Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:24:26.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hyperparasitism, a Mutualistic Phenomenon

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

Hyperparasitism is a mortality factor that generally is beneficial to the continuous reproduction of the species involved.

The parasites of a primary parasite of a phytophagous insect may exhibit two distinctive types of secondary relations to that insect. These types are defined as follows:

Direct secondary parasitism: that type of host-parasite symbiosis where only the primary's parasitized host or the primary itself is attacked.

Indirect secondary parasitism: that type of host-parasite symbiosis where the primary's phytophagous host is attacked whether parasitized or not parasitized.

The host mortality caused by direct secondary parasitism may greatly exceed that caused by indirect secondary parasitism, this being manifested when the percentage of the primary parasitization of the phytophagous host is minimal.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 95 , Issue 7 , July 1963 , pp. 716 - 720
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1963

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

Clancy, Donald W. 1944. Hyperparasitization of Clausenia purpurea Ishii, an important parasite of the Comstock mealybug. J. Econ. Ent. 37: 450–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clausen, C. P. 1940. Entomophagous insects. McGraw-Hill, N.Y.688 pp.Google Scholar
DeBach, Paul. 1943. Population studies of the long-tailed mealybug and its natural enemies on citrus trees in southern California, 1946. Ecology 30: 14–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1937. Ovipositional instincts and developmental sex differences in the genus Coccophagus. Univ. Calif. Publ. Ent. 6: 401–422.Google Scholar
Haeussler, G. J. 1940. Parasites of the oriental fruit moth in Japan and Chosen and their introduction into the United States. U.S. Dept. Agric. Tech. Bull. 728: 1–62.Google Scholar
Muesebeck, C. F. W., and Dohanian, S. M.. 1927. A study in hyperparasitism, with particular reference to the parasites of Apanteles melanoscelus (Ratzeburg). U.S. Dept. Agric. Bull. 1487: 35 pp.Google Scholar
Nicholson, A. J. 1933. The balance of animal populations. J. Anim. Ecol. (Suppl.) 2: 132–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivnay, E. 1946. The status of Clausenia purpurea Ishii and its competition with other parasites of Pseudococcus comstocki Kuw. in Palestine. Bull. Soc. Fouad 1er Ent. 30: 11–19.Google Scholar
Smith, Harry S. 1916. An attempt to redefine the host relationships exhibited by entomophagous insects. J. Econ. Ent. 9: 477–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, H. 1926. Biology of the parasites and hyperparasites of aphids. Ann. Ent. Soc. Amer. 19: 119–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, G. J. 1958. The natural control complex affecting grasshoppers in the dry belt of British Columbia. Proc. 10th Inter. Congr. Ent. 4: 497–502.Google Scholar
van der Vecht, J. 1953. On some aspects of the numerical variations of insects in the tropics. Trans. 9th Inter. Congr. Ent. 2: 272–277.Google Scholar