Advertisement

Entomophaga

, Volume 35, Issue 2, pp 257–268 | Cite as

Parasitoids acquired byColeophora parthenica [Lepidoptera: Coleophoridae] ten years after its introduction into southern California for the biological control of Russian thistle

  • H. Müller
  • R. D. Goeden
Article

Abstract

Parasitism of the stem and branch-boring mothColeophora parthenica Meyrick [Lepidoptera: Coleophoridae], introduced into California for the biological control of Russian thistle,Salsola australis R. Brown [Chenopodiaceae] was studied in the Coachella Valley of southern California during 1985–1986.

Eight parasitoid species were reared from overwintering larvae ofC. parthenica, but none from the F1 larvae, and just 2 individuals of one species from the F2 summer generation. The level of parasitism of overwintering larvae was positively correlated with branch diameter, and ranged from 2% in the primary (main) branches to 45% in the tertiary branches in the spring 1985 sample, and from 2% to 19% in the spring 1986 sample, respectively. Rates of parasitism>20% were only found at sites with higher plant cover and chenopod diversity, but no other plant source or alternate hosts of the parasitoids ofC. parthenica were found. The 2 dominant species, the solitary, hymenopterous ectoparasitoids,Norbanus perplexus (Ashmead) [Pteromalidae] andEurytoma strigosa Bugbee [Eurytomidae], are both congeners of native parasitoids ofC. parthenica in Pakistan. The 2 other species of parasitoids ofC. parthenica in southern California for which other hosts are known are polyphagous and external on the larvae. No specialized endoparasitoid Braconidae, like those which dominate the native parasitoid complex in Pakistan and the U.S.S.R., have transferred toC. parthenica during its first 10 years in southern California.

Key-Words

Coleophora Eurytoma Norbanus Salsola biological weed control parasitoids 

Résumé

Le parasitisme de la mineuse des tiges et des branches,Coleophora parthenica Meyrick [Lepidoptera: Coleophoridae], introduite en Californie dans le cadre de la lutte biologique contre le chardon de Russie,Salsola australis R. Brown [Chenopodiaceae], a été étudié dans la vallée de Coachella au sud de la Californie entre 1985 et 1986.

Huit espèces de parasitoïdes ont été obtenues à partir des chenilles en hibernation. Aucun parasitoïde n'est issu des chenilles de la 1re génération, et seulement 2 individus d'une même espèce ont été obtenus des chenilles de la 2e génération estivale. Le niveau du parasitisme des chenilles hibernantes est en corrélation avec le diamètre des branches attaquées. Ce taux de parasitisme a varié, entre 2% sur les branches primaires et 45% sur les branches tertiaires au printemps 1985, et respectivement entre 2% et 19% au printemps 1986. Les localités avec une diversité végétale élevée ont présenté des taux de parasitisme significativement supérieurs par rapport aux localités moins riches. Aucun hôte alternatif des parasitoïdes deC. parthenica n'a été trouvé. Les 2 espèces dominantes,Norbanus perplexus (Ashmead) [Pteromalidae] etEurytoma strigosa Bugbee [Eurytomidae], sont des hyménoptères ectophages solitaires apparentés aux parasitoïdes indigènes attaquantC. parthenica au Pakistan. Les 2 autres espèces de parasitoïdes ayant d'autres hôtes connus et attaquantC. parthenica en Californie du Sud sont des ectophages polyphages. Aucune espèce de braconide endophage et spécialisé, similaire à celles qui dominent dans le complexe parasitaire des zones d'origine du Pakistan et d'URSS, ne s'est établie surC. parthenica au cours des 10 années suivants son introduction en Californie du Sud.

Mots Clés

Coleophora Eurytoma Norbanus Salsola lutte biologique contre les mauvaises herbes parasitoïdes 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baloch, G. M. & Mustaque, M. — 1973. Insects associated withHalogeton andSalsola in Pakistan with notes on the biology, ecology and host specificity of the important enemies. (pp. 103–113) In: (P. H. Dunn, ed.). —Proc. 2 nd Int. Symp. Biol. Control of Weeds, Rome, Italy, 1971.Google Scholar
  2. Baloch, G. M. & Khan, A. G. — 1978. Possibilities for the biological control of Russian thistle,Salsola spp. [Chenopodiaceae]. pp. 108–112. In: (T. E. Freeman, ed.). —Proc. 2 nd Int. Symp. Biol. Control of Weeds, Gainesville, Florida, 1976.Google Scholar
  3. Crawley, M. J. — 1987. — What makes a community invasible? (pp. 429–453). In: Colonization, Succession and Stability. Chapter 21 (A. J. Gray, M. J. Crawley &P. J. Edwards, eds.). —The 26 th Symp. Br. Ecol. Soc.Blackwell Scientific Publications Oxford.Google Scholar
  4. Goeden, R. D. &Louda, S. M. — 1976. Biotic interference with insects imported for weed control. —Ann. Rev. Entomol., 21, 325–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Goeden, R. D. &Ricker, D. W. — 1979. Field analyses ofColeophora parthenica [Lepidoptera: Coleophoridae] as an imported natural enemy of Russian thistle,Salsola iberica, in the Coachella Valley of southern California. —Environ. Entomol. 8, 1099–1101.Google Scholar
  6. Goeden, R. D., Ricker, D. W. &Hawkes, R. B. — 1978. Establishment ofColeophora parthenica [Lep.: Coleophoridae] in southern California for the biological control of Russian thistle. —Environ. Entomol., 7, 294–296.Google Scholar
  7. Goeden, R. D. &Ricker, D. W. — 1986. Phytophagous insect faunas of two introducedCirsium thistles,C. ochrocentrum andC. vulgare, in southern California. —Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am., 79 945–952.Google Scholar
  8. Hafez, M., Fayad, Y. H. &Sarhan, A. A. — 1978.Coleophora parthenica Meyrick [Lepidoptera: Coleophoridae] in Egypt, a potential agent for the biological control of the noxious thistle,Salsola kali L. [Chenopodiaceae]. —Prot. Ecol., 1, 33–44.Google Scholar
  9. Hawkes, R. B. & Mayfield, A. — 1978.Coleophora spp. as biological control agents against Russian thistle. (pp. 113–116). In: (T. E. Freeman ed.). —Proc. 4 th Int. Symp. Biol. Control of Weeds, Gainesville, Florida, 1976.Google Scholar
  10. Hawkes, R. B., Goeden, R. D., Mayfield, A. &Ricker, D. W. — 1975. Biological control of Russian thistle. —Calif. Agric., 29, 3–4.Google Scholar
  11. Hawkins, B. A. — 1988. Species diversity in the third and fourth trophic levels: Patterns and mechanisms. —J. Anim. Ecol., 57, 137–162.Google Scholar
  12. Hawkins, B. A. &Lawton, J. H. — 1987. Species richness for the parasitoids of British phytophagous insects. —Nature, 326, 788–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Nuessly, G. S. &Goeden, R. D. — 1983. Spider predation onColeophora parthenica [Lepidoptera: Coleophoridae], a moth imported for the biological control of Russian thistle. —Environ. Entomol., 12, 1433–1438.Google Scholar
  14. Nuessly, G. S. &Goeden, R. D. — 1984. Rodent predation on larvae ofColeophora parthenica [Lepidoptera: Coleophoridae], a moth imported for the biological control of Russian thistle. —Environ. Entomol., 13, 502–508.Google Scholar
  15. Pemberton, R. W. — 1986. The impact of a stem-boring insect on the tissue, physiology and reproduction of Russian thistle. —Entomol. Exp. Appl., 42, 169–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Zwölfer, H. — 1963. Untersuchungen über die Struktur von Parasitenkomplexen bei einigen Lepidopteren. —J. Appl. Entomol., 51, 346–357.Google Scholar
  17. Zwölfer, H. &Pschorn-Walcher, H. — 1968. Wie verhalten sich Insektenparasiten gegenüber eingeschleppten, faunenfremden Wirten? —Anz Schädlingskunde, XLI. Jahrg., Heft 4, 51–55.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Lavoisier Abonnements 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. Müller
    • 1
  • R. D. Goeden
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EntomologyUniversity of CaliforniaRiversideUSA

Personalised recommendations