Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:14:27.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Optimizing methods for rearing mated queens and establishing new colony of Oecophylla longinoda (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 September 2017

Rozalia G. Rwegasira ,
Maulid W. Mwatawala ,
Gration M. Rwegasira  and
Jörgen Axelsen
Rozalia G. Rwegasira*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science and Horticulture, Sokoine University of Agriculture, PO Box 3005, Chuo Kikuu, Morogoro, Tanzania
Maulid W. Mwatawala
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science and Horticulture, Sokoine University of Agriculture, PO Box 3005, Chuo Kikuu, Morogoro, Tanzania
Gration M. Rwegasira
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science and Horticulture, Sokoine University of Agriculture, PO Box 3005, Chuo Kikuu, Morogoro, Tanzania
Jörgen Axelsen
Affiliation:
Department of Bioscience, Aarhus University, DK-8600, Silkeborg, Denmark
*
*E-mail: shayoros@yahoo.com
Get access

Abstract

Oecophylla spp. are used as biocontrol agents for many types of insect pests. A large and stable population is essential for effective control of pests. Colonies of Oecophylla spp. can be transplanted from wild habitats into orchards. Transplanted colonies can only survive in the presence of egg laying queens. It is difficult to locate nests with egg laying queens in large colonies that may sometimes contain more than 100 nests. Therefore, the need to explore and develop methods for rearing newly mated queens in nurseries may not be over emphasized, hence the current study. In the first experiment, we tested three rearing methods on queen survival and colony establishment. In the second experiment, we compared feeding techniques of different weaver ants on young colony growth. We observed that queens were best reared under continuous, indirect access to water. The first workers emerged earlier (32 days on average) in indirect and direct continuous access to water methods than on limited access to water (sprinkled) (38 days on average). Moreover, rearing mated queens under continuous indirect access and continuous direct access to water methods saved labour and time, because of limited attendance to the colonies. Availability of water, sugar solution and different sources of protein throughout improved the growth of young colonies. Likewise, the number of workers increased rapidly. Therefore rearing mated queens in nurseries is possible and would minimize hustles in hunting for the colonies and their queens in the wilderness.

Keywords

ant nurseryant coloniesOecophylla longinodaqueensrearing methods
Type
Research Paper
Information
International Journal of Tropical Insect Science , Volume 37 , Issue 4 , December 2017 , pp. 217 - 224
Copyright
Copyright © icipe 2017 

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

Crozier, R. H., Newey, P. S., Schlüns, E.A. and Robson, S. K. A. (2010) A masterpiece of evolution – Oecophylla weaver ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Myrmecological News 13, 57–71.Google Scholar
Greenslade, P. J. M. (1971) Phenology of three ant species in the Solomon Islands. Australian Journal of Entomology 10, 241–252.Google Scholar
Hölldobler, B. and Wilson, E. O. (1983) Queen control in colonies of weaver ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Annals of the Entomological Society America 76, 235–238. doi:10.1093/aesa/76.2.235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hölldobler, B. and Wilson, E. O. (1990) The Ants. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, USA. 746 pp.Google Scholar
Lim, G.T. and Kirton, L.G. (2001) A preliminary study on the prospects for biological control of the mahogany shoot borer, Hypsipyla robusta (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), by ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), pp. 240–244. In Tropical Forestry Research in the New Millennium: Meeting Demands and Challenges (edited by M. Azmy, P. Ismail, I. Shamsudin, M.Y. Safiah Yusmah, H.F. Lim, M.I. Muhammed Azmi, A.G. Ab Rasip, U. Salmiah and H. Khali Aziz).Google Scholar
Lokkers, C. (1986) The distribution of the weaver ant, Oecophylla smaragdina (Fabricius) (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in northern Australia. Australian Journal of Zoology 34, 683–687.Google Scholar
Offenberg, J. (2014) The use of artificial nests by weaver ants: a preliminary field observation. Asian Myrmecology 6, 119–128.Google Scholar
Offenberg, J., Cuc, N. T. T. and Wiwatwitaya, D. (2013) The effectiveness of weaver ant (Oecophylla smaragdina) biocontrol in Southeast Asian citrus and mango. Asian Myrmecology 5, 139–149.Google Scholar
Offenberg, J., Peng, R. and Nielsen, M. G. (2012) Development rate and brood production in haplo- and pleometrotic colonies of Oecophylla smaragdina . Insectes Sociaux 59, 307–311. doi: 10.1007/s00040-012-0221-2.Google Scholar
Ouagoussounon, I., Offenberg, J., Sinzogan, A., Adandonon, A., Kossou, D. and Vayssières, J.-F. (2015) Founding weaver ant queens (Oecophylla longinoda) increase production and nanitic worker size when adopting non-nestmate pupae. SpringerPlus 4, 6. doi: 10.1186/2193-1801-4-6.Google Scholar
Ouagoussounon, I., Sinzogan, A., Offenberg, J., Adandonon, A., Vayssières, J. F. and Kossou, D. (2013) Pupae transplantation to boost early colony growth in the weaver ant Oecophylla longinoda Latreille (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Sociobiology 60, 374–379. doi: https://doi.org/10.13102/sociobiology.v60i4.374-379.Google Scholar
Peeters, C. and Andersen, A. N. (1989) Cooperation between dealate queens during colony foundation in the green tree ant, Oecophylla smaragdina. Psyche 96, 39–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peng, R. K. and Christian, K. (2005) The control efficacy of weaver ant, Oecophylla smaragdina (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), on the mango leafhopper, Idioscopus nitidulus (Hemiptera: Cicadellidea) in mango orchards in the Northern Territory. International Journal of Pest Management 51, 297–304.Google Scholar
Peng, R. K. and Christian, K. (2010) Ants as biological control agents in the horticultural industry, pp. 123–125. In Ant Ecology (edited by Lach, L., Parr, C. and Abbott, K. L.). Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Peng, R. K., Christian, K. and Gibb, K. (1998) Locating queen ant nests in the green ant, Oecophylla smaragdina (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Insectes Sociaux 45, 477–480.Google Scholar
Peng, R. K., Christian, K. and Gibb, K. (1999) The effect of colony isolation of the predacious ant, Oecophylla smaragdina (F.) (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), on protection of cashew plantations from insect pests. International Journal of Pest Management 45, 189–194.Google Scholar
Peng, R. K., Christian, K. and Gibb, K. (2004) Implementing ant technology in commercial cashew plantations and continuation of transplanted green ant colony monitoring. A Report for the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. RIRDC Publication No. W04/088. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Australian Government.Google Scholar
Peng, R. K., Nielsen, M. G., Offenberg, J. and Birkmose, D. (2013) Utilisation of multiple queens and pupae transplantation to boost early colony growth of weaver ants Oecophylla smaragdina . Asian Myrmecology 5, 177–184.Google Scholar
Peng, R., Christian, K. and Reilly, D. (2010) Weaver ants, Oecophylla smaragdina (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), as biocontol agents on African mahogany trees, Khaya senegalensis (Sapindales: Meliaceae), in the Northern Territory of Australia. International Journal of Pest Management 56, 363–370.Google Scholar
Rwegasira, R.G., Mwatawala, M., Rwegasira, G. M. and Offenberg, J. (2015a) Occurrence of sexuals of African weaver ant (Oecophylla longinoda Latreille) (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) under a bimodal rainfall pattern in eastern Tanzania. Bulletin of Entomological Research 105, 182–186. doi: 10.1017/S0007485314000868.Google Scholar
Rwegasira, R. G., Mwatawala, M., Rwegasira, G. M., Mogens, G. N. and Offenberg, J. (2015b) Comparing different methods for trapping mated queens of weaver ants (Oecophylla longinoda; Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Biocontrol Science and Technology 25, 503–512. doi: 10.1080/09583157.2014.992861.Google Scholar
Sribandit, W., Wiwatwitaya, D., Suksard, S. and Offenberg, J. (2008) The importance of weaver ant (Oecophylla smaragdina Fabricius) harvest to a local community in northeastern Thailand. Asian Myrmecology 2, 129–138.Google Scholar
van Huis, A., Van Itterbeeck, J., Klunder, H., Mertens, E., Halloran, A., Muir, G. and Vantomme, P. (2013) FAO Forestry Paper 171. Edible Insects: Future Prospects for Food and Feed Security. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. ISBN 978-92-5-107595-1 (print); E-ISBN 978-92-5-107596-8 (PDF). 187 pp.Google Scholar
Van Mele, P. (2008) A historical review of research on the weaver ant Oecophylla in biological control. Agricultural and Forest Entomology 10, 13–22. doi:10.1111/j.1461-9563.2007.00350.x.Google Scholar
Van Mele, P. and Cuc, N. T. T. (2007) Ants as Friends: Improving your Tree Crops with Weaver Ants (2nd edn). Africa Rice Center (WARDA), Cotonou, Benin, and CABI, Egham, UK. 72 pp.Google Scholar
Van Mele, P., Vayssieres, J. F., Van Tillingen, E. and Vrolijks, J. (2007) Effects of an African weaver ant, Oecophylla longinoda, in controlling mango fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae). Benin Journal of Economic Entomology 100, 695–701.Google Scholar
Vanderplank, F. L. (1960) The bionomics and ecology of the red tree ant, Oecophylla sp., and its relationship to the coconut bug Pseudotheraptus wayi Brown (Coreidae). Journal of Animal Ecology 29, 15–33.Google Scholar
Way, M. J. (1954) Studies on the life history and ecology of the ant Oecophylla longinoda Latreille. Bulletin of Entomological Research 45, 93–112.Google Scholar
Way, M. J. and Khoo, K. C. (1992) Role of ants in pest management. Annual Review Entomology 37, 479–503.Google Scholar