Iranian Journal of Plant Protection Science

Iranian Journal of Plant Protection Science

Foraging behavior of Venturia canescens Gravenhorst on potato tuber moth, Phthorimaea operculella Zeller

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors
Gadir Nouri Ganbalani 1
Leila Mottaghinia 1
Zahra Abedi 1
Alireza Nouri 2
1 Department of Plant Protection, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran
2 Institute of Higher Education of Sabalan, Ardabil, Iran
10.22059/ijpps.2021.328323.1006976
Abstract
Venturia canescens Gravenhorst is one of the important parasitoids of lepidopterous pests with worldwide distribution. For assessing the efficiency of natural enemies in biological control, it is necessary to study their foraging behavior. In this study, host stage preference (between 1st and 4th instar larvae), functional response (densities of 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, and 64 of 4th instar larvae), and mutual interference of V. canescens (densities of 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8 of wasps) were studied on potato tuber moth, Phthorimaea operculella Zeller, larvae. In the preference experiment, the 4th instar larvae of potato tuber moth were preferred by the wasp. The logistic regression analyses revealed that the functional response of V. canescens to the 4th instar larvae of potato tuber moth was type II. Searching efficiency (a) and handling time (Th) of the wasp were estimated 1.174 h−1 and 1.1347 h, respectively. In the mutual interference experiment, the per capita searching efficiency of the wasp ranged from 0.0810 to 0.1111 h-1, with the highest value at the density of 1 and 2 and the lowest value at the density of 8 wasps. The slope of regression line or interference coefficient was estimated to be -0.1356, indicating the mutual interference among the wasps. Based on the results, the foraging behavior of V. canescens was affected by the developmental stage and density of the host, as well as the density of the wasps. So, V. canescens has a good potential for IPM programs of potato tuber moth.
Keywords
Parasitoid wasp
functional response
interference
preference
potato tuber moth
  1. Abdallah, Y. E. Y. (2017) Yield losses caused to potato plants by potato tuber worm, Phthorimaea operculella (Zeller) and its economic levels at Qalyubyia Governorate Egypt. Egyptian Academic Journal of Biological Sciences, 10, 73-79.
  2. Abedi, A., Golizadeh, A., Hassanpour, M. and Soufbaf, M. (2020) Effect of pomegranate cultivars with varying levels of resistance to Ectomyelois ceratoniae on life history parameters of the parasitoid Venturia canescens. BioControl, doi: org/10.1007/s10526-020-10017-y.
  3. Adarkwah, C., Ulrichs, C., Schaarschmidt, S., Badii, B. K., Addai, I. K., Obeng-Ofori, D. and Schöller, M. (2014) Potential of Hymenopteran larval and egg parasitoids to control stored-product beetle and moth infestation in jute bags. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 104, 534-542.
  4. Akbari Asl, M. H., Talebi, A. A. and Kamali, H. (2007) Identification host ranges and abundance of parasitoids of stored product pests in Mashhad. New findings in Agriculture, 1, 225-232. (In Farsi)
  5. Bayoumy, M. H. and Michaud, J. P. (2012) Parasitism interacts with mutual interference to limit foraging efficiency in larvae of Nephus includens (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Biological Control, 62, 120-126.
  6. Capinera, J. L. (2001) Handbook of vegetable pests. Academic Press, New York, USA.
  7. Castelo, M. K., Corley, J. C. and Desouhant, E. (2003) Conspecific avoidance during foraging in Venturia canescens (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae): The roles of host presence and conspecific densities. Journal of Insect Behavior, 16, 307-318.
  8. Chandel, R. S., Chandla, V. K. and Singh, B. P. (2005) Potato tuber moth Phthorimaea operculella (Zeller). Malhotra publishing house, DSIDC Complex, Kirti Nagar, New Dehli, India.
  9. Chong, J. and Oetting, R. D. (2007) Functional response and progeny production of the Madeira mealybug parasitoid, Anagyrus sp. nov. nr. sinope: The effect of host stage preference. Biological Control, 41, 78-85.
  10. Doğramaci, M., Rondon, S. I. and Debano, S. J. (2008) The effect of soil depth and exposure to winter conditions on survival of the potato tuberworm Phthorimaea operculella (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 129, 332-339.
  11. Doğramaci, M. and Tingey, W. M. (2008) Comparison of insecticide resistance in a North American field population and a laboratory colony of potato tuberworm (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). Journal of Pest Science, 81, 17.
  12. Domínguez-Jiménez, I., Llanderal-Cázares, C. and Nieto-Hernández, Y. R. (2000) Pristomerus spinator Fabricius (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae), a parasite of the potato tuber moth. Grociencia, 34, 611-617.
  13. Eliopoulos, P. A. (2006) Life tables of Venturia canescens (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) parasitizing the Mediterranean flour moth (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Journal of Economic Entomology, 99, 237-243.
  14. Eliopoulos, P. A. and Stathus, G. J. (2003) Temperature dependent development of the koinobiont endoparasitoid Venturia canescens Gravenhost (Hym.: Ichneumonidae). Journal of Zoology, 39, 315-319.
  15. Eliopoulos, P. A. and Stathas, G. J. (2005) Effects of temperature, host instar, and adult feeding on progeny production by the endoparasitoid Venturia canescens (Gravenhorst) (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae). Environmental Entomology, 34, 14-21.
  16. Eyidozehi, K., Khormali, S., Ravan, S. and Barahoei, H. (2013) Introduction of seven wasps parasitoid species associated with stored food product pests in Golestan Province. Plant Pests Research, 3, 69-72. (In Farsi)
  17. Fathipour, Y., Hosseini Gharalari, A., and Talebi, A. A. (2004) Some behavioral characteristics of Diaeretiella rapae (Hym., Aphidiidae), parasitoid of Brevicoryne brassicae (Hom., Aphididae). Iranian Journal of Agricultural Science, 35, 393-401. (In Farsi)
  18. Godfray, H. C. J. (1994) Parasitoids: Behavior and evolutionary ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton, MA, USA.
  19. Golizadeh, A., Esmaeili, N., Razmjou, J. and Rafiee-Dastjerdi, H. (2014) Comparative life tables of the potato tuberworm, Phthorimaea operculella, on leaves and tubers of different potato cultivars. Journal of Insect Science, 14, 42.
  20. Ha, D. M., Song, K. S., Nho, S. K. and Lee, K. Y. (2006) Host selection behaviors and progeny suitability of two parasitic wasps, Venturia canescens and Bracon hebetor, against abnormal host conditions of Plodia interpunctella. Journal of Asia-Pacific Entomology, 9, 353-360.
  21. Hagstrum, D. W., Klejdysz, T., Subramanyam, B. and Nawrot, J. (2013) Atlas of stored–product insects and mites. International Inc., St. Paul, Minnesota, USA.
  22. Harvey, J. A., Harvey, I. F. and Thompson, D. J. (1994) Flexible larval growth allows use of a range of host sizes by a parasitoid wasp. Ecology, 75, 1420-1428.
  23. Hassanpour, M., Mohaghegh, J., Iranipour, S., Nouri-Ganbalani, G. and Enkegaard, A. (2011) Functional response of Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) to Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae): Effect of prey and predator stages. Insect Science, 18, 217-224.
  24. Hassell, M. P. (1971) Mutual interference between searching insect parasites. Journal of Animal Ecology, 40, 473-486.
  25. Hassell, M. P. and Varley, C. G. (1969) A new inductive population model for insect parasites and its bearing on biological control. Nature, 223, 1133-1136.
  26. Holling, C. S. (1959) Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism. Canadian Entomologist, 91, 385-398.
  27. Holling, C. S. (1961) Principles of insect predation. Annual Review of Entomology, 6, 163-182.
  28. Huffaker, C. B. and Matsumoto, B. M. (1982) Group versus individual functional responses of Venturia [=Nemeritis] canescens (Grav.). Researches on Population Ecology, 24, 250-269.
  29. Hughes, P., Harvey, I. F. and Hubbard, S. F. (1994) Host-searching behavior of Venturia canescens (Grav.) (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae): Interference-the effect of mature egg load and prior behavior. Journal of lnsect Behavior, 7, 433-454.
  30. Juliano, S. A. (2001) Nonliner curve ftting: predation and functional response curves. In Scheiner, S. M. and Gurevitch, J. (Eds.), Design and Analysis of Ecological Experiments. Oxford University Press, New York.
  31. Kafle, L., Lai, P. and Chang, Y. (2005) Functional response of a parasitoid Ganaspidium utilis (Hymenoptera: Eucoilidae) on the leafminer Liriomyza trifolii (Diptera: Agromyzidae). Insect Science, 12, 381-385.
  32. Keishani Farahani, H., Goldansaz, S. H. and Allahyari, H. (2012) Biology of Venturia canescens, a larval parasitoid of carob moth, Ectomyelois ceratoniae under laboratory conditions. Iranian Journal of Plant Protection Science, 43, 111-119. (In Farsi)
  33. Khorrami, F., Soleymanzade, A., Forouzan, M., Noori, H. and Alikhani, M. (2018) Lethal and deterrent efficacy of three plants extracts on the potato tuber moth, Phthorimaea operculella Zeller and influence on percent parasitism of Trichogramma brassicae. Biocontrol in Plant Protection, 6, 77-87. (In Farsi)
  34. Mohaghegh, J., De Clercq, P. and Tirry, L. (2001) Functional response of the predators Podisus maculiventris (Say) and Podisus nigrispinus (Dallas) (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae) to the beet armyworm, Spodoptera exigua (Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae): Effect of temperature. Journal of Applied Entomology, 125, 131-134.
  35. Montoya, P., Liedo, P., Benery, B., Barrere, J. F., Cancino, J. and Aluja, M. (2000) Functional response and superparasitism by Diachasmimoopha longicaudata (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), a parasitoid of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 93, 47-54.
  36. Mottaghinia, L., Hassanpour, M., Razmjou, J., Chamani, E. and Hosseini, M. (2017) Effect of vermicompost on functional response of the parasitoid wasp Aphidius colemani (Hym., Braconidae) to the melon aphid, Aphis gossypii (Hem., Aphididae). Journal of Entomological Society of Iran, 37, 81-93. (In Farsi)
  37. Navrozidis, E. I. and Andreadis, S. S. (2012) Applied agricultural entomology. Copy City Publish, Thessaloniki.
  38. Nicholson, A. J. (1933) The balance of animal population. Journal of Animal Ecology, 2, 131-178.
  39. Panagiotis, A. and Eliopoulos, P. A. (2007) The importance of food supplements for parasitoids of stored product pests: The case of Venturia canescens (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae). Integrated Protection of Stored Products, 30, 37-41.
  1. Pervez, A. and Omkar (2005) Functional responses of coccinellid predators: An illustration of a logistic approach. Journal of Insect Science, 5, 125-131.
  2. Reineke, A., Asgari, S. and Schmidt, O. (2006) Evolutionary origin of Venturia canescens virus-like particles. Archives of Insect Biochemistry and Physiology, 61, 123-133.
  3. Rogers, D. J. (1972) Random search and insect population models. Journal of Animal Ecology, 41, 369-383.
  4. Rondon, S. I. (2010) The potato tuberworm: A literature review of its biology, ecology, and control. American Journal of Potato Research, 87, 149-166.
  5. Rondon, S. I., Hane, D., Brown, C. R., Vales, M. I. and Dŏgramaci, M. (2009) Resistance of potato germplasm to the potato tuberworm (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). Journal of Economic Entomology, 102, 1649-1653.
  6. Sabelis, M. W. (1985) Predation on spider mites. In Helle, W. and Sabelis, M. W. (Eds.), Spider mites: Their biology, natural enemies, and control. Vol. 1B. Elsevier science publisher, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
  7. Sabelis, M. W. (1992) Predatory arthropods. In Crawley, M. J. (Ed.), Natural enemies. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.
  8. Sait, S. M., Andreev, R. A., Begon, M., Thompson, D. J., Harvey, J. A. and Swain, R. D. (1995) Venturia canescens parasitizing Plodia interpunctella: Host vulnerability-a matter of degree. Ecological Entomology, 20, 199-201.
  9. Salehi, L. (2003) A study on reproductive capacities and rate in parasitism of two parasitoids of potato tuber moth. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Science, 34, 231-245. (In Farsi)
  10. Saour, G., Al-Daoude, A. and Ismail, H. (2012) Evaluation of potato tuber moth mortality following postharvest cold storage of potatoes. Crop Protection, 38, 44-48.
  11. SAS Institute (2001) SAS/STA T user’s guide. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC Inc.
  12. Sequeira, R. V. (1991) Nutritional and physiological ecology of insect host-parasitoid associations: The pea aphid-Aphidius ervi system. Ph.D. dissertation, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.
  13. Solomon, M. E. (1949) The natural control of animal populations. Journal of Animal Ecology, 18, 1-35.
  14. SPSS Inc. (2007) SPSS base 16.0 user’s guide. SPSS Incorporation, Chicago.
  15. Sule, H., Muhamad, R., Omar, D. and Hee, A. K. W. (2014) Parasitism rate, host stage preference and functional response of Tamarixia radiata on Diaphorina citri. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology, 16, 783-788.
  16. Tazerouni, Z., Talebi, A. A. and Rakhshani, E. (2011) The foraging behavior of Diaeretiella rapae (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) on Diuraphis noxia (Hmiptera: Aphididae). Archive of Biological Science Belgrade, 63, 225-234.
  17. Tepa-Yotto , G. T., Hofsvang, T., Godonou, I., Tchibozo, I. and Sæthre, M. G. (2013) Host instar suitability of Aphis gossypii (Hemiptera: Aphididae) for Lysiphlebus testaceipes (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) and parasitism effect on aphid life table. Applied Entomology and Zoology, doi: 10.1007/s13355-013-0203-5.
  18. Trematerra, P., Oliviero, A., Savoldelli, S. and Scholler, M. (2016) Controlling infestation of a chocolate factory by Plodia interpunctella by combining mating disruption and the parasitoid Habrobracon hebetor. Insect Science, 00, 1-8.
  19. Trexler, J. C., McCulloch, C. E. and Travis, J. (1988) How can the functional response best be determined?. Oecology, 76, 206-214.
  20. Trexler, J. C. and Travis, J. (1993) Nontraditional regression analysis. Ecology, 74, 1629-1637.
  21. Yingfang, X. and Fadamiro, H. Y. (2010) Functional responses and prey-stage preferences of three species of predacious mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae) on citrus red mite, Panonychus citri (Acari: Tetranychidae). Biological Control, 53, 345-352.
Iranian Journal of Plant Protection Science
Volume 52, Issue 2
February 2022
Pages 25-39

  • Receive Date 04 August 2021
  • Revise Date 14 December 2021
  • Accept Date 20 December 2021