Advertisement

Entomophaga

, Volume 28, Issue 4, pp 339–344 | Cite as

Killing power of the red imported fire ant [Hym.: Formicidae]: a key predator of the boll weevil [Col.: Curculionidae]

  • D. A. Fillman
  • W. L. Sterling
Article

Abstract

The red imported fire ant,Solenopsis invicta Buren, was identified as a key predator of the boll weevil,Anthonomus grandis Boheman. Although key factor analysis does not guarantee that the key factor is the causative agent, the evidence of boll weevil mortality was so clear that the fire ant could be identified as causing the mortality. Ant predation on immature boll weevils during the summer of 1981 averaged 84%. When this predation was combined with other natural mortality factors, the weevil population density throughout the season never exceeded levels that required control measures.

Keywords

Population Density Plant Pathology Control Measure Causative Agent Natural Mortality 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Résumé

La fourmi rouge importée,Solenopsis invicta Buren, a été identifiée comme prédateur majeur du charançon du cotonAnthonomus grandis Boheman. Bien que l'analyse des facteurs clés n'assure pas en soi que cet agent soit la cause directe des mortalités observées, l'action prédatrice des fourmis rouges fut telle que leur impact sur la mortalité des charançons a pu être clairement mis en évidence. Le taux de mortalité des larves d'A. grandis attribuable àS. invicta a été de 84% en moyenne pendant l'été 1981. Cette valeur, associée aux autres facteurs de mortalité naturelle, a permis de maintenir les populations de charançons en deçà des seuils nécessitant des mesures de contrôle.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bottrell, D.G. — 1976. The boll weevil as a key pest. In: Boll Weevil Suppression, Management, and Elimination Technology (Davich, T.B., ed). —Proc. ARS-USDA, 172 pp.Google Scholar
  2. Coad, B.R. — 1915. Recent studies of the Mexican cotton boll weevil. —USDA Bull., 231, 34 pp.Google Scholar
  3. Haynes, J.W. &Wright, J.E. — 1979. Fumigation of boll weevil pupae with bisazir to induce sterility. —J. Econ. Entomol., 72, 823–825.Google Scholar
  4. Hinds, W.E. — 1907a. Proliferation as a factor in the natural control of the Mexican cotton boll weevil. —USDA Bur. Entomol. Bull., 59, 45 pp.Google Scholar
  5. Hinds, W.E. — 1907b. Some factors in the natural control of the Mexican cotton boll weevil. —USDA Bur. Entomol. Bull., 63, 45–48.Google Scholar
  6. Howe, R.W. — 1916. Studies of the Mexican cotton boll weevil in the Mississippi Valley. —USDA Bull., 358, 32 pp.Google Scholar
  7. Hunter, W.D. & Coad, B.R. — 1923. The boll weevil problem. —USDA Farmers' Bull., 1329, 30 pp.Google Scholar
  8. Jones, D. &Sterling, W.L. — 1979. Manipulation of red imported fire ants in a trap crop for boll weevil suppression. —Environ. Entomol., 8, 1073–1077.Google Scholar
  9. Morris, R.F. — 1959. Single-factor analysis in population dynamics. —Ecology, 40, 580–588.Google Scholar
  10. Morris, R.F. — 1965. Contemporaneous mortality factors in population dynamics. —Can. Entomol., 97, 1173–1184.Google Scholar
  11. Podoler, H. &Rogers, D. — 1975. A new method for the identification of key factors from life-table data. —J. Anim. Ecol., 44, 85–114.Google Scholar
  12. Price, P.W. — 1975. Insect Ecology. —John Wiley & Sons, New York, 514 pp.Google Scholar
  13. Ricks, B.L. &Vinson, S.B. — 1970. Feeding acceptability of certain insects and various water-soluble compounds to two varieties of imported fire ant. —J. Econ. Entomol., 63, 145–148.Google Scholar
  14. Smith, R.L. — 1980. Ecology and Field Biology. —Harper & Row, New York, 853 pp.Google Scholar
  15. Solomon, M.E. — 1949. The natural control of animal populations. —J. Anim. Ecol., 18, 1–35.Google Scholar
  16. Sterling, W.L. — 1978. Fortuitous biological suppression of the boll weevil by the red imported fire ant. —Environ. Entomol., 7, 564–568.Google Scholar
  17. Sterling, W.L., Jones, D. &Dean, D.A. — 1979. Failure of the red imported fire ant to reduce entomophagous insect and spider abundance in a cotton agroecosystem. —Environ. Entomol.. 8, 976–981.Google Scholar
  18. Taft, H.M., Hopkins, A.R. &James, W. — 1963. Differences in reproductive potential, feeding rate, and longevity of boll weevils mated in the fall and in the spring. —J. Econ. Entomol., 56, 180–181.Google Scholar
  19. Varley, G.C. & Gradwell, G.R. — 1968. Population models for the winter moth. In: Insect Abundance (T.R.E. Southwood, ed). —Symp. R. Entomol. Soc. Lond., 4, 160 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Lavoisier Abonnements 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. A. Fillman
    • 1
  • W. L. Sterling
    • 1
  1. 1.Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Department of EntomologyTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations