Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T11:49:45.574Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE STATUS OF NASONIA VITRIPENNIS AS A NATURAL PARASITE OF THE HOUSE FLY, MUSCA DOMESTICA12

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

E. F. Legner
E. F. Legner
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Control, University of California Citrus, Research Center and Agricultural Experiment Station, Riverside, California
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Inferences regarding the value of Nasonia vitripennis in the natural control of Musca domestica based on laboratory research should consider the general absence of this parasite on that host in nature. Predominant natural parasites of M. domestica are listed.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 99 , Issue 3 , March 1967 , pp. 308 - 309
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1967

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

DeBach, P., and Smith, H. S.. 1941. Are population oscillations inherent in the host-parasite relation? Ecology 22(4): 363–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, R. L. 1961. The area of discovery of two insect parasites Nasonia vitripennis (Walker) and Trichogramma evanescens Westwood, in an artificial environment. Can. Ent. 93(6): 475–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1953. Variations in susceptibility of citrus infesting coccids to parasitization. J. econ. Ent. 46(2): 266–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Froggatt, W. W., and McCarthy, T.. 1914. The parasite of the sheep maggot fly (Nasonia brevicornis). Agric. Gaz. N.S.W. 25: 759–764.Google Scholar
Girault, A. A. 1915. Australian Hymenoptera Chalcidoidea (Pteromalidae). Supplement Mem. Queensland Museum 3: 313–346.Google Scholar
Hardy, G. H. 1924. A blowfly and some parasites. Qd agric. J. 22: 349–350.Google Scholar
Legner, E. F. 1966. Parasites of the house fly and other filth-breeding Diptera in southern California. J. econ. Ent. 59: 999–1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legner, E. F., and Brydon, H. W.. 1966. Suppression of dung-inhabiting fly populations by pupal parasites. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 59(4): 638–651.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Legner, E. F., and McCoy, C. W.. 1966. The housefly, Musca domestica Linnaeus, as an exotic species in the Western Hemisphere incites biological control studies. Can. Ent. 98(3): 243–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legner, E. F., Bay, E. C. and McCoy, C. W.. 1965. Parasitic natural regulatory agents attacking Musca domestica L. in Puerto Rico. J. Agric. Univ. Puerto Rico 49: 368–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legner, E. F., Bay, E. C. and White, E. B.. (In press.) Activity of parasites from Diptera: Musca domestica L., Stomoxys calcitrans (L.), Fannia canicularis (L.), and F. femoralis Stein at sites in the Western Hemisphere. Ann. ent. Soc. Am.Google Scholar
Madden, J. L, and Pimentel, D.. 1966. Density spatial relationships between a wasp parasite and its housefly host. Can. Ent. 97(10): 1031–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, W. P., and Pimentel, D.. 1963. Some ecological attributes of a pteromalid parasite and its housefly host. Can. Ent. 95(2): 208–213.Google Scholar
Salt, G. 1938. Experimental studies in insect parasitism. VI—Host suitability. Bull. ent. Res. 29: 223–246.Google Scholar
Varley, G. C., and Edwards, R. L.. 1957. The bearing of parasite behaviour on the dynamics of insect host and parasite populations. J. Anim. Ecol. 26: 471–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, E. B., and Legner, E. F.. 1966. Notes on the life history of Aleochara taeniata, a staphylinid parasite of the house fly, Musca domestica. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 59(3): 573–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wylie, H. G. 1966. Survival and reproduction of Nasonia vitripennis (Walk.) at different host population densities. Can. Ent. 98(3): 275–281.Google Scholar