Advertisement

International Journal of Tropical Insect Science

, Volume 13, Issue 5, pp 719–723 | Cite as

Competition Between the Phycitid Moths Plodia Interpunctella (HUBN.) and Ephestia Cautella (WLK.) in Groundnuts and on a Laboratory Diet

  • J. Allotey
  • L. Goswami
Research Article

Abstract

Competition between Plodia interpunctella (Hubn.) and Ephestia cautella (Wlk.) was studied in groundnuts and in a limited amount of standard medium (maize meal, wheat bran and glycerol at the ratio of 8:8:1) (w/w) when the species were reared separately (conditions PI and EC), when one was added before the other (conditions P+E/2 and E+P/2) and when both were introduced together (condition PI/EC). Separately, each species was well maintained on the standard medium, while E. cautella was the better competitor in groundnuts under conditions E+P/2 and PI/EC. The results offer a possible explanation for the pest status and distribution of the two moths species in groundnuts and where their ranges overlap, especially in the tropics.

Key Words

Plodia interpunctella Ephestia cautella competition generation population 

Résumé

La concurrence entre Plodia interpunctella (Hubn.) et Ephestia cautella (Wlk.) était étudiée dans les arachides et dans le moyen standard limité(maïs/blé/glycerol, 8:8:1, w/w) quand les espèces faisaient subsistées separatement (condition PI et EC), quand une était ajoutée avant l’autre (Conditions P+E/2 et E+P/2) et quand les deux étaient introduits ensemble (condition PI/EC). Separatement, les deux espèces P. interpunctella et E. cautella faisaient bien subsistées sur le moyen standard, pendant que E. cautella était la meilleur concurrent contre P. interpunctella dans les aruchides sur conditions E+P/2 et PI/EC. Les résultats offrent l’explication possible pour les rangs des insectes nuisibles et la distribution des deux teignes espèces dans les arachides et où ses portées enchevauchent particulièrement aux tropiques.

Mots Clés

Plodia interpunctella Ephestia cautella competition génération population 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allotey J. (1982) Competition between Corcyra cephalonica (Staint.) and Ephestia caulella (Wlk.) and study of radiosensitivity of the immature stages of Corcyra cephalonica. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Ghana, Legon.Google Scholar
  2. Allotey J. (1984) Activity patterns of Corcyra cephalonica (Staint.) and Ephestia cautella (Wlk.) and competition for pupation sites. Uttar Pradesh J. Zool. 4, 150–155.Google Scholar
  3. Allotey J. (1985) Study of radiosensitivity of the immature stages of Corcyra cephalonica (Stainton) (Lepidoptera: Galleriidae). Insect Sci. Applic. 6, 621–625.Google Scholar
  4. Allotey J. (1986) Competition between the two moths Corcyra cephalonica (Staint.) and Ephestia cautella (Wlk.) on a laboratory diet. J. Stored Prod. Res. 22, 103–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Allotey J. (1992) Development and fecundity of the rice moth Corcyra cephalonica (Pyralidae) on stored maize and groundnut. Discovery and Innovation (in press).Google Scholar
  6. Allotey J. and Goswami L. (1990) Comparative biology of two phycitid moths Plodia interpunctella (Hubn.) and Ephestia cautella (Wlk.) on some selected food media. Insect Sci. Applic. 11, 209–215.Google Scholar
  7. Allotey J. and Kumar R. (1985) Competition between Corcyra cephalonica (Stainton) and Ephestia cautella (Walker) in cocoa beans. Insect Sci. Applic. 6, 627–632.Google Scholar
  8. Allotey J. (1985) Study of radiosensitivity of the immature stages of Corcyra cephalonica (Staint.) (Lepidoptera: Galleriidae). Insect Sci. Applic. 6, 621–625.Google Scholar
  9. Amoako-Atta B. and Partida G. J. (1976) Sensitivity of almond moth pupae to gamma radiation (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). J. Kans. Entomol. Soc. 49, 133–140.Google Scholar
  10. Arbogast R. T. (1981) Mortality and reproduction of Ephestia cautella and Plodia interpunctella exposed as pupae to high temperatures. Environ. Entomol. 10, 708–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bell C. H. (1976) Effect of cultural factors on the development of four stored product moths. J. Stored Prod. Res. 12, 185–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Benson J. F. (1973) Population dynamics of Bracon hebetor Say (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) and Cadra cautella (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Phyticidae) in a laboratory ecosystem. J. Anim. Ecol. 43, 71–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haincs C. P. (1981) Insects and Arachnids from stored products: A report on specimens received by the Tropical Stored Products Centre 1973-1977. Report of the Tropical Products Institute. pp. 154, iv+ 73.Google Scholar
  14. Keever D. W., Mullen M. A., Press J.W. and Arbogast T. (1986) Augmentation of natural enemies for suppressing two major insect pests in stored farmers stock peanuts. Environ. Entomol. 15, 767–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mbata G. N. (1986) The susceptibility of varieties of groundnuts to infestation by Tribolium castaneum during storage. Trop. Sci. 26, 187–194.Google Scholar
  16. Mbata G. N. (1987) Preliminary observations on the incidence of insect pests and related deterioration in the quality of stored groundnut in some parts of Northern Nigeria. Insect Sci. Applic. 8, 15–19.Google Scholar
  17. Podoler H. (1974) Effects of intraspecific competition in the Indian meal moth (Plodia interpunctella Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Phycitidae) on populations of the moth and its parasite Nemeritis canescens (Gravenhorst) (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae). J. Anim. Ecol. 43, 641–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Prakash A., Pasalu I. C. and Mathur K. C. (1982) Evaluation of plant products as grain protectants in paddy storage. Int. J. Entomol. 1, 75–77.Google Scholar
  19. Prevelt P. F. (1964) The distribution of insects in stacks of bagged groundnuts in Northern Nigeria. Bull, entomol. Res. 54, 689–713.Google Scholar
  20. Smith R. M. (1986) Oviposition, competition and population dynamics in storage insects. Phytoparasitica 14, 337.Google Scholar
  21. Smith R. M. and Howard D. C. (1983) Design and analysis of competition experiments in stored product entomology. Proc. 3rd Int. Working Conf. on Stored Prod. Entomol. Manhattan (Kansas) US Oct. 1983.Google Scholar
  22. Strong R. G., Partida G. J. and Warner D. N. (1968) Rearing stored product insects for laboratory studies: six species of moths. J. econ. Entomol. 61, 1237–1249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Vick K. W., Koehler P. G. and Neal J. J. (1986) Incidence of stored product phycitinae moths in food distribution warehouses as determined by sex pheromone-baited traps. J. econ. Entomol. 79, 936–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. WASPRU (1958) Groundnuts. Annu. Rep. W. Afr. Stored Prod Res. Unit. pp. 19–46.Google Scholar
  25. WASPRU (1960) Astudy of populations of Tribolium spp. and moth in groundnuts pyramids at Kano. Tech. Report No. 4. West African Stored Products Research Unit. pp. 31–34.Google Scholar
  26. White E. G. and Huffaker C.D. (1969) Regulatory processes and population cyclicity in laboratory populations of Anagasta kuhniella (Zeller) (Lepidoptera: Phycitidae) I. Competition forfood and production. Researches Popul. Ecol. Kyoto Univ. II, 57–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ICIPE 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Allotey
    • 1
  • L. Goswami
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesRivers State University of Science and TechnologyNkpolu, Port HarcourtNigeria

Personalised recommendations