Entomophaga

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 349–382 | Cite as

Importance de la nutrition chezAphelinus sp. [Hym.Aphelinidae]

  • Marie-France Michel
Mémoires Originaux

Résumé

L'incidence de la nutrition sur la biologie des Aphélinides est étudiéc et analysée sous ses différents aspects: maturation sexuelle, spécificité parasitaire (adaptation à un nouvel hôte) et longévité. Les faits observés sont rapprochés de certains phénomènes d'adaptation à des facteurs du milieu connus chez d'autres groupes d'insectes.

D'importants travaux ont été effectués sur un Aphélinide monophage,Aphelinus maliHaldeman depuis son introduction en Europe en 1929 pour freiner les pullulations du puceron lanigèreEriosoma lanigerumHausm. Ce n'est que depuis une quinzaine d'années que les chercheurs américains ont orienté leurs recherches vers un autre Aphélinide,Aphelinus asychisWalker (=semiflavusHoward), susceptible d'attaquer un grand nombre d'espèces d'Aphides-hôtes. Cependant, la polyphagie de ce parasite fut très peu étudiée et c'est seulement en 1970 queRaney etal.,Manglitz & Schalk déterminant la fécondité du parasite en présence de divers hôtes, ont observé des différences de fécondité qui les ont conduits à considérer que certains hôtes étaient préférés par le parasite.

Summary

A study of polyphagous Aphelinids, parasites of aphids, revealed the existence of host conditioning. The physiology and behaviour of the female is influenced by the aphid species on which it feeds: sexual maturation, fecundity (measured by number of aphids mummified by one female) and longevity are impaired when this species differs from the one from which the female hatched.

When females are fed with honey and water, longevity decreases (is reduced by about 15 days). Nutritive elements accumulated during larval life are used and eggs are progressively resorbed. This condition is not irreversible: if such females are reared with aphids, mature eggs can be observed after two days.

Fecundity and longevity are decreased when one female (Aphelinus asychis), hatched from an aphid species A, is reared on an aphid species B. In the F2 generation, the parasite is better adapted to the new host; in F3 fecundity may be comparable with that recorded in females reared on aphid host A. However, if F3 females hatched from species B mummies are now placed on aphid host A, the same kind of biological disturbances are observed as in the original transfer (A to B).

After disproving the hypothesis of genetical selection of individuals adapted to the new host, the influence of nutrition on female physiology is demonstrated. This conditioning may be compared with that inAcrididae, attributable to a density factor, or that inNemeritis andDrosophila, to the odour of certain chemicals.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliographie

  1. Albrecht, F. O. — 1959. Facteurs internes et fluctuations des effectifs chezNomadacris septemfasciata (Serv.). —Bull. biol.,92, 414–461.Google Scholar
  2. Arrow, G. J. — 1921. Oviposition ofAphelinus chaonia Wlk.Ent. Magaz.,57, 211.Google Scholar
  3. Bodenheimer, F. S. — 1944. Studies on the ecology and control of the Moroccan Locust (Dociostaurus maroccanus) in Iraq. I. Results of a mission of the Iraq Department of Agriculture to N. Iraq in Spring 1943. —Bull. Dir.-Gen. agric. Iraq,29, 121 pp.Google Scholar
  4. Faure, J. C. — 1923. The life-history of the Brown locust [Locustana pardelina (Walker)]. —Bull. Fac. Agric. Transv. Univ. Coll.,4, 30 pp.Google Scholar
  5. Flanders, S. E. — 1934. The secretion of the colleterial gland in the parasitic chalcids. —J. econ. Ent.,27, 861–862.Google Scholar
  6. — 1942. Oosorption and ovulation in relation to oviposition in the parasitic Hymenoptera. —Ann. ent. Soc. Am.,35, 251–266.Google Scholar
  7. — 1953. Predatism by the adult hymenopterous parasite and its role in biological control. —J. econ. Ent.,46, 541–544.Google Scholar
  8. — 1959. Differential host relations of the sexes in parasiticHymenoptera. —Ent. exp. appl. 3, 125–142.Google Scholar
  9. Hartley, E. A. — 1922. Some bionomics ofAphelinus semiflavus (Howard), chalcid parasite of aphids. —Ohio J. Sci.,22, 209–237.Google Scholar
  10. Jannone, G. — 1938. Osservazioni sulla presenza, struttura e funzione d'una vesicola ghiandolare confinata nel protorace delle specie mediterranee del gen.Acrotylus Fieb., con particolare riguardo all'A. insubricus (Scop.) [Orthoptera, Acridoidea]. —Boll. Lab. Zool. gen. agr. Portici,31, 41–62.Google Scholar
  11. Manglitz, G. R. &Schalk, S. M. — 1970. Occurrence and hosts ofAphelinus semiflavus Howard in Nebraska [Hymenoptera: Eulophidae]. —J. Kan. ent. Soc.,43, 309–314.Google Scholar
  12. Manning, H. — 1967. Preimaginal conditionning inDrosophila. —Nature,216, 338–340.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Marchal, P. — 1905. Observations biologiques sur un parasite de la Galéruque de l'Orme, leTetrastichus xanthomelaenae (Rond.) [Hyménoptère]. —Bull. Soc. ent. Fr. 1905, 64–68.Google Scholar
  14. — 1909. La ponte desAphelinus et l'intérêt individuel dans les actes liés à la conservation de l'espèce. —C. R. Acad. Sci., Paris,148, 1223–1225.Google Scholar
  15. — 1929. Les ennemis du Puceron lanigère; conditions biologiques et cosmiques de sa multiplication. Traitements. —Annls Epiphyt.,15, 1–181.Google Scholar
  16. Michel, M. F. — 1967. Importance écologique du comportement prédateur d'Aphelinus asychis Walker,Hym. Aphelinidae, endoparasite de pucerons [Hom. Aphididae]. —C. R. Acad. Sci., Paris,264, 936–939.Google Scholar
  17. — 1969. Contribution à l'étude desAphelinidae aphidiphages et de leurs hôtes en France [Hym. Chalcidoidea]. —Entomophaga,14, 439–446.Google Scholar
  18. Monadjemi, N. — 1972. Étude du brachyptérisme chezAphelinus asychis Wlk. [Hym. Aphelinidae]. —Ann. Soc. ent. Fr. (N. S.),8, 441–449.Google Scholar
  19. Norris, M. S. — 1950. Reproduction in the African Migratory Locust (Locusta migratoria migratorioides R. & F.) in relation to density and phase. —Anti-Locust Bull.,6, 48 pp.Google Scholar
  20. Norris, M. S. — 1952. Reproduction in the Desert Locust (Schistocerca gregaria Forsk.) in relation to density and phase. —Anti-Locust Bull.,13, 49 pp.Google Scholar
  21. Norris, M. S. — 1959. Reproduction in the Red Locust (Nomadacris septemfasciata Serville) in the laboratory. —Anti-Locust Bull.,36, 46 pp.Google Scholar
  22. Paoli, G. — 1937. Osservazioni su alcune particolarita di struttura e funzione dell' apparato genitale femminile diDociostaurus maroccanus Thunb. [Orthopt. Acrididae]. —Redia,23, 17–26.Google Scholar
  23. Papillon, M. — 1960. Étude préliminaire de la répercussion du groupement des parents sur les larves nouveau-nées deSchistocerca gregaria Forsk. —Bull. biol.,93, 203–263.Google Scholar
  24. Quayle, H. J. — 1910.Aphelinus diaspisis How. —J. econ. Ent.,3, 398.Google Scholar
  25. Raney, H. G., Coles, L. W., Eizenbaky, R. D., Morrison, R. D. &Starks, K. S. —1971. Host preference, longevity, developmental period and sex ratio ofAphelinus asychis with three sorghum-fed species of aphids held at controlled temperatures. —Ann. ent. Soc. Am.,64, 169–176.Google Scholar
  26. Salt, G. — 1968. The resistance of insect parasitoids to the defense reaction of their hosts. —Biol. Rev.,43, 200–232.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Schlinger, E. I. &Hall, J. C. — 1959. A synopsis of the biologies of three imported parasites of the spotted alfalfa aphid. —J. econ. Ent.,52, 154–157.Google Scholar
  28. — 1960. The biology, behaviour and morphology ofPraon palitans Muesebeck, an internal parasite of the spotted alfalfa aphid,Therioaphis maculata (Buckton). —Ann. ent. Soc. Am.,53, 140–160.Google Scholar
  29. — 1961. The biology and morphology ofTrioxys utilis, an internal parasite of the spotted alfalfa aphid,Therioaphis maculata (Buckton). —Ann. ent. Soc. Am.,53, 404–415.Google Scholar
  30. Sedlag, S. — 1957. Uber den Bau des Weiblichen Geschlechtsapparates der Aphidiiden. —Verh. Dtsch. Zool. Ges., Hamburg 1956, 356–361.Google Scholar
  31. Smith, C. N. — 1966. Insect colonization and mass production. Chap. 30:F. H. Harries: Aphids, p. 429–444. —Academic Press, New York & London, 618 pp.Google Scholar
  32. Thompson, W. R. &Parker, H. L. — 1928. Contribution à la biologie des Chalcidiens entomophages. —Annls. Soc. ent. Fr.,97, 425–465.Google Scholar
  33. Thorpe, W. H. — 1939. Further studies on preimaginal olfactory conditionning in insects. —Proc. R. Soc., Lond., B. 127, 424–433.Google Scholar
  34. Thorpe, W. H. &Jones, F. G. W. — 1937. Olfactory conditionning in a parasitic insect and its relation to the problem of host selection. —Proc. R. Soc., Lond. B,124, 56–81.Google Scholar
  35. Viado, G. B. — 1950. Reproductive capacity of the Oriental Migratory Locust. —Philipp. Agric.,33, 221–238.Google Scholar
  36. Voegelé, J. — 1969. Les hymenoptères parasites oophages desAelia. —Al Awamia,31, 139–323.Google Scholar
  37. Wilbert, H. — 1964. Das Ausleseverhalten vonAphelinus semiflavus Howard und die Abwehrreaktionen seiner Wirte [Hymenoptera, Aphelinidae]. —Beitr. Ent.,14, 159–219.Google Scholar
  38. — 1965. Die Auswirkungen der Köpergrösse vonAphelinus semiflavus Howard [Hym., Aphelinidae] auf einige Organe und ihre Leistungsfähigkeit. —Z. Morph. Okol. Tiere,55, 804–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zinna, G. — 1962. Richerche suggli insetti entomofagi III. Specializzazione entomoparassitica negliAphelinidae. Interdipendenze biocenotiche tra due specie associate. Studio morfologico, etologico et fisiologico delCoccophagoides similis (Mas.) eAzotus matritensis Mercet. —Boll. Lab. Ent. agr. (Filippo Silvestri) Portici,20, 73–184.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Le François 1973

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marie-France Michel
    • 1
  1. 1.Service de Lutte biologique contre les InsectesInstitut PasteurParis

Personalised recommendations