Advertisement

Entomophaga

, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 7–14 | Cite as

Contribution a l'étude biologique d'Opius concolorSzepl. (Hym. Braconidae) En élevage de laboratoire

  • E. Biliotti
  • P. Delanoue
Mémoires Originaux

Summary

It is possible to obtain a permanent breeding ofOpius concolor by use of third instar larvae ofCeratitis capitata as host. TheOpius obtained by such breeding will accept to parasitize successfully the larvae ofDacus oleae.

This breeding will allow the study of many obscure points of the biology of the parasite, mainly conditions by which the host is chosen by the laying female and the reason of the endoparasitical development in the two hosts.

It should be useful to know if the ecological strains are differenciated by similar experimentation withO. siculusMonastero. It should be aslo interesting to extend this experience to other Trypetid species (for instance to the hosts ofOpius humilisSilv.: Braconid which is spread in Hawaii might be a synonym ofconcolor asFischer supposes).

This breeding could be eventually used to start the study and realisation of industrial multiplications in view of the biological control applications.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliographie

  1. Anonyme. — 1923. The olive fly (Dacus oleae) and its parasites in Marocco. —Intern. Rev. Sci. & Pract. Agric. (n. sér.),1 (3), 783.Google Scholar
  2. Back, E. A. & C. E. Pemberton. — 1915. Parasitism among the larvae of the Mediterranean Fruit fly (Ceratitis capitata) in Hawaii during 1914. —Hawaii Bd. Agric. & Forestry, Div. Entom., 153–161.Google Scholar
  3. Balachowsky, A. — 1931. Travaux des laboratoires en 1930. Insectarium d'Antibes: Élevages d'insectes auxiliaires. —Ann. Epiph.,17 96.Google Scholar
  4. Bodenheimer, F. S. — 1925. The olive fly (Dacus oleae Rossi), in Palestine. —Zionist. Organ. Inst. Agric. & Nat. Hist. Agric. Exp. Stat. (6), 16 p.Google Scholar
  5. Delassus, M. — 1924. Les Insectes ennemis de l'Olivier en Algérie.. —Rev. Agric. Afriq. du Nord,22 (239/240), 136–139 et 151–155.Google Scholar
  6. Delucchi, V. — 1952. Les parasites de la Mouche des olives. —Entom.,2, (2), 107–118.Google Scholar
  7. Féron, M. — 1952. Observations sur le parasitisme deCeratitis capitata Wied. dans le Sous marocain, —Rev. Path. Vég. & Ent. Agric.,31 (2), 99–102.Google Scholar
  8. — 1954. Le développement et la pullulation de la Mouche de l'olive,Dacus oleae Gmel. et de son parasiteOpius concolor Szepl. en Tunisie. —Rev. Path. Vég. & Ent. Agric.,33 (1), 3–30.Google Scholar
  9. Féron, M., P. Delanoue &F. Soria — 1958. L'élevage massif artificiel deCeratitis capitata Wied.. —Entomophaga,3 (1), 45–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fischer, M. — 1958. Über die Variabilität von Taxonomisch Wichtigen Merkmalen beiOpius concolor Szepl. (Hym. Braconidae). —Entomophaga,3 (1). 55–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Marchal, P. — 1910. Sur un Braconide (Hym.) nouveau, parasite deDacus oleae. —Bull. Soc. Ent. Fr., (13), 243–244.Google Scholar
  12. Marchal, P. — 1911. Les parasites de la Mouche des olives en Tunisie. —C.-R. Ac. Sci., 1–4 (janvier 1911).Google Scholar
  13. Martelli, G. M. — 1937. Contributo alla conoscenza biologica delDacus oleaae Rossi e dei suoi parasiti in Tripolitania. —Agr. Libica,6 (3/4), 9 p. —Agr. Colon.,31 (4), 149–155.Google Scholar
  14. Monastero, S. — 1934. La scoperta dell'O. siculus Mon. in Sicilia e la lotta contro la mosca dell'olivo. —L'Avanguardia rurale.Google Scholar
  15. Nonell Comas, J. — 1926. La lucha contra la mosca de la aceituna (Dacus oleae). —Bol. Estac. Path. Végét.,1 (4), 137–139.Google Scholar
  16. Poutiers, R. — 1921. Rapports sommaires sur les travaux des laboratoires de l'Insectarium de Menton. Élevage d'Insectes auxiliaires. —Ann. Epiph.,8, 325–326.Google Scholar
  17. Poutiers, R. — 1923. La lutte contre leDacus en France. —VI e Congrès Intern. d'Oleicult. (Nice les 14–19 octobre 1923), 152–158.Google Scholar
  18. Poutiers, R. — 1923–1924. Utilisation et élevage des Insectes auxiliaires. —Rev. Zool. Agr. & Appl., (22), 209–216; (23), 273–279.Google Scholar
  19. Sacantanis, K. — 1957. Sur l'élevage permanent d'Opius concolor Szepl.Colloques d'Antibes les 20–22novembre 1956. —Entomophaga,2 (2), 103.Google Scholar
  20. Silvestri, F. — 1914. Viaggio in Africa per cercare parasiti di mosche dei frutti. —Boll. Lab. Portici,8, 3–164.Google Scholar
  21. — 1916. Sulle specie diTrypaneidae (Diptera) del genereCarpomyia dannose ai frutti diZizyphus, Carpomyia incompleta Becker. —Boll. lab. Portici,11, 179–181.Google Scholar
  22. Silvestri, F. — 1923. État actuel de la lutte contre la Mouche de l'olive. —VI e Congrès Intern. d'Oleicult. (Nice, 14–19 octobre 1923), 48–77.Google Scholar
  23. Szepligeti, G. V. — 1910 — inMarchal.Bull. Soc. Ent. Fr., (15), 244.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Le François 1959

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Biliotti
    • 1
  • P. Delanoue
    • 1
  1. 1.Station de zoologie agricole d'AntibesInstitut national de la Recherche agronomiqueAntibesFrance

Personalised recommendations