Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-17T09:39:11.103Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

DISTRIBUTION OF OVIPOSITIONAL ATTACKS BY PARASITOIDS ON OVERWINTERING LARVAE OF THE SPRUCE BUDWORM, CHORISTONEURA FUMIFERANA (LEPIDOPTERA: TORTRICIDAE)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

J. M. McLeod
Affiliation:
Laurentian Forest Research Centre, Canadian Forestry Service, Sainte-Foy, Quebec

Abstract

Parasitism by Apanteles and Glypta spp. on spruce budworm in five localities in Quebec in 1975 was exceptionally high, averaging 52%. The frequency distribution of attacks of these species, and the outcome of inter- and intraspecific progeny competition are described, using dissection data. Superparasitism occurred on a Poisson distribution, but rates of multiparasitism lower than expected indicate interference between Apanteles and Glypta spp.

Résumé

Dan cinq localités au Quebec en 1975, la moyenne du parasitisme par Apanteles et Glypta spp. sur la tordeuse des bourgeons d’épinette était de 52%, un taux de parasitisme exceptionnalement haut. La fréquence de distribution des attaques de ces espèces et le résultat de la compétition intra- et interspécifique de la progéniture de ces parasites sont décrites, au moyen de données de dissection. Le superparasitisme était décrit par une distribution de Poisson, mais les taux de multiparasitisme, plus bas que prévus, indiquaient de l’interférence entre Apanteles et Glypta spp.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1977

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

Blais, J. R. 1960. Spruce budworm parasite investigations in the Lower St. Lawrence and Gaspe regions of Quebec. Can. Ent. 92: 384396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, J. R. 1946 a. Studies on parasites of the spruce budworm, Archips fumiferana (Clem.). 1. Life history of Apanteles fumiferanae Viereck (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Can. Ent. 78: 121129.Google Scholar
Blais, J. R. 1946 b. Studies on parasites of the spruce budworm, Archips fumiferana (Clem.). 2. Life history of Glypta fumiferanae (Viereck) (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae). Can. Ent. 78: 138146.Google Scholar
Dodge, H. R. 1961. Parasitism of spruce budworm by Glypta and Apanteles at different crown heights in Montana. Can. Ent. 93: 3228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, F. B. 1960. Factors affecting assessment of parasitization by Apanteles fumiferanae Vier. and Glypta fumiferanae (Vier.) on spruce budworm larvae. Can. Ent. 92: 888891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, W. R. M. 1974. The Apanteles species (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) attacking Lepidoptera in the micro-habitat of the spruce budworm (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Can. Ent. 106: 10871102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGugan, B. M. 1955. Certain host parasite relationships involving the spruce budworm. Can. Ent. 87: 178187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGugan, B. M. and Blais, J. R.. 1959. Spruce budworm parasite studies in northwestern Ontario. Can. Ent. 91: 758783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLeod, J. M. 1973. Information retrieval for the Swaine jack pine sawfly life system. A manual of coded sampling forms. Can. Centre Rech. For. Laurentides, Ste-Foy. Rapp. Inf. LAU-X-2.Google Scholar
Miller, C. A. 1955. A technique for assessment of spruce budworm larval mortality caused by parasites. Can. J. Zool. 33: 517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, C. A. 1959. The interaction of the spruce budworm Choristoneura fumiferana (Clem.), and the parasite, Apanteles fumiferanae Vier. Can. Ent. 91: 457476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, C. A. 1960. The interaction of the spruce budworm Choristoneura fumiferana (Clem.), and the parasite Glypta fumiferanae (Vier.). Can. Ent. 92: 839850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, C. A. 1963. Parasites of the spruce budworm, pp. 228–244. In Morris, R. F. (Ed.), The dynamics of epidemic spruce budworm populations. Mem. ent. Soc. Can. 31.Google Scholar