Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T00:00:56.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

BEHAVIOR OF THE PARASITOID PLEOLOPHUS BASIZONUS (HYMENOPTERA: ICHNEUMONIDAE) IN RESPONSE TO CHANGES IN HOST AND PARASITOID DENSITY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Peter W. Price
Peter W. Price
Affiliation:
Forest Research Laboratory, Canadian Forestry Service, Quebec, Quebec
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A synthesis of observations on density-dependent interactions in parasitoid populations is attempted, working from the particular aspects of discrimination against parasitized hosts and detailed observations on parasitoid behavior, to more general aspects of parasitoid ecology, dispersal, distribution, and response to host populations. Females of Pleolophus basizonus (Gravenhorst) are able to discriminate against parasitized hosts of Neodiprion swainei Middleton between narrow limits (mean densities of 0.4 to 1.4 eggs per cocoon) set by the probability of a female finding an unparasitized host. They show mutual interference in egg laying at high parasitoid:host ratios, and a density-dependent escape reaction to adult parasitoid density. These behaviors all result from the recognition of repellent trail odors left by searching females. Response of individual females to high parasitoid densities may therefore lead to dispersal, the occupation by the population of more, but not so favorable habitats, and an apparent density-independent response to host populations.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 104 , Issue 1 , January 1972 , pp. 129 - 140
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1972

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

Andrewartha, H. G. and Birch, L. C.. 1954. The distribution and abundance of animals. Univ. Chicago Press. xv + 782 pp.Google Scholar
Bakker, K., Bagchee, S. N., Van Zwet, W. R. and Meelis, E.. 1967. Host discrimination in Psendeucolia bochei (Hymenoptera: Cynipidae). Ent. exp. appl. 10: 295–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, W. L. Jr. 1957. Centrifugal speciation. Q. Rev. Biol. 32: 247–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dempster, J. P. 1968. Intra-specific competition and dispersal: as examplified by a psyllid and its anthocorid predator, pp. 8–17. In Southwood, T. R. E. (Ed.), Insect abundance. Roy. ent. Soc. Lond. Symp. 4.Google Scholar
Doutt, R. L. 1959. The biology of parasitic Hymenoptera. A. Rev. Ent. 4: 161–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doutt, R. L. 1964. Biological characteristics of entomophagous adults, pp. 145–167. In DeBach, P. (Ed.), Biological control of insect pests and weeds. Reinhold, New York. xxiv + 844 pp.Google Scholar
Errington, P. L. 1963. Muskrat populations. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames. x + 665 pp.Google Scholar
Griffiths, K. J. 1961. The life history Of Aptesis basizona (Grav.) on Neodiprion sertifer (Geoff.) in southern Ontario. Can. Ent. 93: 1005–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, K. J. 1969 a. The importance of coincidence in the functioal and numerical responses of two parasites of the European pine samfly, Neodiprion sertifer. Can. Ent. 101: 673–713.Google Scholar
Griffiths, K. J. 1969 b. Development and diapause in Pleolophus basizonus (Hymenoptera: Ichneumoidae). Can. Ent. 101: 907–914.Google Scholar
Griffiths, K. J. and Holling, C. S.. 1969. A competition submodel for parasites and predators. Can. Ent. 101: 785–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hassel, M. P. and Varley, G. C.. 1969. New inductive population model for insect parasites and its bearing on biological control. Nature 223: 1133–1137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iwata, K. 1960. The comparative anatomy of the ovary in Hymenoptera. V: Ichneumonidae. Acta Hymenopterologica 1: 115–169.Google Scholar
Jeeni, W. 1951. Beitrag zur Morphologie und Biologie der Cynipide Pseudeucoila bochei Weld, eines Larvenparasiten von Drosophila melanogaster Meig. Acta Zool. 32: 177–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lack, D. 1966. Population studies of birds. Oxford Univ. Press, London. V + 341 pp.Google Scholar
Morris, K. R. S., Cameron, E. and Jepson, W. F.. 1937. The insect parasites of the spruce sawfly (Diprion Polytomum Htg.) in Europe. Bull. ent. Res. 28: 341–393.Google Scholar
Price, P. W. 1970 a. Trail odors: Recongnition by insects parasitic on cocoons. Science 170: 546–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, P. W. 1970 b. Dispersal and establishment of Pleolophus basizonus (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae). Can. Ent. 102: 1102–1111.Google Scholar
Price, P. W. 1970 c. Characteristics permitting coexistence among parasitoids of a sawfly in Quebec. Ecology 51: 445–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, P. W. 1970 d. Biology of and host exploition by Pleolophus indistinctus (Provancher) (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae). Ann. Am. ent. Soc. 63: 1502–1509.Google Scholar
Price, P. W. 1971 a. A comparison of four methods for sampling adult populations of cocoon parasitoids (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae). Can. J. Zool. 49: 513–521.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Price, P. W. 1971 b. Niche breadth and dominance of parasitic insects sharing the same host species. Ecology 52: 587–596.Google Scholar
Price, P. W. and Tripp, H. A.. Activity patterns of parasitoids on the Sweine jack pine sawfly, Neodiprion swainei Middleton, and parasitoid impact on the host. To be published.Google Scholar
Sakai, K., Narise, T., Hiraizumi, y., and Iyama, S.. 1958. Studies on Competition in plants and animals. IX: Experimental studies on migration in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 12: 93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salt, G. 1932. Superparasitism by Collyria calcitrator Grav. Bull. ent. Res. 23: 211–215.Google Scholar
Salt, G. 1934. Experimental studies in parasirism. II: Superparasitism. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. (B) 114: 455–476.Google Scholar
Salt, G. 1937. The sense used by Trichogramma to distinguish between parasitized and unparasitized hosts. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. (B) 122: 57–75.Google Scholar
Salt, G. 1961. Competition among insect parasitoids. Exp. Biol Soc. Symp. 15: 96–119.Google Scholar
Townes, H. K. 1939. Protective odors among the Ichneumonidae (Hymenoptera). Brooklyn ent. Soc. Bull. 34: 29–30.Google Scholar
Townes, H. K. and Gupta, V. K.. 1962. Inchneumon-flies of America north of Mexico: 4. Subfamily Gelinae, tribe Hemigasterrini. Am. ent. Inst. Mem. 2, pp. 1–305.Google Scholar
Ullyett, G. C. 1943. Some aspects of parasitism in field populations of plutella maculipennis Curt. J. ent. Soc. S. Afr. 6: 65–80.Google Scholar
Ullyett, G. C. 1949 a. Distribution of progeny by Chelonus texanus Cress. (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Can. Ent. 81: 25–44.Google Scholar
Ullyett, G. C. 1949 b. Distribution of Progeny by Cryptus inornatus Pratt (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae). Can. Ent. 81: 285–299.Google Scholar
Ullyett, G. C. 1950. Distribution of Progeny of Cryptus inornatus Pratt (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae)…. Can. Ent. 82: 1–11.Google Scholar
Wylie, H. G. 1970. Oviposition restraint of Nasonia vitripennis (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) on hosts parasitized by other hymenopterous species. Can. Ent. 102: 868–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar