Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vsgnj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T22:24:16.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

INTERACTIONS AT THREE TROPHIC LEVELS: EDOVUM PUTTLERI GRISSELL (HYMENOPTERA: EULOPHIDAE), THE COLORADO POTATO BEETLE, AND INSECT-RESISTANT POTATOES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

John R. Ruberson ,
Maurice J. Tauber ,
Catherine A. Tauber  and
Ward M. Tingey
John R. Ruberson
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Comstock Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA14853–0999
Maurice J. Tauber
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Comstock Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA14853–0999
Catherine A. Tauber
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Comstock Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA14853–0999
Ward M. Tingey
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Comstock Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA14853–0999
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Resistant potato plants influenced the parasitoid Edovum puttleri Grissell directly, as well as indirectly through eggs of the parasitoid’s host, the Colorado potato beetle, Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say). In the field, E. puttleri parasitized more egg masses on plants with no glandular trichomes or with glandular trichomes bearing only enclosed droplets of exudate than on plants with two types of glandular trichomes (one with exposed droplets and the other bearing enclosed droplets). Trichomes with exposed droplets entrapped numerous parasitoids. Although rearing L. decemlineata on resistant plants influenced many of the beetle’s life-history traits, it did not affect the suitability of their eggs for development and survival of preimaginal E. puttleri. However, eggs from L. decemlineata that were reared on resistant potato plants reduced the longevity of the parasitoids and also reduced the number of hosts (eggs) killed by parasitoids.

Résumé

Des plants de pomme de terre résistants ont affecté le parasitoïde Edovum puttleri Grissel directement et indirectement par la voie d’un effet sur l’hôte, soit les oeufs de doryphore de la pomme de terre, Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say). Sur le terrain, E. puttleri a parasité plus de masses d’oeufs sur des plants sans trichomes glandulaires ou avec des trichomes glandulaires portant seulement des gouttelettes d’exudat non exposées, que sur des plantes portants les deux types de trichomes glandularies (avec et sans gouttelettes exposées). Les trichomes avec gouttelettes exposées ont piégé beaucoup de parasitoïdes. Bien que l’élevage du doryphore sur des plants résistants ait influencé plusieurs des caractéristiques vitales du doryphore, la convenance des oeufs pour le développement et la survie pré-imaginale d’E. puttleri n’a pas été affectée. Cependant les oeufs de L. decemlineata élevé sur plants résistants on réduit la longévité du parasitoïde de même que le nombre d’hôtes (oeufs) éliminés par le parasitoïde.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 121 , Issue 10 , October 1989 , pp. 841 - 851
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1989

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

Barbosa, P., Saunders, J.A., Kemper, J., Trumbule, R., Olechno, J., and Martinat, P.. 1986. Plant allelochemicals and insect parasitoids: effects of nicotine on Cotesia congregata (Say) (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) and Hyposoter annulipes (Cresson) (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae). J. Chem. Ecol. 12: 1319–1328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergman, J.M., and Tingey, W.M.. 1979. Aspects of interaction between plant genotypes and biological control. Bull. ent. Soc. Am. 25: 275–279.Google Scholar
Boethel, D.J., and Eikenbary, R.D. (Eds.). 1986. Interactions of Plant Resistance and Parasitoids and Predators of Insects. Ellis Horwood, West Sussex.Google Scholar
Campbell, B.C., and Duffey, S.S.. 1979. Tomatine and parasitic wasps: potential incompatibility of plant antibiosis with biological control. Science 205: 700–702.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Casagrande, R.A. 1982. Colorado potato beetle resistance in a wild potato, Solanum berthaultii. J. econ. Ent. 75: 368–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conover, W.J. 1980. Practical Nonparametric Statistics, 2nd ed. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Dimock, M.B., and Tingey, W.M.. 1985. Resistance in Solanum spp. to the Colorado potato beetle: mechanisms, genetic resources and potential. pp. 79–106in Ferro, D.N., and Voss, R.H. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Symposium on the Colorado Potato Beetle, XVIIth International Congress of Entomology. Univ. Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Duffey, S.S., Bloem, K.A., and Campbell, B.C.. 1986. Consequences of sequestration of plant natural products in plant-insect-parasitoid interactions. pp. 31–60in Boethel, D.J., and Eikenbary, R.D. (Eds.), Interactions of Plant Resistance and Parasitoids and Predators of Insects. Ellis Horwood, West Sussex.Google Scholar
Gardner, S.M., and Dixon, A.F.G.. 1985. Plant structure and the foraging success of Aphidius rhopalosiphi (Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae). Ecol. Ent. 10: 171–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, R.W. 1971. Glandular hairs provide resistance to aphids in certain wild potato species. Ann. Appl. Biol. 68: 113–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, R.W., and Turner, R.H.. 1977. Insect-trapping hairs on potato plants. PANS 23: 272–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, P., Ave, D.A., Bouthyette, P.Y., and Tingey, W.M.. 1986. Insect-defensive chemistry of potato glandular trichomes. pp. 173–183in Juniper, B., and Southwood, T.R.E. (Eds.), Insects and the Plant Surface. Edward Arnold, London.Google Scholar
Grissell, E.E. 1981. Edovum puttleri, n.g., n.sp. (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae), an egg parasite of the Colorado potato beetle (Chrysomelidae). Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 83: 790–796.Google Scholar
Herzog, D.C., and Funderburk, J.E.. 1985. Plant resistance and cultural practice interactions with biological control. pp. 67–88in Hoy, M.A., and Herzog, D.C. (Eds.), Biological Control in Agricultural IPM Systems. Academic, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huffaker, C.B. 1985. Biological control in integrated pest management: an entomological perspective. pp. 13–23in Hoy, M.A., and Herzog, D.C. (Eds.), Biological Control in Agricultural IPM Systems. Academic, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulspas-Jordan, P.M., and van Lenteren, J.C.. 1978. The relationship between host-plant leaf structure and parasitization efficiency of the parasitic wasp Encarsia formosa Gahan (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae). Med. Fac. Landbouww. Rijksuniv. Gent. 43: 431–440.Google Scholar
Jervis, M.A., and Kidd, N.A.C.. 1986. Host-feeding strategies in hymenopteran parasitoids. Biol. Rev. 61: 395–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffman, W.C., and Flanders, R.V.. 1985. Effects of variably resistant soybean and lima bean cultivars on Pediobius foveolatus (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae), a parasitoid of the Mexican bean beetle, Epilachna varivestis (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Environ. Ent. 14: 678–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lashomb, J.H., and Casagrande, R.A. (Eds.). 1982. Advances in Potato Pest Management. Hutchinson and Ross, Stroudsburg, PA.Google Scholar
Lashomb, J., Krainacker, D., Jansson, R.K., Ng, Y.S., and Chianese, R.. 1987. Parasitism of Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say) eggs by Edovum puttleri (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae): effects of host age, parasitoid age, and temperature. Can. Ent. 119: 75–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordlund, D.A., and Lewis, W.J.. 1976. Terminology of chemical releasing stimuli in intraspecific and interspecific interactions. J. Chem. Ecol. 2: 211–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Obrycki, J.J. 1986. The influence of foliar pubescence on entomophagous species. pp. 61–83in Boethel, D.J., and Eikenbary, R.D. (Eds.), Interactions of Plant Resistance and Parasitoids and Predators of Insects. Ellis Horwood, West Sussex.Google Scholar
Obrycki, J.J., and Tauber, M.J.. 1984. Natural enemy activity on glandular pubescent potato plants in the greenhouse: an unreliable predictor of effects in the field. Environ. Ent. 13: 679–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Obrycki, J.J., Tauber, M.J., Tauber, C.A., and Gollands, B.. 1985. Edovum puttleri (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae), an exotic egg parasitoid of the Colorado potato beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae): responses to temperate zone conditions and resistant potato plants. Environ. Ent. 14: 48–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Obrycki, J.J., Tauber, M.J., and Tingey, W.M.. 1983. Predator and parasitoid interaction with aphid-resistant potatoes to reduce aphid densities: a two-year field study. J. econ. Ent. 76: 456–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orr, D.B., and Boethel, D.J.. 1985. Comparative development of Copidosoma truncatellum (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) and its host, Pseudoplusia includens (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), on resistant and susceptible soybean genotypes. Environ Ent. 14: 612–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orr, D.B., and Boethel, D.J.. 1986. Influence of plant antibiosis through four trophic levels. Oecologia 70: 242–249.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Orr, D.B., Boethel, D.J., and Jones, W.A.. 1985. Biology of Telenomus chloropus (Hymenoptera: Scelionidae) from eggs of Nezara viridula (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) reared on resistant and susceptible soybean genotypes. Can. Ent. 117: 1137–1142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, P.W. 1986. Ecological aspects of host plant resistance and biological control: interactions among three trophic levels. pp. 11–30in Boethel, D.J., and Eikenbary, R.D. (Eds.), Interactions of Plant Resistance and Parasitoids and Predators of Insects. Ellis Horwood, West Sussex.Google Scholar
Price, P.W., Bouton, C.E., Gross, P., McPheron, B.A., Thompson, J.N., and Weis, A.E.. 1980. Interactions among three trophic levels: influence of plants on interactions between insect herbivores and natural enemies. A. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 11: 41–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabb, R.L., and Bradley, J.R.. 1968. The influence of host plants on parasitism of eggs of the tobacco hornworm. J. econ. Ent. 61: 1249–1252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruberson, J.R., Tauber, M.J., and Tauber, C.A.. 1987. Biotypes of Edovum puttleri (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae): responses to developing eggs of the Colorado potato beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 80: 451–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruberson, J.R., Tauber, M.J., and Tauber, C.A.. 1988. Reproductive biology of two biotypes of Edovum puttleri, a parasitoid of Colorado potato beetle eggs. Ent. exp. appl. 46: 211–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G.W., and Cochran, W.G.. 1980. Statistical Methods, 7th ed. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames.Google Scholar
Sokal, R.R., and Rohlf, F.J.. 1981. Biometry, 2nd ed. Freeman and Co., New York.Google Scholar
Starks, K.J., Muniappan, R., and Eikenbary, R.D.. 1972. Interaction between plant resistance and parasitism against the greenbug on barley and sorghum. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 65: 650–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tingey, W.M., and Laubengayer, J.E.. 1981. Defense against the green peach aphid and potato leafhopper by the glandular trichomes of Solanum berthaultii. J. econ. Ent. 74: 721–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tingey, W.M., and Sinden, S.L.. 1982. Glandular pubescence, glycoalkaloid composition, and resistance to the green peach aphid, potato leafhopper, and potato fleabeetle in Solanum berthaultii. Am. Potato J. 59: 95–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Lenteren, J.C., van Vianen, A., Gast, H.F., and Kortenhoff, A.. 1987. The parasite-host relationship between Encarsia formosa Gahan (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) and Trialeurodes vaporariorum (Westwood) (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae). XVI. Food effects on oogenesis, oviposition, life-span and fecundity of Encarsia formosa and other hymenopterous parasites. J.Appl. Ent. 103: 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waller, R.A., and Duncan, D.B.. 1969. A Bayes rule for the symmetric multiple comparisons problem. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 64: 1484–1503.Google Scholar
Wright, R.J., Dimock, M.B., Tingey, W.M., and Plaisted, R.L.. 1985. Colorado potato beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae): expression of resistance in Solanum berthaultii and interspecific potato hybrids. J. econ. Ent. 78: 576–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar