Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T11:56:34.921Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative studies on Tetrastichus hagenowii (Ratzeburg) and T. asthenogmus (Waterston), two primary parasites of cockroach oothecae, and on their hyperparasite Tetrastichus sp. (T. miser (Nees) group) (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

A. Uma Narasimham
A. Uma Narasimham
Affiliation:
Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Indian Station, Post Bag 2484, Hebbal Agricultural Farm P.O., Bangalore 560 024, India
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Tetrastichus hagenowii (Ratz.) and T. asthenogmus (Wtstn.) are parasitic in cockroach oothecae and may themselves be attacked by a species of Tetrastichus of the group of T. miser (Nees). In Bangalore in 1976–79, the primary parasites were reared from oothecae of Periplaneta americana (L.), P. australasiae (F.) and P. brunnea Burm., and laboratory colonies of them were established on oothecae of P. americana. The hyperparasite, reared from field-collected oothecae of Periplaneta spp., was bred in the laboratory on oothecae of P. americana containing larvae of T. hagenowü. The immature stages of the three species of parasites were compared and their biologies studied. The eggs of the three species can be differentiated on the basis of their shape as can the pupae, but the larvae of the two primary parasites are indistinguishable. The duration of the developmental stages of the three species overlapped but the hyperparasite had a slightly shorter pupal period. Host finding by the T. hagenowii female was investigated. The two primary parasites were similar in most of their biological attributes. However, T. asthenogmus was inherently superior to the Bangalore strain of T. hagenowii in having lower levels of female sterility and its greater preference for the oothecae of P. brunnea, the predominant species of cockroach in Bangalore. T. hagenowii proved to be more tolerent of low temperatures than T. asthenogmus. The hyperparasite had an advantage over the other two species in possessing longer life-span and synovigenic females, and individual females parasitised more oothecae in their life-span than the primary parasites; but it was unable to distinguish healthy oothecae from those containing larvae of the other two species until it had drilled into them.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 74 , Issue 2 , June 1984 , pp. 175 - 189
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

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

Amonkar, S. V., Vijayalakshmi, L. V. & Rahalkar, G. V. (1974). Control of American cockroach, Periplaneta americana L. by its egg parasite Tetrastichus hagenowii Ratz. a field trial.—pp. 228–233in Symposium on biological approach to problems in medicine, industry and agriculture.—Bombay, Bhabha Atom. Res. Centre.Google Scholar
Askew, R. R. (1968). Considerations on speciation in Chalcidoidea (Hymenoptera).—Evolution 22, 642–645.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burks, B. D. (1943). The North American parasitic wasps of the genus Tetrastichus—a contribution to biological control of insect pests.—Proc. U.S. natn. Mus. 93, 505–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, E. (1955). On the parasites and predators of the cockroach. I.—Tetrastichus hagenowii (Ratz.).—Bull. ent. Res. 46, 137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.—Jl N. Y. ent. Soc. 47. 1–9.Google Scholar
Edmunds, L. R. (1955). Biological notes on Tetrastichus hagenowii (Ratzeburg), a chalcidoid parasite of cockroach eggs (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae; Orthoptera: Blattidae).—Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 48, 210–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanders, S. E. (1950). Regulation of ovulation and egg disposal in the parasitic Hymenoptera.—Can. Ent. 82, 134–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanders, S. E. (1966). The circumstances of species replacement among parasitic Hymenoptera.—Can. Ent. 82, 134–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleet, R. R. & Frankie, G. W. (1975). Behavioral and ecological characteristics of a eulophid egg parasite of two species of domiciliary cockroaches.—Environ. Entomol. 4, 282–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guthrie, D. M. & Tindall, A. R. (1968). The biology of the cockroach.—408 pp. London, Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Narasimham, A. U. & Sankaran, T. (1979). Domiciliary cockroaches and their oothecal parasites in India.—Entomophaga 24, 273–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, L. M. & Willis, E. R. (1954). The biology of the cockroach egg parasite, Tetrastichus hagenowii (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae).—Trans. Am. ent. Soc. 80, 53–72.Google Scholar
Roth, L. M. & Willis, E. R. (1957). The medical and veterinary importance of cockroaches.—Smithson. misc. Collns 134, 147 pp.Google Scholar
Roth, L. M. & Willis, E. R. (1960). The biotic associations of cockroaches.—Smithson. misc. Collns 141, 470 pp.Google Scholar
Usman, S. (1949). Some observations on the biology of Tetrastichus hagenowii Ratz.—an egg parasite of the house cockroach (Periplaneta americana L.).—Curr. Sci. 18, 407–408.Google Scholar
Vargas, V. M. & Fallas, B. F. (1974). Notes on the biology of Tetrastichus hagenowii (Hymenoptera, Eulophidae) a parasite of cockroach oothecae.—Ent. News 85. 23–26.Google ScholarPubMed
Waterston, J. (1915). New species of Chalcidoidea from Ceylon.—Bull, ent. Res. 5, 325–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar