomophagous parasites. Parasitology 19: 4–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullyett, G. C. 1949. Distribution of progeny by Chelonus texanus Cress. (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Can. Ent. 81: 25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whiting, A. R. 1967. The biology of the parasitic wasp Mormoniella vitripennis (Nasonia brevicornis) (Walker). Q. Rev. Biol. 42: 333–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wylie, H. G. 1965. Discrimination between parasitized and unparasitized fly pupae by females of Nasonia vitripennis (Wlk.) (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae). Can. Ent. 97: 279–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wylie, H. G.. 1967. Some effects of host size on Nasonia vitripennis and Muscidifurax raptor (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae). Can. Ent. 99: 742–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar