Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-7drxs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T12:40:57.374Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CRITERIA FOR SELECTING CHRYSOPA CARNEA BIOTYPES FOR BIOLOGICAL CONTROL: ADULT DIETARY REQUIREMENTS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Maurice J. Tauber  and
Catherine A. Tauber
Maurice J. Tauber
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
Catherine A. Tauber
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Based on our studies with 10 geographic populations of Chrysopa carnea, we recommend that biological control programs involving this predator use "pure" carnea stock originating from eastern and midwestern North America. Of the two strains (races or biotypes) of C. carnea—carnea and mohave—carnea is the superior choice for biological control on commercial crops in both eastern and western North America because (1) its preoviposition period is approximately one-half as long as mohave’s, (2) unlike mohave adults, neither sex of the carnea strain requires prey for successful mating and initiating oviposition, (3) carnea’s oviposition can be enhanced in the field by applying currently available food sprays, and (4) carnea is efficient to mass-rear on a commercial basis.

The “pure” mohave race is restricted to limited areas on the west coast. This race, which can enter a food-mediated summer diapause, is more suitable for biological control on the west coast in non-agricultural situations dominated by native vegetation, where prey occurrence is highly variable during summer.

Most west coast populations in agricultural areas are composed of intermediates between the carnea and mohave races. F1 hybrids produced by crossing individuals from mohave, carnea, and intermediate populations, show predominantly carnea characteristics, and inheritance of the distinguishing biological traits appears to be controlled by polygenes.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 107 , Issue 6 , June 1975 , pp. 589 - 595
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1975

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

Carlson, R. E. and Chiang, H. C.. 1973. Reduction of an Ostrinia nubilalis population by predatory insects attracted by sucrose sprays. Entomophaga 18: 205–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeBach, P. (Ed.). 1964. Biological control of insect pests and weeds. Chapman and Hall, London. 844 pp.Google Scholar
DeBach, P. 1974. Biological control by natural enemies. Cambridge Univ. Press, London. 323 pp.Google Scholar
Dietrick, E. J. 1973. Private enterprise pest management based on biological control. In Proc. Tall Timbers Conf. on Ecol. Animal Control, No. 4, pp. 7–20.Google Scholar
Hagen, K. S., Sawall, E. F., and Tassan, R. L.. 1971. The use of food sprays to increase effectiveness of entomophagous insects. In Proc. Tall Timbers Conf. on Ecol. Animal Control, No. 2, pp. 59–81.Google Scholar
Harris, P. 1973. The selection of effective agents for the biological control of weeds. Can. Ent. 105: 1495–1503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huffaker, C. B. (Ed.). 1971. Biological control. Plenum Press, New York. 511 pp.Google Scholar
Levins, R. 1969. Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental heterogeneity for biological control. Bull. ent. Soc. Am 15: 237–240.Google Scholar
Messenger, P. S. and van den Bosch, R.. 1971. The adaptability of introduced biological control agents, pp. 68–91. In Huffaker, C. B. (Ed.), Biological control. Plenum, New York and London.Google Scholar
Remington, C. L. 1968. The population genetics of insect introduction. Ann. Rev. Ent. 13: 415–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridgway, R. L. and Jones, S. L.. 1969. Inundative releases of Chrysopa carnea for control of Heliothis on cotton. J. econ. Ent. 62: 177–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shands, W. A., Simpson, G. W., and Brunson, M. H.. 1972. Insect predators for controlling aphids on potatoes. I. In small plots. J. econ. Ent. 65: 511–514.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tauber, C. A. 1974. Systematics of North American chrysopid larvae: Chrysopa carnea group (Neuroptera). Can. Ent. 106: 1133–1153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tauber, M. J. and Tauber, C. A.. 1971. An autosomal recessive (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) mutant in a neuropteran. Can. Ent. 103: 906–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tauber, M. J. and Tauber, C. A.. 1972. Geographic variation in critical photoperiod and in diapause intensity of Chrysopa carnea (Neuroptera). J. Insect Physiol. 18: 25–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tauber, M. J. and Tauber, C. A.. 1973 a. Insect phenology: Criteria for analyzing dormancy and for forecasting postdiapause development and reproduction in the field. Search, Cornell Univ. 3: 1–16.Google Scholar
Tauber, M. J. and Tauber, C. A.. 1973 b. Nutritional and photoperiodic control of the seasonal reproductive cycle in Chrysopa mohave (Neuroptera). J. Insect Physiol. 19: 729–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tauber, M. J. and Tauber, C. A.. 1973 c. Diversification and secondary intergradation of two Chrysopa carnea strains (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). Can. Ent. 105: 1153–1167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tauber, M. J. and Tauber, C. A.. 1974. Dietary influence on reproduction in both sexes of five predacious species (Neuroptera). Can. Ent. 106: 921–925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van den Bosch, R. and Messenger, P. S.. 1973. Biological control. Intext Educational Publishers, New York and London. 180 pp.Google Scholar