Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-cnmwb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T09:12:48.796Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies With Whitefly Parasites of Southern California: II. Eretmocerus californicus Howard (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae)1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Dan Gerling
Dan Gerling
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

Eretmocerus californicus is a solitary parasite of numerous whitefly species. It is able to develop in all nymphal stages of its host but prefers the second and third. Oviposition and development of the first-instar larva take place under the host, the following two instars develop endoparasitically. Superparasitism is common under artificial conditions, but the supernumeraries are always eliminated during their first or second instar. Adult longevity is highest at 60° and lowest at 100° F. Males are rare and superfluous in Riverside but abundant and essential in Indio. In Riverside, E. californicus is most abundant during the late summer and is almost absent from the field between January and June. In Indio, it is present the year around. Although it attacks the same host instars as Encarsia pergandiella Howard, no hyper- or multiple-parasitism takes place. E. californicus is an important controlling factor on whiteflies in the Coachella and Imperial valleys but not in Riverside and the coastal area.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 98 , Issue 12 , December 1966 , pp. 1316 - 1329
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1966

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

Clausen, C. P., and Berry, P. A.. 1932. The citrus blackfly in Asia and the importation of its natural enemies into tropical America. U.S. Dep. Agric. Tech. Bull. 320, 58 pp.Google Scholar
Compere, H. 1936. Notes on the classification of the Aphelinidae. Univ. of Calif. Pubs. Ent. 6(12): 277–321.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. C. 1963. Oxygen requirements and the physiological suppression of supernumerary insect parasitoids. J. exp. Biol. 40: 531–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanders, S. E. 1944. Observations on Comperiella bifasciata, an endoparasite of Diaspine coccids. Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 37(3): 365–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerling, D. 1966. Studies with whitefly parasites of Southern California. I. Encarsia pergandiella Howard (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae). Can. Ent. 98: 707–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haldeman, S. S. 1850. On four new species of Hemiptera of the genera Ploiaria, Chermes, and Aleurodes and two new Hymenoptera parasitic on the last named genus. Amer. J. Sci. Arts 2(9): 108–111.Google Scholar
Howard, L. O. 1895. Revision of the Aphelininae of North America. U.S. Dep. Agric. Div. Ent. Tech. Bull. 1: 1–44.Google Scholar
Howard, L. O. 1908. On two new species of parasites of aleyrodidae. Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 10: 63–65.Google Scholar
Imms, A. D. 1957. A General Textbook of Entomology. Revised edition by Richards, O. W. and Davies, R. G.. 886 pp. Methuen & Co., London.Google Scholar
Parker, H. L. 1924. Recherches sur les formes postembryonaires de chalcidiens. Ann. Soc. ent. Fr. 93: 261–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snodgrass, R. E. 1941. The male genitalia of the Hymenoptera. Smithsonian Misc. Collections 99(14): 1–86.Google Scholar
Viggiani, G. 1965. Richerche sugli Hymenoptera Chalcidoidea. I. Le Specie italiane del genere Anthemus How. (Hym. Encyrtidae) e nota descrittiva sull' Eretmocerus masii Silv. (Hym. Aphelinidae). Bol. Lab. Ent. Agraria “Filippo Silvestri”, Portici 23: 249–264.Google Scholar