Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qs9v7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-14T01:47:06.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Helicoverpa armigera (Noctuidae, Lepidoptera) host stages on some developmental parameters of the uniparental endoparasitoid Meteorus pulchricornis (Braconidae, Hymenoptera)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 December 2007

Liu Ya-hui  and
Li Bao-ping
Liu Ya-hui
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing210095, P R China
Li Bao-ping*
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing210095, P R China
*
*Author for correspondence: Li Bao-ping E-mail: lbp@njau.eud.cn Fax: (86) 25 84396394
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A single choice test was performed to examine developmental strategies in the uniparental endoparasitoid Meteorus pulchricornis and its host, the cotton bollworm Helicoverpa armigera. The results support the dome-shaped model in which the fitness functions are ‘dome-shaped’ relative to size (and age) of host at parasitism. Older and, hence, larger host larvae were simply not better hosts for the developing parasitoids. Although parasitoid size (measured as cocoon weight and adult hind tibia length) was positively correlated with host instars at parasitism, parasitoids developing in larger hosts (L5 and L6) suffered much higher mortality than conspecifics developing in smaller hosts (L2–L4). Furthermore, egg-to-adult development time in M. pulchricornis was significantly longer in older host larvae (L4–L6) than in the younger. Performance of M. pulchricornis, as indicated by fitness-related traits, strongly suggests that the L3 host is the most suitable for survival, growth and development of the parasitoid, followed by both L2 and L4 hosts; whereas, L1, L5 and L6 are the least favourable hosts. The oviposition tendency of M. pulchricornis, represented by parasitism level, was not perfectly consistent with the performance of the offspring; L2–L4 hosts, although with the same parasitism level, had offspring parasitoids with differences in fitness-related performance. Larval development in Helicoverpa armigera was usually suspended, but occasionally advanced, in the final instar.

Keywords

Meteorus pulchricornisHelicoverpa armigerahost instarbody sizefitness functionslife historyNoctuidaeBraconidaeparasitoids
Type
Research Paper
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 98 , Issue 2 , April 2008 , pp. 109 - 114
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Charnov, E.L., Los-den-Hartogh, R.L., Jones, W.T. & van den Assem, J. (1981) Sex ratio evolution in a variable environment. Nature 289, 27–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corrigan, J.E. & Lashomb, J.H. (1990) Host influences on the bionomics of Edovum puttleri (Hymneoptera: Eulophide): effects on size and reproduction. Environmental Entomology 19, 1496–1502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuester, R.W., Taylor, P.B., Peng, H. & Swan, K. (1993) Laboratory biology of a uniparental strain of Meteorus pulchricornis (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), an exotic larval parasite of the gypsy moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae). Annals of Entomoogical Society of America 86, 298–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gauld, I.D. (1988) Evolutionary patterns of host utilization by ichneumonoid parasitoids (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae and Braconidae). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 57, 137–162.Google Scholar
Godfray, H.C.J. (1994) Parasitoids: Behavioral and Evolutionary Ecology. 473 pp. Princeton, New Jersey, USA, Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, J.A. (2000) Dynamic effects of parasitism by an endoparasitoid wasp on the development of two host species: implications for host quality and parasitoid fitness. Ecological Entomology 25, 267–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, J.A. & Strand, M.R. (2002) The developmental strategies of endoparasitoid wasps vary with host feeding ecology. Ecology 83, 2349–2451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, J.A., Harvey, I.F. & Thompson, D.J. (1994) Flexible larval growth allows use of a range of host sizes by a parasitoid wasp. Ecology 75, 1420–1428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, J.A., Bezemer, T.M., Elzinga, J.A. & Strand, M.R. (2004) Development of the solitary endoparasitoid Microplitis demolitor: host quality does not increase with host age and size. Ecological Entomology 29, 35–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, B.H. (1993) Sex ratio manipulation by parasitoid wasps. pp. 418–441in Wrensch, D.L. & Ebert, M.A. (Eds) Evolution and Diversity of Sex Ratio in Insect and Mites. New York, USA, Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Q.F. (1984) Preliminary observation on thelyotoky in Meteorus pulchricornis (Wesmael). Entomological Knowledge 21, 82–83.Google Scholar
Liu, Y.H. & Li, B.P. (2006) Developmental interactions between Spodoptera exigua (Noctuidae, Lepidoptera) and its uniparental endoparasitoid, Meteorus pulchricornis (Braconidae, Hymenoptera). Biological Control 38, 264–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackauer, M. (1973) Host selection and host suitability in Aphidius smithi (Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae). pp. 20–29in Lowe, A.D. (Ed.) Perspectives in aphid biology. Auckland, NZ, Bulletin of the Entomological Society of New Zealand.Google Scholar
Mackauer, M., Sequeira, R. & Otte, M. (1997) Growth and development in parasitoid wasps: adaptation to variable host resources. pp. 191–203in Detter, K., Bauer, G. & Volkl, W. (Eds) Vertical Food Web Interactions. Berlin, Germany, Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otto, M. & Mackauer, M. (1998) The developmental strategy of an idiobiont ectoparasitoid, Dendrocerus carpenteri: influence of variations in host quality on offspring growth and fitness. Oecologia 117, 353–364.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shen, J.L. & Wu, Y.D. (1995) Pesticide resistance and management of Helicoverpa armigera. China Agricultural Press, Beijing, pp. 91–94.Google Scholar
Slansky, F. (1986) Nutritional ecology of endoparasitic insects and their hosts – an overview. Journal of Insect Physiology 32, 255–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strand, M.R. (2000) Development traits and life-history evolution in parasitoids. pp. 139–162in Hochberg, M.E. & Ives, A.R. (Eds) Parasitoid population biology. Princeton, NJ, USA, Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strand, M.R. & Pech, L.L. (1995) Immunological basis for compatibility in parasitoid-host relationships. Annual Review of Entomology 40, 31–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strand, M.R., Johnson, J.A. & Culin, J.R. (1988) Developmental interactions between the parasitoid Microplitis demolitor (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) and its host Heliothis virescens (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 81, 822–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, T., Sato, Y. & Hidaka, T. (1984) Developmental interactions between Leucania separata (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) and its braconid parasitoid, Microplitis mediator (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 77, 91–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vinson, S.B. & Iwantsch, G.F. (1980) Host regulation by insect parasitoids. The Quarterly Review of Biology 55, 143–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zar, J.H. (1996) Biostatistical Analysis. 3rd edn.663 pp. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, Prentice Hall.Google Scholar