Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-21T01:36:36.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Uscana lariophaga (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae), an egg parasitoid of bruchid beetle (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) storage pests in West Africa: host-age and host-species selection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

A. van Huis ,
M. G. Wijkamp ,
P. M. Lammers ,
C. G. M. Klein Goldewijk ,
J. H. van Seeters  and
N. K. Kaashoek
A. van Huis*
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Wageningen Agricultural University, The Netherlands
M. G. Wijkamp
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Wageningen Agricultural University, The Netherlands
P. M. Lammers
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Wageningen Agricultural University, The Netherlands
C. G. M. Klein Goldewijk
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Wageningen Agricultural University, The Netherlands
J. H. van Seeters
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Wageningen Agricultural University, The Netherlands
N. K. Kaashoek
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Wageningen Agricultural University, The Netherlands
*
Dr A. van Huis, Department of Entomology, Wageningen Agricultural University, P.O. Box 8031, 6700 EH Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Uscana lariophaga Steffan is an egg parasitoid of bruchid species in West Africa. The hosts are Callosobrucbus maculatus (Fabricius) and Bruchidius atrolineatus Pic, insect pests of stored cowpea. Experiments were carried out to study the selection between hosts of different ages and of different species in choice and no-choice situations. Results were obtained through parasitization studies and by direct behavioural observations. A description of the parasitization behaviour of Uscana lariophaga is given. At 30°C, C. maculatus eggs of 0–2 day old are readily accepted for parasitization, but in a choice situation the 0 day old eggs are preferred. Of the older eggs only those of 3 days old are parasitized but significantly less than those of 0–2 days. At 30°C, B. atrolineatus eggs older than 24 hours are significantly less parasitized than younger eggs also in the no-choice situation. When eggs are older than one day, the time needed for penetrating the egg increases with host age. Both bruchid species are suitable hosts for U. lariophaga. In a choice situation B. atrolineatus is the preferred host and especially so when U. lariophaga has been reared on this species. However, in a no-choice situation the highest rate of successful parasitization is obtained on hosts of the species from which they have been reared. The higher parasitization rate of C. maculatus in the field in Niger can be explained by the difference in the susceptible period between the two host species.

Type
Research Paper
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 81 , Issue 1 , March 1991 , pp. 65 - 76
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

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

Alzouma, I. (1987) Réproduction et développement de Bruchidius atrolineatus Pic (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) aux dépens des cultures de Vigna unguiculata L. Walp (Leguminosae Papilionacea) dans un agrosystème sahélien au Niger. 274 pp. Thèse présentée à l'Université François-Rabelais de Tours, France.Google Scholar
Arbogast, R.T. (1984) Biological control of stored-product insects: status and prospects, pp. 226–238in Baur, F.J. (Ed.) Insect management for food storage and processing. Minnesota, American Association of Cereal Chemists.Google Scholar
Booker, R.H. (1967) Observations on three bruchids associated with cowpea in Northern Nigeria. Journal of Stored Products Research 3, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caswell, G.H. (1961) The infestation of cowpeas in the Western Region of Nigeria. Tropical Science 3, 154–158.Google Scholar
Caswell, G.H. (1968) The storage of cowpea in the Northern states of Nigeria. Proceedings of the Agricultural Society of Nigeria 5, 4–6.Google Scholar
Dijken, M.J. van, Kole, M., Lenteren, J.C. van & Brand, A.M. (1986) Host-preference studies with several strains of Trichogramma evanescens Westwood (Hymenoptera: Tricho-grammatidae) for Mamestra brassicae, Pieris brassicae and Pieris rapae. Zeitschrift für angewandte Entomologie 101, 64–85.Google Scholar
El-Sawaf, S.K. (1956) Some factors affecting the longevity, oviposition and rate of development in the southern cowpea weevil, Callosobruchus maculatus (F.). Bulletin de la Societé Entomologique d'Egypte 40, 29–95.Google Scholar
Germain, J.F., Monge, J.P. & Huignard, J. (1987) Development of two bruchid populations (Bruchidius atrolineatus (Pic) and Callosobruchus maculatus (Fab.)) infesting stored cowpea (Vigna unguiculata Walp) pods in Niger. Journal of Stored Products Research 23, 157–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giga, D.P. & Smith, R.H. (1983) Comparative life history studies of four Callosobruchus species infesting cowpeas with special reference to Callosobruchus rhodesianus (Pic) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Journal of Stored Products Research 19, 189–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haines, C.P. (1984) Biological methods for integrated control of insects and mites in tropical stored products. III: the use of predators and parasites. Tropical Stored Products Information 48, 17–25.Google Scholar
Howe, R.W. & Currie, J.E. (1964) Some laboratory observations on the rates of development, mortality and oviposition of several species of Bruchidae breeding in stored pulses. Bulletin of Entomological Research 55, 456–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huignard, J., Leroi, B., Alzouma, I. & Germain, J.F. (1985) Oviposition and development of Bruchidius atrolineatus (Pic) and Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) in Vigna unguiculata (Walp) cultures in Niger. Insect Science and its Application 6, 691–699.Google Scholar
Huis, A. van (in press) Biological methods of bruchid control in the tropics: a review. Insect Science and its Application.Google Scholar
Huis, A. Van (in press) Biological control of bruchids (Col.: Bruchidae) in stored pulses by using egg parasitoids of the genus Uscana (Hym.: Trichogrammatidae): a review. Proceedings 5th International Working Conference on Stored Product Protection (9–14 September 1990), Bordeaux.Google Scholar
Jackai, L.E.N. & Daoust, R.A. (1986) Insect pests of cowpeas. Annual Review of Entomology 31, 95–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, L., Pham-Delegue, M.H. & Masson, C. (1989) Behavioural study of plasticity in host preferences of Trichogramma maidis Pint & Voeg. Physiological Entomology 14, 53–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lammers, P.M. & van Huis, A. (1989) Uscana lariophaga Steffan (Hym.: Trichogrammatidae), egg parasitoid of the stored insect pests Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) and Bruchidius atrolineatus Pic (Col.: Bruchidae): population studies in the field and in storage in Niger. Proceedings International Conference on Integrated Pest Management in Tropical and Subtropical Ecosystems, (8–15 Febr. 1989) Bad Dürkheim 3, 1013–1022.Google Scholar
Lenteren, J.C. van (1981) Host discrimination by insect parasitoids. pp. 153–179in Nordlund, D.A., Jones, R.L. & Lewis, W.J. (Eds) Semiochemicals, their role in pest control. New York, Wiley.Google Scholar
Messina, F.J. & Renwick, J.A.A. (1985) Mechanism of egg recognition by the cowpea weevil Callosobruchus maculatus. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 37, 241–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monge, J.P. & Huignard, J. (in press) Study of two bruchid species Callosobruchus maculatus (Fab) and Bruchidius atrolineatus (Pic) and their parasitoids Dinarmus basalis (Rond) and Eupelmus vuilleti (Crw) in a storage situation in Niger. 17 pp. Journal of African Zoology.Google Scholar
Noldus, L.P.J.J. (1988) ‘The Observer’: an integrated system for event recording and data analysis in behavioural research. Proceedings 18th International Congress of Entomology (3–9 July 1988), Vancouver, 228.Google Scholar
Noldus, L.P.J.J. (1989) Semiochemicals, foraging behaviour and quality of entomophagous insects for biological control. Journal of Appied Entomology 108, 425–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pak, G.A. (1988) Selection of Trichogramma for inundative biological control. 224 pp. PhD Thesis Wageningen Agricultural University.Google Scholar
Pak, G.A., Buis, H.C.E.M., Heck, I.C.C. & Hermans, M.L.G. (1986) Behavioural variations among strains of Trichogramma spp.: host-age selection. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 40, 247–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prevett, P.F. (1961) Field infestation of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) pods by beetles of the familes Bruchidae and Curculionidae in Northern Nigeria. Bulletin of Entomological Research 52, 635–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steffan, J.R. (1954) Note sur le genre Uscana Girlt. (Hym. Trichogrammatidae) et description d'espèces nouvelles parasites de bruches. Bulletin du Muséum, 2e série 26, 667–673.Google Scholar
Suzuki, Y., Tsuji, H. & Sasakawa, M. (1984) Sex allocation and effects of superparasitism on secondary sex ratios in the gregarious parasitoid, Trichogramma chilonis (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae). Animal Behaviour 32, 478–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wäckers, F.L., de Groott, I.J.M., Noldus, L.P.J.J. & Hassan, S.A. (1987) Measuring host preference of Trichogramma egg parasites: an evaluation of direct and indirect methods. Mededelingen Faculteit Landbouwwetenschappen Rijksuniversiteit van Gent 52, 339–348.Google Scholar
Wasserman, S.S. (1981) Host-induced oviposition preferences and oviposition markers in the cowpea weevil, Callosbruchus maculatus. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 74, 242–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar