Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-k7p5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T18:45:55.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Biology of the Diamondback Moth, Plutella maculipennis (Curt.) (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae), in Eastern Ontario. II. Life-History, Behaviour, and Host Relationships1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

D. G. Harcourt
D. G. Harcourt
Affiliation:
Crop Insect Section, Entomology Laboratory Ottawa, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The diamondback moth, Plutella maculipennis (Curt.), is one of three species of Lepidoptera that annually cause serious commercial damage to cabbage and related crops in Ontario. It has long been underrated as a pest of cruciferous crops, possibly because of its small size; in eastern Ontario, it is much more numerous than the other two species and ranks second in importance to the imported cabbageworm, Pieris rapae (L.) (Harcourt et al., 1955). Its biology in eastern Ontario was investigated from 1951 to 1956. The history, distribution, and synonomy of the insect and general descriptions of the stages were given earlier (Harcourt, 1956). This article presents the life-history, behaviour, and host relationships.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 89 , Issue 12 , December 1957 , pp. 554 - 564
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1957

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

Frankton, C. 1955. Weeds of Canada. Canada Dept. Agr. Pub. 948.Google Scholar
Gunn, D. 1917. The small cabbage moth (Plutella maculipennis Curtis). South Africa Dept. Agr. Bull. 8.Google Scholar
Harcourt, D. G. 1954. The biology and ecology of the diamondback moth, Plutella maculipennis (Curt.), in eastern Ontario. Ph.D. thesis. Cornell University.Google Scholar
Harcourt, D. G., Backs, R. H., and Cass, L. M.. 1955. Abundance and relative importance of caterpillars attacking cabbage in eastern Ontario. Canadian Ent. 87: 400–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harcourt, D. G. 1956. Biology of the diamondback moth, Plutella maculipennis (Curt.) (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae), in eastern Ontario. I. Distribution, economic history, synonomy, and general descriptions. 37th Rept. Quebec Soc. Prot. Plants, 1955, pp. 155–160.Google Scholar
Harcourt, D. G. 1957. An outdoor study cage for phytophagous insects. Ann. Rept. Ent. Soc. Ontario 87: 11–14.Google Scholar
Hardy, J. E. 1938. Plutella maculipennis, Curt., its natural and biological control in England. Bull. Ent. Res. 29: 343–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, P. K., and Brubaker, R. W.. 1943. The relative abundance of cabbage caterpillars on cole crops grown under similar conditions. J. Econ. Ent. 36: 589–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanervo, V. 1936. The diamondback moth (Plutella maculipennis Curt.) as a pest of cruciferous plants in Finland [in Finnish]. Valt. Mattalousk. Julk. No. 86. Helsingfors, Finland.Google Scholar
List, G. M. 1937. Possible migration of diamondback moth. J. Econ. Ent. 30: 676.Google Scholar
Marsh, O. H. 1917. The life history of Plutella maculipennis, the diamondback moth. J. Agr. Res. 10: 1–10.Google Scholar
Miles, H. W. 1924. The diamondback moth, Plutella maculipennis. Ann. Rept. Kirton Agr. Inst., 1923, pp. 45–48.Google Scholar
Muggeridge, J. 1930. The diamondback moth. Its occurrence and control in New Zealand. New Zealand J. Agr. 41: 253–264.Google Scholar
Mulhern, T. D. 1942. New Jersey mechanical trap for mosquito surveys. New Jersey Expt. Sta. Circ. 421.Google Scholar
Robertson, P. L. 1939. Diamondback moth investigations in New Zealand. New Zealand J. Sci. and Tech. 20(A): 330–340.Google Scholar
Turner, W. B. 1918. Female Lepidoptera at light traps. J. Agr. Res. 14: 135–149.Google Scholar
Williams, C. B. 1939. An analysis of four years captures of insects in a light trap. Part I. General survey; sex proportion; phenology; and time of flight. Trans. Roy. Ent. Soc. London 89: 79–132.Google Scholar