scholarly journals ControllingLygusplant bugs (Heteroptera: Miridae) with EuropeanPeristenus relictus(Hymenoptera: Braconidae) in Canada – risky or not?

2006 ◽  
Vol 96 (2) ◽  
pp. 187-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Haye ◽  
U. Kuhlmann ◽  
H. Goulet ◽  
P.G. Mason
Keyword(s):  
Host Range ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Minor Importance ◽  
Target Species ◽  
Northern Germany ◽  
Target Populations ◽  
Choice Tests ◽  
Fundamental Host Range ◽  
Parasitoid Development ◽  
Natural Situation

AbstractThe EuropeanPeristenus relictusLoan (syn.P. stygicus) has been considered for biological control ofLygusplant bugs native to Canada. Laboratory and field studies were conducted in the area of origin to evaluate the host specificity ofP. relictus. Laboratory choice and no-choice tests demonstrated thatP. relictusattacked all non-target species offered (fundamental host range). However, closely related non-target mirids (tribe Mirini) were generally well accepted byP. relictus, while hosts from the tribe Stenodemini were less frequently attacked and less suitable for parasitoid development. To validate the laboratory results, a thorough examination of the parasitoid complex of common mirids in Europe was conducted to determine which non-target species may serve as alternative hosts forP. relictusin a natural situation (ecological host range). When comparing both approaches, the fundamental host range ofP. relictusmatched its ecological host range. In addition to threeLygusspecies, the ecological host range ofP. relictusin the area of Schleswig-Holstein, northern Germany, contains at least 16 non-target species, including hosts belonging to the subfamilies Mirinae, Phylinae and Bryocorinae. A broad ecological and fundamental host range suggests thatP. relictusis a generalist; however,P. relictuswas not the primary contributor to parasitism of most non-target hosts studied. AlthoughP. relictusis assumed to be of minor importance for regulating non-target populations in the area of investigation, the results of the present study indicate thatP. relictushas the potential to use non-target host populations for reproduction.

Fundamental Host Range ofLeptoypha hospita(Hemiptera: Tingidae), a Potential Biological Control Agent of Chinese Privet

2016 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 897-908 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yanzhuo Zhang ◽  
James L. Hanula ◽  
Scott Horn ◽  
Cera Jones ◽  
S. Kristine Braman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Biological Control ◽  
Host Range ◽  
Biological Control Agent ◽  
Control Agent ◽  
Chinese Privet ◽  
Fundamental Host Range

A revision of species of the genus Haematoloechus Looss, 1899 (Trematoda: Haematoloechidae) from Canada and the United States

1981 ◽  
Vol 59 (9) ◽  
pp. 1836-1846 ◽  
Author(s):  
Murray J. Kennedy
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Host Range ◽  
Geographical Variation ◽  
Rana Catesbeiana ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
The United States ◽  
Valid Species ◽  
Narrow Host Range ◽  
Species Groups ◽  
Degree Of Maturity

Previous experimental and field studies have shown that variations within the genus Haematoloechus may result from differences in age and degree of maturity, extent of crowding, species of host, and other factors.Based on these observations, only 6 of the 15 previously known species from Canada and the United States are considered valid. The valid species and their synonyms are as follows: Haematoloechus longiplexus Stafford, 1902; H. breviplexus Stafford, 1902; H. varioplexus Stafford, 1902 (= H. parviplexus, = H. buttensis, = H. similiplexus, = H. floedae, and H. uniplexus); H. kernensis Ingles, 1932 (= H. tumidus); H. medioplexus Stafford, 1902; and H. complexus (Seely, 1906) (= H. coloradensis, = H. confusus, = H. oxyorchis).The existence of three species groups is hypothesized. Haematoloechus longiplexus and H. breviplexus constitute one group, characterized by little geographical variation and a narrow host range. They are typically parasites of Rana catesbeiana and R. clamitans. Haematoloechus varioplexus and H. kernensis constitute the second group. These species have a wider host range and greater variation in characters purported to be specific differences. The third group includes those lung flukes which do not contain extracaecal loops (H. medioplexus and H. complexus). Of these, only H. medioplexus had little geographical variation and was found to occur in a single frog host.

Trapping efficiency of Ugglan traps and Longworth traps for house mice in south-eastern Australia

2002 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 101 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Jacob ◽  
H. Ylönen ◽  
C. G. Hodkinson
Keyword(s):  
Field Studies ◽  
Trapping Efficiency ◽  
House Mice ◽  
Target Species ◽  
Trapping Mechanism ◽  
South Eastern ◽  
Eastern Australia ◽  
Single Capture ◽  
Open Mesh ◽  
South Eastern Australia

Small mammal studies require traps that efficiently capture the target species, are cheap, and preferably have no adverse effects on the animals. We compared the trapping efficiency of Ugglan multiple-capture live-traps with Longworth single-capture live-traps in field studies of house mice (Mus domesticus) in the Victorian Mallee of south-eastern Australia. More captures and recaptures were made with Longworth traps and fewer mice died while in these traps. There was no difference in mean body mass of captured mice between Ugglan and Longworth traps but relatively more males were trapped with Ugglan traps. The trapping mechanism that requires the mouse to activate a trap door, and open mesh wire along the sides of the Ugglan trap may be the main reasons for low trappability. In addition, the open sides could have contributed to the lower survival observed for mice in Ugglan traps. Although Ugglan traps have the potential for multiple captures, are cheaper, and their trapping mechanism is less prone to failure than Longworth traps, they were not as efficient in trapping house mice at low and medium densities.

scholarly journals Comparing traditional methods of test species selection with the PRONTI tool for host-range testing of Eadya daenerys (Braconidae)

2018 ◽  
Vol 71 ◽  
pp. 221-231
Author(s):  
Toni M. Withers ◽  
Jacqui H. Todd ◽  
Belinda A. Gresham ◽  
Barbara I.P. Barratt
Keyword(s):  
Host Range ◽  
Traditional Approach ◽  
Species Selection ◽  
Selection Methods ◽  
Target Species ◽  
Test Species ◽  
Priority Ranking ◽  
Computer Based ◽  
Range Testing ◽  
Selection Of

A computer-based tool (PRONTI; Priority Ranking Of Non-Target Invertebrates) has been developed to assist the selection of invertebrate species for risk-assessment testing with entomophagous biological control agents (BCAs). PRONTI was used to produce a prioritised list of taxa for host-range testing with the braconid parasitoid Eadya daenerys, a potential BCA for the eucalypt pest, Paropsis charybdis. The resulting list was compared with a list developed using traditional species selection methods. Seven of the nine species on the traditional list were in the PRONTI top 20. The remaining two species (Agasicles hygrophila and Cassida rubiginosa) may not have been selected if the PRONTI tool had been used. These two species were on the traditional list because they are in the same family as the target and are considered valuable BCAs. Alternative BCAs were prioritised by PRONTI. The other 13 taxa prioritised by PRONTI were not on the traditional list: the taxa are little-known natives in the target subfamily or sister subfamily but larvae are presumed to be root-feeders, whereas target larvae are leaf-feeders. PRONTI can support the traditional approach by providing transparent evidence to support the selection (or rejection) of non-target species for host-range testing.

Host range and distribution of fruit-infesting pestiferous fruit flies (Diptera, Tephritidae) in selected areas of Central Tanzania

2009 ◽  
Vol 99 (6) ◽  
pp. 629-641 ◽  
Author(s):  
M.W. Mwatawala ◽  
M. De Meyer ◽  
R.H. Makundi ◽  
A.P. Maerere
Keyword(s):  
Host Range ◽  
Dominant Species ◽  
Ceratitis Capitata ◽  
Fruit Fly ◽  
Reservoir Host ◽  
Infestation Rate ◽  
Unit Weight ◽  
Minor Importance ◽  
New Host ◽  
Important Host

AbstractThe host range of major fruit fly pests in Central Tanzania was evaluated from October 2004 to October 2006. Samples of 48 potential hosts were collected and incubated for fruit fly emergence. Bactrocera invadens was the dominant species in incidence expressed as the ratio of infested to total number samples collected, as well as infestation rate, expressed as number of flies emerging per unit weight. Eight new host fruits are reported. Infestation by native pests, such as Ceratitis capitata and C. cosyra, was minor compared to B. invadens. Ceratitis rosa was the dominant species in temperate fruits, and Cucurbitaceae were mainly infested by Bactrocera cucurbitae, a specialized cucurbit feeder. Among commercial fruits, high infestation incidences were observed in mango and guava, but they decreased throughout the fruiting season. Low infestation rates were observed in all Citrus species and in avocado, indicating these fruits as poor hosts for the studied fruit fly pests in this region. Widespread availability and abundance of fruit species studied here ensures year-round breeding of B. invadens. Seasonal infestation differs, with mango being the most important host in October to January, while guava being important from February to August. Tropical almond showed very high incidence and infestation rate for B. invadens and might act as an important reservoir host, bridging the fruiting seasons of mango and guava. Soursop acts as an important host for C. cosyra after the mango season. Ceratitis capitata is a pest of minor importance of the commercial fruits studied in this region.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document