Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T16:15:06.944Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Oothecal parasites of Periplaneta americana: Parasitization and development in relation to host age

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2011

N. C. Kumarasinghe  and
Jayanthi P. Edirisinghe
N. C. Kumarasinghe
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Sri Jayawardenepura, Nugegoda, Sri Lanka
Jayanthi P. Edirisinghe*
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Sri Jayawardenepura, Nugegoda, Sri Lanka
*
†Dept. of Zoology, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka.
Get access

Abstract

Oviposition and development of Evania appendigaster and Tetrastichus hagenowii in live P. americana oothecae ranging in age from 0–44 days was investigated. E. appendigaster oviposited in oothecae of all ages but developed only in 0–28 days old oothecae. T. hagenowii oviposited only in oothecae 0–34 days old, but developed only in 0–28 days old oothecae. Oothecae parasitized by E. appendigaster were superparasitized only during the first 4 days after the initial parasitization. A single parasite emerged from each such oothecae, indicating that only one of the two ovipositions was successful. Oothecae superparasitized by T. hagenowii during the first 8 days of the initial parasitization, resulted in ca. 90 parasites from both ovipositions. Oothecae parasitized by each species of parasite were subjected to multiple parasitism by the other species. Oviposition of E. appendigaster in 0–25 days old oothecae, parasitized by T. hagenowii was ineffective as it resulted in the emergence of T. hagenowii only. Reparasitization of 0–36 days old E. appendigaster-parasitized oothecae by T. hagenowii within 0–32 days resulted in the development of T. hagenowii, but reparasitization thereafter was ineffective as only E. appendigaster emerged. Even though T. hagenowii is more efficient than E. appendigaster, in parasitizing and developing in different types of P. americana oothecae, under field conditions the two species of parasites contribute equally towards the natural control of P. americana.

Résumé

L'étude a porté sur la ponte et le développement de E. appendigaster et de T. hagenowii dans P. americana oothecae agées de 0 à 44 jours. E. appendigaster a pondu dans des oothecae de tous les aĝes mais ne s'est développer que dans celles qui ont été parasitées entre l'âge de 0 à 28 jours. T. hagenowii a pondu dans des oothecae agées de 0 à 34 jours mais ne s'est développées que dans celles agées de 0 à 28 jours. Les oothecae parasitées par E. appendigaster ont été “super parasitees” (parasité à nuveau) pendant seulement 4 premiers jours après la première ponte parasitaire. Un seul parasite est sorti de chacune des ces oothecae en montrant que seulement une des deux pontes a été réussie. Les oothecae “super parasitees” par T. hagenowii pendant les 8 premiers jours après la première ponte parasitaire ont donné naissance à environs 90 parasites provenant des deux pontes.

Des oothecae parasitées par chaque espéce de parasites ont été s’ exposées au parasitisme multiple par l'autre espece. La ponte de E. appendigaster dans T. hagenowii parasité au stade oothecae agées de 0 à 25 jours était inefficace puisqu'on n'a obtenue que des T. hagenowii. Le parasitisme de E. appendigaster agées de 0 à 36 jours au stade de oothecae par T. hagenowii a donné naissance à des T. hagenowii pendant les 32 premiers jours mais ensuite le parasitisme était inefficace puisqu' on a eu seulement l'apparation de E. appendigaster. Même si T. hagenowii est plus efficace que E. appendigaster pour parasiter et se développer dans différants types de P. americana oothecae, dans les conditions experimentales les deux espèces de parasites contribuent également vers le contrôle naturel de P. americana.

Keywords

oothecaP. americanaTetrastichusEvaniaparasitismdevelopmentOothèqueP. americanaTetrastichusEvaniaparasitismedevéloppement
Type
Research Articles
Information
International Journal of Tropical Insect Science , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , April 1987 , pp. 225 - 228
Copyright
Copyright © ICIPE 1987

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

REFERENCES

Amonkar, S. V., Vijayalakshmi, L. and Rahalkar, G. W. (1974) Control of American cockroach Periplaneta americana by its egg parasite Tetrastichus hagenowii (Ratz.). A field trial. Proceedings of a symposium on biological approach to problems in medicine. industry and agriculture. Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Bombay.Google Scholar
Cameron, E. (1955) On the parasites and the predators of the cockroach I. Tetrastichus hagenowii (Ratz.). Bull. ent. Res. 46, 137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, E. (1957) On the parasites and the predators of the cockroach. II. Evania appendigaster (L.). Bull. ent. Res. 48, 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Bach, P. (1973) Biological Control of Insect Pests and Weeds. Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Edmunds, L. R. (1953) Some notes on the Evaniidae as household pests and as a factor in the control of cockroaches. Ohio J. Sci. 53, 121–122.Google Scholar
Edmunds, L. R. (1955) Biological notes on Tetrastichus hagenowii (Ratz.); a Chalcid parasite of cockroach eggs. Ann. ent. soc. Am. 48, 210–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gamalath, P. (1980) Investigations on the Biology and Life history of Tetrastichus hagenowii (Ratz.), the egg parasite of the American cockroach Periplaneta americana (L.). M.Sc. thesis, University of Sri Jayawardenepura, Sri Lanka.Google Scholar
Hoyt, C. P. (1957) Parasites and predators introduced into the Pacific islands for the biological control of insects and other pests. South Pacific Commission Tech. Paper No. 101.Google Scholar
Kumarasinghe, N. C. (1984) The biology and behaviour of Evania appendigaster (L.) (Hymenoptera: Evaniidae) an oothecal parasite of Periplaneta americana (L.). M.Sc. thesis, University of Sri Jaywardenepura, Sri Lanka.Google Scholar
Narasimham, A. U. and Sankaran, T. (1979) Domiciliary cockroaches and their oothecal parasites in India. Entomophaga 24, 273–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piper, G. L., Frankie, G. W. and Loehr, J. (1978) Incidence of cockroach egg parasites in urban environments in Texas and Louisiana. Environ. Ent. 7, 28–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Provine, R. R. (1982) Embryonic and post embryonic development. The American Cockroach (Edited by Bell, W. J. and Adiyodi, K. G.), pp. 399–123. Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Roth, L. M. and Willis, E. R. (1954) The biology of the cockroach egg parasite, Tetrastichus hagenowii. Trans. Amer. ent. Soc. 80, 53–71.Google Scholar
Roth, L. M. and Willis, E. R. (1960) The biotic associations of cockroaches, Smithsonian Miscellaneous collections 41.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, E. C. (1948) Insects of Hawaii, Vol. 2. Apterygota to Thysanuroptera, inclusive. Honolulu.Google Scholar