Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-10T15:10:48.746Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Plutella maculipennis, Curt., its natural and biological Control in England

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

J. Eliot Hardy
J. Eliot Hardy
Affiliation:
Zoological Department, Charles University, Prague, and Farnham House Laboratory, Imperial Institute of Entomology.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Plutella maculipennis, Curt., a widespread Lepidopterous pest of Brassica was introduced into New Zealand about sixty years ago. In most countries a high degree of natural control is maintained, but in New Zealand the moth population is permanently maintained at a high level. Investigation showed that in New Zealand there were no natural enemies of importance, while in other areas these are constantly associated with Plutella.

2. The distribution of the moth throughout the world is exceedingly wide, but in England it only occasionally reaches pest proportions.

3. Preliminary work indicated that two Campoplegines, Angitia cerophaga and A. fenestralis, constantly parasitized large numbers of the Plutella larvae. Initial efforts were devoted to collecting and breeding a large supply of these in England for introduction into New Zealand as controlling agents.

4. From several thousand specimens of Plutella, fourteen species of parasites were recovered, of which eight were hyperparasites. The only parasites which were numerically important were the two parasites, Angitia cerophaga and A. fenestralis. Their efficiency is not impaired to any appreciable extent by hyperparasites. A key showing the diagnostic differences of the parasites and hyperparasites of Plutella is given.

5. These two species of Angitia are commonly recorded as parasites of Plutella throughout the world, although under different names. A large quantity was bred in the laboratory and despatched to New Zealand after overcoming certain difficulties connected with transport. It appears that both species of parasite must overwinter in other hosts than Plutella.

6. Certain experiments were performed in an endeavour to assess some of the effects of climate. The upper limiting temperature of Plutella is approximately 40°C. and the lower limit for breeding purposes about 10°C. All stages of the moth can survive short periods of cold greater than 10°C., but it is believed that hibernation is normally accomplished in the adult stage. As the immature stages of the moth live in a specialised microclimate of high humidity, changes in the moisture content of the general atmosphere have little effect. Rain, if appearing at certain critical times in the life-cycle, may be a controlling agent.

7. The most favourable areas for multiplication of the moth appear to be in the sub-tropics and warmer temperate zones. It is suggested that Plutella originated in the Mediteranean region.

8. Even in the cooler temperate countries the climate would allow an indefinite increase in the moth. It is believed that an effective check on this multiplication is supplied by parasites.

9. As the climate of England and New Zealand are essentially similar there is reason to suppose that the introduction of parasites from the former country will lead to eventual control being obtained in New Zealand.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 29 , Issue 4 , December 1938 , pp. 343 - 372
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1938

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

Boyd, D. C. (1934). Notes on the variation of the Ichneumonids, Angitia cerophaga Grav. and A. fenestralis, Grav. (Hym.)—Trans. Soc. Brit. Ent., 1, pp. 135–138.Google Scholar
Cunningham, G. H. (1927). Natural control of weeds and insects by fungi.—N. Z. J. Agric., 34, p. 244.Google Scholar
Gunn, D. (1917). The small cabbage moth.—Bull. Un. S. Africa Dep. Agric. no. 8.Google Scholar
Jegen, G. (1918). Beiträge zur Kohlweisslingsbekämpfung.—Landw. Jahr. Schweiz, 32, p. 524.Google Scholar
Kanervo, V. (1936). Kaalikoi ristikukkaiskasvien tuholaisena Suomessa.—Valt. Maatalousk, Julk. no. 86.Google Scholar
Marsh, H. O. (1917). Life history of Plutella maculipennis, the diamond-back moth.—J. agric. Res., 10, p. 1.Google Scholar
Meyrick, E. (1927). A revised handbook of British Lepidoptera. London.Google Scholar
Miller, D. (1918). The economic bearing of hover flies.—N. Z. J. Agric., 17, p. 127.Google Scholar
Morley, C. & Rait Smith, W. (1933). The Hymenopterous parasites of the British Lepidoptera.—Trans. R. Ent. Soc. London, 81, p. 133.Google Scholar
Moss, J. Eliot. (1933). The natural control of the cabbage caterpillars, Pieris spp.—J. Anim. Ecol., 2, p. 210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muggeridge, J. (1930). The diamond-back moth.—N. Z. J. Agric., 41, p. 253.Google Scholar
Strasburger, E. (1921). Textbook of Botany.—5th Engl. Edn.Google Scholar
Theobald, F. V. (1926). The diamond-back moth.—J. Kent Fmrs. Un., 20 (3).Google Scholar
Torka, V. (1929). Parasiten der Kohlschabe.—Anz. Schädlingsk., 5, p. 39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsedeler, O. E. (1931). The cabbage moth in connection with the cultivation of mustard.—Zh. opuitn. Agron. Yu.-Vostoka, 9, p. 165.Google Scholar
Vukassovitch, P. (1927). Observations biologiques sur les parasites de Plutella maculipennis.—Rev. Path. vég. Ent. agric., 14, p. 113.Google Scholar