Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:46:13.317Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interrelationship between the raspberry cane midge, Resseliella theobaldi (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) and its parasitoid, Aprostocetus epicharmus (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

G. Vétek ,
C. Thuróczy  and
B. Pénzes
G. Vétek*
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Corvinus University of Budapest, Mènesi ùt 44, Budapest 1118, Hungary
C. Thuróczy
Affiliation:
Systematic Parasitoid Laboratory, Kőszeg 9730, Hungary
B. Pénzes
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Corvinus University of Budapest, Mènesi ùt 44, Budapest 1118, Hungary
*
*E-mail: gabor.vetek@stud.uni-corvinus.hu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The raspberry cane midge Resseliella theobaldi (Barnes) is one of the most important pests of cultivated red raspberry Rubus idaeus L. throughout Europe. For the last 50 years several studies have been made on the biology, life cycle and control of the pest. Some data can also be found on its natural enemies, but among these species only the chalcidoid Tetrastichus inunctus Nees turned out to be important in controlling raspberry cane midge populations. However, this species name is now ambiguous as the type is lost. In the present study, Aprostocetus epicharmus Walker was the chalcidoid species that parasitized the larvae of the raspberry cane midge, and its biology seems to be very similar to that of T. inunctus. It is therefore probable that the eulophid species earlier referred to as T. inunctus in the literature is A. epicharmus. Besides discussing this problem, particular consideration and detailed data are given on the biology and life cycle of A. epicharmus in relation to R. theobaldi. Different factors having effect on the population dynamics of both species are also discussed as results of a survey on several red raspberry cultivars, carried out in Hungary between 2002 and 2005.

Keywords

Resseliella theobaldiAprostocetus epicharmusTetrastichus inunctusparasiteraspberrycultivar
Type
Research Article
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 96 , Issue 4 , August 2006 , pp. 367 - 372
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006

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

Ambrus, B. (1973) The gall midges of blackberry and raspberry (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae). Állattani közlemények 60, 25–37 (in Hungarian with German summary).Google Scholar
Bachmann, F. (1953) Die wichtigsten Ursachen des Himbeer-Rutensterbens. Schweizer Garten 23, 355–359.Google Scholar
Bachmann, F. & Fischer, H. (1950) Untersuchungen über die Gallmücke Thomasiniana theobaldi Barnes. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Obst- und Weinbau 59, 386–392.Google Scholar
Balázs, K. (1968) The raspberry cane midge. Bogyósgyümölcsűek növényvédelme. A növényvédelem korszerűsítése 2, 13–14 Appendix 2 in Hungarian.Google Scholar
Barnes, H.F. (1926) The gall midges of blackberries and raspberries. Journal of Pomology and Horticultural Science 5, 137–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, H.F. (1948) Gall midges of economic importance. Vol. III. Gall midges of fruit. pp. 49–54. London, Crosby Lockwood and Son Ltd.Google Scholar
Del Bene, G. & Landi, S. (1993) Natural enemies of Dasineura gleditchiae (O.S.) (Diptera, Cecidomyiidae) in Italy. Redia 76, 1–16.Google Scholar
Domenichini, G. (1964) Hym. Eulophidae, Palaearctic Tetrastichinae. pp. 113–101 in Delucchi, V. & Remaudière, G. (Eds) Index of entomophagous insects 1. Paris, Le François.Google Scholar
Fritzsche, R. (1958) Beiträge zur Ätiologie des Himbeerrutensterbens. Archiv für Gartenbau 6, 171–216.Google Scholar
Graham, M.W.R. & de, V. (1987) A reclassification of the European Tetrastichinae (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae), with a revision of certain genera. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) (Entomology) 55, 1–392.Google Scholar
Hódosy, S., Tóth, G. & Kollányi, L. (1964) The appearance of raspberry cane midge in Hungary. Kertészet és Szőlészet 1, 20–21 in Hungarian.Google Scholar
Labruyère, R.E. & Nijveldt, W.C. (1959) The stem disease and death of raspberry. Mededelingen directeur van de Tuinbouw 22, 168–176 in Dutch.Google Scholar
Nijveldt, W., Labruyère, R.E. & Engels, G.M.M.T. (1963) The stem disease problem of the raspberry. Netherlands Journal of Plant Pathology 69, 221–257 in Dutch with English summary.Google Scholar
Pitcher, R.S. (1952) Observations on the raspberry cane midge (Thomasiniana theobaldi Barnes). I. Biology. Journal of Horticultural Science 27, 71–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoyanov, D. (1960) Protection against the pests and diseases of raspberry in due time. Ovostarstvo 7, 24–29 in Bulgarian.Google Scholar
Stoyanov, D. (1963) Investigations on the raspberry cane midge – Thomasiniana theobaldi Barnes in Bulgaria. Izvestija na Instituta za Zastita na Rastenijata, Gara Kostinbrod 4, 41–66 in Bulgarian.Google Scholar
Williamson, B. (1987) Effect of fenitrothion and benomyl sprays on raspberry cane midge (Resseliella theobaldi) and midge blight, with particular reference to Leptosphaeria coniothyrium in the disease complex. Journal of Horticultural Science 62, 171–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodford, J.A.T. & Gordon, S.C. (1978) The history and distribution of raspberry cane midge (Resseliella theobaldi (Barnes)= Thomasiniana theobaldi Barnes), a new pest in Scotland. Horticultural Research 17, 87–97.Google Scholar