Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Interspecific competition between Anagyrus pseudococci and Leptomastix dactylopii, parasitoids of the vine mealybug Planococcus ficus

  • Published:
BioControl Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Interspecific competition among parasitoids plays a key role in the population dynamics of insect pests and may affect the outcome of biological control programs. The aim of this study was to examine competition between two parasitoids, Anagyrus pseudococci (Girault) and Leptomastix dactylopii Howard (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae), of the vine mealybug Planococcus ficus (Signoret) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) under laboratory conditions. The mealybug was parasitized by both parasitoid species at the same time (within 2 h) or sequentially at 24, 48 or 72 h intervals. When mealybug were parasitized at the same time by both parasitoids, the emergence rate from the host was 68.63 % for L. dactylopii and 31.37 % for A. pseudococci. The emergence rate of females was higher than that for males, but the duration of development of males was shorter than for females in both species. When A. pseudococci had parasitism priority for 24 h, there was no difference between the emergence rates of both parasitoids. When A. pseudococci had parasitism priority for 48 and 72 h, the emergence rates of A. pseudococi were 65 and 77.50 % respectively. Also, the duration of development of A. pseudococci was shorter than that of L. dactylopii for all three time intervals. When L. dactylopii had parasitism priority for 24 and 48 h, there was no difference between the emergence rates of both parasitoids. However, when L. dactylopii had parasitism priority for 72 h, the emergence rate of L. dactylopii was 94.83 %. Only when L. dactylopii had parasitism priority for 48 h, there was a difference between both parasitoids and the duration of development of A. pseudococci was shorter than for L. dactylopii. Consequently, it was found that competition may occur between L. dactylopii and A. pseudococci if they are used together to control P. ficus. Also, it was determined that the A. pseudococci population may be more affected than the L. dactylopii population by this competition.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barlett BR (1978) Pseudococcidae. In: CP Clausen (eds.), Introduced parasites and predators of arthropod pests and weeds: a world review. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (Agriculture Handbook volume 480), Washington, DC. pp 137–170

  • Ben-Dov Y (1994) A systematic catalogue of the mealybugs of the World (Homoptera: Coccoidea: Pseudococcidae and Putoidae) with data on geographical distribution, host plants, biology and economic importance. Intercept Limited, Andover

    Google Scholar 

  • Berlinger MJ (1977) The Mediterranean vine mealybug and its natural enemies in Southern Israel. Phytoparasitica 5:3–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumberg D, Klein M, Mendel Z (1995) Response by encapsulation of four mealybug species (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) to parasitization by Anagyrus pseudococci. Phytoparasitica 23:157–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bogran CE, Heinz KM, Ciomperlik MA (2002) Interspecific competition among insect parasitoids: field experiments with whiteflies as hosts in cotton. Ecology 83:653–668

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briggs CJ (1993) Competition among parasitoid species on a stage-structured host, and its effects on host suppression. Am Nat 141:372–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brodeur J, Boivin G (2006) Trophic and guild interactions in biological control. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Caron V, Myers JH, Gillespie DR (2010) The failure to discriminate: superparasitism of Trichoplusia ni Hübner by a generalist tachinid parasitoid. Bull Entomol Res 100:255–261

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cusumano A, Peri E, Vinson SB, Colazza S (2012) Interspecific extrinsic and intrinsic competitive interactions in egg parasitoids. BioControl 57:719–734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daane KM, Malakar-Kuenen RD, Walton VM (2004) Temperature-dependent development of Anagyrus pseudococci (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) as a parasitoid of the vine mealybug, Planococcus ficus (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). Biol Control 31:123–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duso C (1989) Indagini bioecologiche su Planococcus ficus sign. nel veneto [Indigenous bioecology of Planococcus ficus in the Veneto region]. Boll Lab Entomol Agrar. Filippo Silvestri Portici 46:3–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Engelbrecht DJ, Kasdorf GGF (1990) Transmission of grapevine leafroll disease and associated closteroviruses by the vine mealybug Planococcus ficus. Phytophylactica 22:341–346

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher RC (1961) A study in insect multiparasitism. 1. Host selection and oviposition. J Exp Biol 38:267–275

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher RC (1963) Oxygen requirements and the physiological suppression of supernumerary insect parasitoids. J Exp Biol 40:531–540

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gerling D (1972) Developmental biology of Telenomus remus Nixon (Hymenoptera, Scelionidae). Bull Entomol Res 61:385–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godfray HCJ (1994) Parasitoids: behavioral and evolutionary ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey KE, Daane KM, Bentley WJ, Gill RJ, Malakar-Kuenen R (2002) Mealybugs in California vineyards. University of California Agriculture & Natural Resources, Oakland (Publication 21612)

    Google Scholar 

  • Güleç G, Kilinçer AN, Kaydan MB, Ülgenturk S (2007) Some biological interactions between the parasitoid Anagyrus pseudococci (Girault) (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) and its host Planococcus ficus (Signoret) (Hemiptera: Coccoidea: Pseudococcidae). J Pest Sci 80:43–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagver EB (1988) Multiparasitism of the green pea aphid, Myzus persicae: competition in the egg stage between Aphidius matricariae and Ephedrus cerasicola. Entomol Exp Appl 47:275–282

  • Harvey JA, Harvey IF, Thompson DJ (1993) The effect of superparasitism on development of the solitary parasitoid wasp, Venturia canescens (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae). Ecol Entomol 18:203–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey JA, Gols R, Strand MR (2009) Intrinsic competition and its effects on the survival and development of three species of endoparasitoid wasps. Entomol Exp Appl 130:238–248

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey JA, Poelman EH, Tanaka T (2013) Intrinsic inter- and intraspecific competition in parasitoid wasps. Ann Rev Entomol 58:333–351

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kaydan MB, Kilincer N, Uygun N, Japoshvilli G, Gaimari S (2006) Parasitoids and predators of Pseudococcidae (Hemiptera: Coccoidea) in Ankara, Turkey. Phytoparasitica 34(4):331–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kosztarab M, Kozár F (1988) Scale insects of Central Europe. Akad, Kiado, Budapest

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackauer M (1990) Host discrimination and larval competition in solitary endoparasitoids. In: Mackauer M, Ehler LE, Roland J (eds) Critical issues in biological control. Intercept, Andover, pp 41–62

  • McBrien H, Mackauer M (1990) Heterospecific larval competition and host discrimination in two species of aphid parasitoids: Aphidius ervi and Aphidius smithi. Entomol Exp Appl 56:145–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills NJ (2003) Parasitoid interactions and biological control. Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on the Biological Control of Arthropods (ed. R. van Driesche), Publication FHTET-03-05. USDA Forest Service, Honolulu, HI pp 108–113

  • Noyes JS, Hayat M (1994) Oriental mealybug parasitoids of the Anagyrini (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) with a world review of use in classical biological control and an index of parasitoids of mealybugs (Homoptera: Pseudocccidae). CAB International, Oxon

    Google Scholar 

  • Öncüer C (1991) The parasitoids and predators of plant pest insect in Turkey. University of Aegean, Izmir, Turkey (Turkish, with English preface)

  • Pijls JWAM, Hofker KD, van Staalduinen MJ, van Alphen JJM (1995) Interspecific host discrimination and competition in Apoanagyrus (Epidinocarsis) lopezi and A. (E.) diversicornis, parasitoids of the cassava mealybug Phenacoccus manihoti. Ecol Entomol 20:326–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quicke DLJ (1997) Parasitic Wasps. Chapman & Hall, London

  • Smith HS (1916) An attempt to redefine the host relationships exhibited by entomophagous insects. J Econ Ent 9:477–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strand MR (1986) The physiological interactions of parasitoids with their hosts and their influence on reproductive strategies. In: Waage J, Greathead D (eds) Insect Parasitoids. Academic Press, London, pp 97–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Strand MR, Vinson SB (1984) Facultative hyperparasitism by the egg parasitoid Trichogramma pretiosum (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 77:679–686

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tunca H, Kilinçer N (2009) Effect of superparasitism on the development of the solitary parasitoid Chelonus oculator Panzer (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Turk J Agric For 33:463–468

    Google Scholar 

  • van Baaren J, Nénon JP (1996) Intraspecific larval competition in two solitary parasitoids, Apoanagyrus (Epidinocarsis) lopezi and Leptomastix dactylopii. Entomol Exp Appl 81:325–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vinson SB, Sroka P (1978) Effects of superparasitism by a solitary endoparasitoid on the host, parasitoid and field samplings. Southwest Entomol 3:299–303

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton VM, Pringle KL (2004) A survey of mealybugs and associated natural enemies in vineyards in the Western Cape Province, South Africa. S Afr J Enol Vitic 25:23–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang CZ (2001) Effects of host size on oviposition and development of the endoparasitoid, Campoletis chlorideae Uchida. Chin J Biol Control 17:107–111

    Google Scholar 

  • Wylie HG (1983) Delayed development of Microctonus vittatae (Hymenoptera, Braconidae) in superparasitized adults of Phyllotreta cruciferae (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae). Can Entomol 115:441–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zinna G (1959) Ricerche sugli insetti entomofagi. Specializzazione entomoparassitica negli Encyrtidae: studio morfologico, etologico e fisiologico del Leptomastix dactylopii Howard. Bollettino del Laboratorio di Entomologia Agraria “Filippo Silvestri”, Centro Nazionale di Lotta Biologica. Portici (Napoli) 18:1–150

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by Ankara University BIYEP (Scientist Training Project) Program. We are grateful to Professor Dr. Muhip Özkan and Research Assistant Rabia Albayrak (Ankara University, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Animal Science, Biometry and Genetics Unit) for their kind help in the statistical analyses. We would like to thank Dr. M. Bora Kaydan (University of Çukurova) for their helpful reviews of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Seyrani Faculty of Agriculture, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey

    Murat Muştu

  2. Faculty of Agriculture, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey

    Neşet Kılınçer

Authors
  1. Murat Muştu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Neşet Kılınçer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Murat Muştu.

Additional information

Handling Editor: Stefano Colazza.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Muştu, M., Kılınçer, N. Interspecific competition between Anagyrus pseudococci and Leptomastix dactylopii, parasitoids of the vine mealybug Planococcus ficus . BioControl 60, 485–493 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-015-9665-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-015-9665-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation