Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Biological differences reflect host preference in two parasitoids attacking the bark beetle Ips typographus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in Belgium

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

E. Hougardy
Affiliation:
Lutte biologique et Ecologie spatiale CP 160/12, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 50 av. F.D. Roosevelt, 1050 Bruxelles, Belgium
J.-C. Grégoire
Affiliation:
Lutte biologique et Ecologie spatiale CP 160/12, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 50 av. F.D. Roosevelt, 1050 Bruxelles, Belgium
Corresponding

Abstract

The basic reproductive biology of two ectoparasitoids developing on the late larval instars of the scolytid Ips typographus Linnaeus, a pest of spruce forests in Eurasia, was studied with the purpose of explaining which biological features allow the two species to share the same host. The anautogenous braconid Coeloides bostrichorum Giraud had a longer pre-oviposition period (5.1 vs. 3.3 days), a greater egg load (8.1 vs. 6.1 eggs), survived longer and emerged later than the pteromalid Rhopalicus tutela (Walker). In contrast, R. tutela was autogenous and tended to be more fecund under constrained conditions (9.7 vs. 5.1 total offspring per female). The longer pre-oviposition period of the specialist C. bostrichorum, coupled with its greater longevity, afforded the opportunity of better synchronization of ovipositing females with late instar larvae of I. typographus. By contrast, the polyphagous R. tutela matured rapidly, allowing parasitism of both younger and older larval instars of I. typographus in addition to other species. These small differences favoured the co-occurrence of the two parasitoid species on the same attacked trees.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Abgrall, J.F. & Schvester, D. (1987) Observations sur le piégeage de Ips typographus L. après chablis. Revue Forestière Française 29, 359377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chararas, C. (1962) Etude biologique des scolytides des conifères Encyclopédie entomologique, Ser.A-38, 556 pp. Paris LechevalierGoogle Scholar
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, 2733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christiansen, E. & Bakke, A. (1988) The spruce bark beetle of Eurasia. Dynamics of forest insect populations: patterns, causes, implications pp. 479503Berryman, A.A. (eds) New York, Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doutt, R.L. (1964) Biological characteristics of entomophagous adults. Biological control of insect pests and weeds pp. 145167Debach, P. (eds) London Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Drumtra, D.E.W. & Stephen, F.M. (1999) Incidence of wildflower visitation by hymenopterous parasitoids of southern pine beetle, Dendroctonus frontalis Zimmermann (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Journal of Entomological Science 34, 484488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfray, H.C.J. (1994) Parasitoids: behavioural and evolutionary ecology 473 pp. New Jersey, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Graham, M.W.R., de, V. (1969) The Pteromalidae of north-western Europe (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), London 16, 412427.Google Scholar
Grégoire, J.-C. & Evans, H.F. (2004) Damage and control of BAWBILT organisms–an overview. in Lieutier, F., Day, K., Battisti, A., Grégoire, J.-C., Evans, H. (eds) European bark and wood boring insects in living trees: a synthesis. Kluwer, in press.Google Scholar
Grégoire, J.-C., Raty, L., Drumont, A., De Windt, N. & De Proft, M. (1995) Ips typographus, natural enemies and the forester, Behavior, population dynamics and control of forest insects 202207.Google Scholar
Hain, F.P., Salom, S.M., Ravlin, W.F., Payne, T.L., Raffa, K.F. Proceedings of IUFRO Joint Conference, Maui Hawaii (1994)Google Scholar
Hedqvist, K.-J. (1998) Bark-beetle enemies in Sweden II. Braconidae (Hymenoptera). Entomologica Scandinavica Supplements 52, 187.Google Scholar
Hougardy, E., Grégoire, J.-C. (2000) Spruce stands provide natural food sources to adult hymenopteran parasitoids of bark-beetles. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 96, 253263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hougardy, E., Grégoire, J.-C. (2003) Cleptoparasitism increases the host finding abilities of a polyphagous species, Rhopalicus tutela (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 55, 184189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jervis, M.A., Copland, M.J.W. (1996) The life cycle. Insect natural enemies: practical approaches to their study and evaluation pp 376394Jervis, M.A., Kidd, N. (eds) LondonChapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenis, M. (1996) Factors affecting sex ratio in rearing of Coeloides sordidator (Hym. Braconidae). Entomophaga 41, 217224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenis, M., Wermelinger, B., Grégoire, J.-C. (2004) Research on parasitoids and predators of Scolytidae in living trees in Europe–a review. in Lieutier, F., Day, K., Battisti, A., Grégoire, J.-C., Evans, H. (eds) European bark and wood boring insects in living trees: a synthesis. Kluwer, in pressGoogle Scholar
King, P.H. (1963) The rate of egg resorption in Nasonia vitripennis (Walker) (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) deprived of hosts. Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society of London (A) 38, 98100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krüger, K. & Mills, N.J. (1990) Observations on the biology of three parasitoids of the spruce bark beetle, Ips typographus (Col., Scolytidae): Coeloides bostrichorum, Dendrosoter middendorffii (Hym., Braconidae) and Rhopalicus tutela (Hym., Pteromalidae). Journal of Applied Entomology 110, 281291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendel, Z. (1988) Effects of food, temperature and breeding conditions on the life span of adults of three cohabiting bark beetle (Scolytidae) parasitoids (Hymenoptera). Environmental Entomology 17, 293295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, N.J. (1983) The natural enemies of scolytids infesting conifer bark in Europe in relation to the biological control of Dendroctonus spp. in Canada. Biocontrol News and Information 4, 305328.Google Scholar
Mills, N.J. (1986) A preliminary analysis of the dynamics of within tree populations of Ips typographus (L.). Journal of Applied Entomology 102, 402416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuorteva, M. (1957) Zur kenntnis der parasitischen hymenopteren der borkenkäfer finnlands. Annales Entomologici Fennici 23, 4771.Google Scholar
Pimentel, D. (1963) Introducing parasites and predators to control native pests. Canadian Entomologist 95, 785792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, P.W. (1997) Insect ecology. 873 pp. New York, John Wiley and SonsGoogle Scholar
Pschorn-Walcher, H. (1977) Biological control of forest insects. Annual Review of Entomology 22, 122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raty, L., Drumont, A., De Windt, N., Grégoire, J.-C. (1995) Mass trapping of the spruce bark beetle Ips typographus L.: trap or trap trees? Forest Ecology and Management 78, 191205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, R.B. & Rudinsky, J.A. (1962) Biology and habits of the Douglas-fir beetle parasite, Coeloides brunneri Viereck (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), in western Oregon. Canadian Entomologist 94, 748763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, S., Castellan, J. Jr. (1998) Non-parametric statistics for the behavioural sciences. 2nd edn. 385 pp. New York, McGraw-Hill International Editions.Google Scholar
SPSS (2001) SPSS 11.0 1 for Windows, SPSS Inc, Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
Stephen, F.M., Lih, M.P. & Brown, L.E. (1997) Augmentation of Dendroctonus frontalis parasitoid effectiveness by artificial diet. Integrating cultural tactics into the management of bark beetle and reforestation pests. 15–22 Grégoire, J.-C., Liebhold, A.M., Stephen, F.M., Day, K.R., Salom, S.M. (eds) U DA Forest Service General Technical Report NE-236Google Scholar
Visser, M.E. (1994) The importance of being large: the relationship between size and fitness in females of the parasitoid Aphaereta minuta (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Journal of Animal Ecology 63, 963978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wellings, P.W., Morton, R. & Hurt, P.J. (1986) Primary sex-ratio and differential progeny survivorship in solitary haplo-diploid parasitoids. Ecological Entomology 11, 341348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weslien, J. & Regnander, J. (1992) The influence of natural enemies on brood production in Ips typographus (Col. Scolytidae) with special reference to egg-laying and predation by Thanasimus formicarius (Col.: Cleridae). Entomophaga 37, 333342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 13 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 26th January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-898fc554b-p5tlp Total loading time: 0.676 Render date: 2021-01-26T03:54:33.951Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Biological differences reflect host preference in two parasitoids attacking the bark beetle Ips typographus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in Belgium
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Biological differences reflect host preference in two parasitoids attacking the bark beetle Ips typographus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in Belgium
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Biological differences reflect host preference in two parasitoids attacking the bark beetle Ips typographus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in Belgium
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *