Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gq7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T20:14:16.119Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Host distribution, larviposition behaviour and generation time of Sarcophaga penicillata (Diptera: Sarcophagidae), a parasitoid of conical snails

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

James B. Coupland  and
G. Baker
James B. Coupland*
Affiliation:
CSIRO Biological Control Unit, Montferrier sur Lez, France
G. Baker
Affiliation:
CSIRO Division of Entomology, Glen Osmond South Australia, Australia
*
CSIRO Biological Control Unit, Campus International de Baillarguet, 34982 Montferrier sur Lez, France
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Host characteristics, hyperparasitism, larviposition behaviour and generation time of Sarcophaga penicillata Villeneuve a parasitoid of the conical snail, Cochlicella acuta Müller (Mollusca: Helicidae) in southern France are described. Only snails which aestivated on vegetation were found to be parasitized by S. penicillata. Sarcophaga penicillata preferred C. acuta which were both significantly higher off the ground and larger in size than the population averages. Of the 2768 snails collected at the study site, 4% (112) were parasitized by S. penicillata, of which 36.6% (41) failed to emerge while 34% (38) were hyperparasitized. The predominant hyperparasite was Novitzkyanus cryplogaster Bouček (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) which was responsible for 79% (30) of the hyperparasitism. Larvipositing S. penicillata were observed to fabricate a hole in the epiphragm of resting snails in which they deposited one larva. After larviposition, female S. penicillata remained with the freshly parasitized snail a mean time ± SE of 25.2 ± 10.3 min. It is suggested that this may be an adaptive response to avoid superparasitism. The mean generation time of S. penicillata when reared in the laboratory was 18 days, indicating that more than six generations are possible during summer in the south of France. During winter, S. penicillata enters diapause in the pupal stage within a host snail for up to 6 months. The possible utility of S. penicillata as a biological control agent of introduced conical snails is discussed.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 84 , Issue 2 , June 1994 , pp. 185 - 189
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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

Askew, R.R. (1971) Parasitic insects. New York, American Elsevier.Google Scholar
Aubertin, D., Ellis, A.E. & Robinson, G.C. (1930) The natural history and variation of the pointed snail. Cochlicella acuta (Müller). Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 1930, 1027–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, G.H. (1986) The biology and control of white snails (Mollusca: Helicidae), introduced pests in Australia. Common wealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Division of Entomology Technical Paper 25, 1–31.Google Scholar
Baker, G.Hawke, B.G. & Vogelzang, B.K. (1991) Life history and population dynamics of Cochlicella acuta Müller (Gastropoda: Helicidae) in a cereal-pasture rotation. Journal of Molluscan Studies 57, 259–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaver, R.A. (1986a) Some Diptera and their parasitoids bred from dead snails in Zambia. Entomologist's Monthly Magazine 122, 195–199.Google Scholar
Beaver, R.A. (1986b) Biological studies of muscoid flies (Diptera) breeding in mollusc carrion in Southeast Asia. Japanese Journal of Sanitary Zoology 37, 205–211.Google Scholar
Berner, L. (1973) Sur le parasitisme des Hehcides par des mouches du genre Sarcophaga. Bulletin du Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle de Marseille 33, 87–91, 93–94.Google Scholar
Bowell, E.W. (1917) Larva of a dipterous fly feeding on Hehcella itala. Proceedings of the Malacological Society of London 12, 308Google Scholar
Harpaz, I. & Oseri, Y. (1961) Crop damaging snails in Israel and their control. 44 pp. Hebrew University, Faculty of Agriculture, Rehovot, and Citrus Marketing Board, Tel Aviv (English summary).Google Scholar
Hopkins, D.C. & Baker, G. (in press) Biological control of white and conical snails. Proceedings of the 5th Applied Entomological Research Conference(Canberra, Australia).Google Scholar
Keilen, D. (1919) On the life-history and larval anatomy of Melinda cognata Meigen (Diptera: Calliphorinae) parasitic in the snail Hehcella (Heliomanes) virgata Da Costa, with an account of the other diptera living upon molluscs. Parasitology 11, 430–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keilen, D. (1921) Supplementary account of the dipterous larvae feeding upon molluscs. Parasitology 13, 180–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, G. (1975). Shell polymorphism in the snail Cochlicella acuta (Müller) and some data on its genetics. Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society 7, 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perris, E. (1950) Histoire des métamorphoses de quelque diptères. Memoires de Ia Societé Scientifique, Lille 1850, 118–133.Google Scholar
Rostand, J. (1920) Sur la biologie de Sarcophaga filia Pandellé [Dipt.] Bulletin de la Société Entomologique de France 1920, 215–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soós, A. & Papp, L. (1986) Catalogue of Palearctic Diptera. Volume 12: Calliphoridae-Sarcophagidae. 265 pp. Amsterdam, Elsevier Science Publishers.Google Scholar