Studies of the Temporal Abundance, Spatial Distribution and Parasitism of the European Cabbage Moth, Mamestra Brass/Cae L
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
STUDIES OF THE TEMPORAL ABUNDANCE, SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION AND PARASITISM OF THE EUROPEAN CABBAGE MOTH, MAMESTRA BRASS/CAE L. (LEPIDOPTERA: NOCTUIDAE) WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE LARVAL ENDOPARAS|TOtD, MICRO?L\T\S MEDTATOR (HALIDAy) (HYMENoPTERA: BRACONI DAE). A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies The University of Manitoba by Nicole A. Lauro ln Paftial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science Depadment of Entomology @ October 2001 tr¡$onatt-iurav Bibliothèque nationale l*l du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions el Bibliographic Services services bibliographiques 395 Wollingfon Str€€t 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Canada Canada Yout ñl€ volre .élércrco The author has granted a non- L'auter¡r a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sell reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/film" de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électonique. The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extacts from it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantíels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent ête imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sâns son permission. autorisation. 0-612-76989-5 Canad'ä TEt. ¡1Y¡'1¡BRSITY OF MANITOBA FACT]LTY OF GI,{DUATE STIJDTES COPYRIGHT PERMISSION PAGE STT]DIES OF TIIE TEMPORAL ABUNDANCE, SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION AND PARASITISM OF TFTF'ET]ROPEAN CABBAGE MOTH, MAMESTRA BRASSICA.E L. (LEPIDOPTERA: NOCTIIIDAE) WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO TIIE LARVAL ENDOPARASITOID, M I C R O P LI TIS M E D IA T O R (IIALTDAÐ GINVIENOPTERA : BRAC ONIDAE). BY Nicole A. Lauro A ThesisÆracticum submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies of The University of Manitoba in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE NICOLE A. LA{JRO @2001 Permission has been granted to the Library of The University of Manitoba to lend or sell copies of this thesis/practicum, to the National Library of Canada to microfilm this thesis and to lend or sell copies of the film, and to University Microfilm Inc. to publish an abstract of this thesis/practicum. The author reserves other publication rights, and neither this thesis/practicum nor extensive extracts from it may be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author's written permission. &,or, //re n¿ett¿o,,f/, "/e;lh,,""r Zr,"rÁr, o*,ln/rrol of*y /984-200/ Ul ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I greatly appreciate the support, advice and patience of my advisor, Dr. Neil Holliday. I would also like to express my appreciation to Dr. Ulli Kuhlmann for his support and guidance during my time in Switzerland. I would like to thank the members of my committee for helpful discussions; Dr. Ulli Kuhlmann, Dr. Peter Mason, Dr. Patricia Mackay and Dr. Rachael Scarth. I thank the following people for their help with field work in Switzerland: Emma Hunt for her exceptional and always enthusiastic technical aid in both years of my study and; to Jennifer Otani, Bettina Jahn, Silvia Micheletti, Stephanie Harris and Doris Herrmann for their cooperative assistance. I express my sincere appreciation to Roland Fasnacht, Walter Muhlemann and Thomas Kaenel for allowing samples to be taken from their organic fields; and to all those whose encouragement and advice has helped me along the way; s.A. stockton, Dr. S.A. Marshall, Dr. u. schaffner, H.D. white, L. Reimer and M. Alperyn. And of course, my family, for all of their love and support. The funding for this project has been provided by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada through CABI Bioscience, and Agriculture Research and Development lnitiative. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......iii TABLE OF CONTENTS...... ............... iv LIST OF FIGURES ...... vi LIST OF TABLES .............. ix ABSTRACT....... ...... xi CHAPTER '1: General lntroduction... ...........'1 CHAPTER 2: Literature Review 2.1 Predictions of Host Choice..... .......4 2.1.1 Definitions. ............5 2.2 "A Suitable Host" ......6 2.3 Host Attributes and Parasitism. ............8 2.3.1 Behavioural Attributes .......I 2.3.2 Chemical Attributes ...........9 2.3.3 Visual Attributes ........10 2.4 Experience with Hosts .....12 2.5 The Distribution of Hosts ............. 13 2.6 Host Specialization..... ......... 13 2.7 Measures of Parasitoid Performance...... ....15 2.7.1 Parasitism. ......... 15 2.7.2 Host Suitability and Oviposition Behaviour..... ....16 2.7.3 The Selection of Parasitoids for Biological Control..... ..........17 2.8 The Study Organisms ...... ............ 19 2.8.1 Mamestra brassicae L....... .........19 2.8.2 Microplitis mediator (Haliday) ..... ...20 CHAPTER 3: Seasonal abundance, parasitism and distribution of Mamestra brassicae L. in organic vegetable field plots in Switzerland ........23 Abstract .........23 3.1 lntroduction. .....25 3.2 Materials and Methods ....25 3.2.1 Field Plot Description ...........25 3.2.2 Sampling M. brassicae: 1998 .......26 3.2.3 Sampling M. brassicae: 1999 ..........29 3.2.4 Host Range . .... .........29 3.2.5 Statistical Analysis ......30 3.3 Results.......... ..........31 3.3.1 Sampling 1998........ ....................31 3.3.2 Sampling '1999 . .........33 3.3.3 Host Distribution .........34 3.3.4 Parasitism Rate and Host Density ......... .........35 3.3.5 Host Range ...... ....36 3.4 Discussion.. ......37 3.4.1 Seasonal Abundance .....37 3.4.2 Parasitism .....3B 3.4.3 Spatial Distribution...... ..........41 3.4.4 Host Range ....... ...........44 CHAPTER 4: Host choice by a solitary larval endoparasitoid, Microplitis mediator (Haliday) (Hymenoptera. Braconidae): host acceptance and host suitability ....95 Abstract ............95 4.1 lntroduction ... .........97 4.2 Malerials and Methods ...................99 4.2,1 Rearing of Hosts. ..........99 4.2.2 Rearing of Parasitoids... ..........100 4.2.3 Attacks by Parasitoids . .......... 101 4.2.4 Oviposition by Parasitoids .....102 4.2.5 Host Suitability. ...102 4.2.6 Statistical Analysis ........ 103 4.3 Results ...... ...... 103 4.3.1 Attacks by Parasitoids. .... .....103 4.3.1.1 No-Choice Experiment... ... 103 4.3.1.2 Choice Experiment ....... ..........104 4.3.2 Oviposition by Parasitoids ...... 105 4.3.3 Host Suitability. ... 106 4.4 Discussion....... .......107 CHAPTER 5: General Discussion....... .......137 5.1 Host Selection by Microplitis mediator .... ....... 138 5.2 Parasitism in Field Plots ........139 CHAPTER 6: List of References . ....143 VI LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.2.1 A schematic representation of one field plot used for sampling Mamestra brassicae egg masses and larvae from 1998-1999 in the vegetable growing region of Bielersee, near to Galmiz, Switzerland...... ....46 Figure 3.3.1 Seasonal abundance of Mamesfra brassicae a) eggs and egg masses and larval instars b) one to three and c) four to six in five field plots sampled in the region of Bielersee, nearto Galmiz, Switzerland in 1998...........49 Figure 3.3.2 Mean weekly parasitism (%) of Mamestra brassicae eggs by two egg parasitoids, Trichogramma buesi and Telenomus sp. in five field plots sampled in 1998 .....54 Figure 3.3.3 Mean weekly parasitism of Mamestra brassicae larvae (instars l-lV) by Microplitis mediaforin five field plots sampled in 1998 ....57 Figure 3.3.4 Seasonal abundance of Mamesfra brassicae a) eggs and egg masses and larval instars b) one to three and c) four to six in five field plots sampled in the region of Bielersee, near to Galmiz, Switzerland in 1999...........59 Figure 3.3.5 Mean weekly parasitism (%) of Mamestra brassicae eggs by two egg parasitoids, Trichogramma buesiand Telenomus sp. in five field plots sampled in '1999 ....62 Figure 3.3.6 Mean weekly parasitism of Mamestra brassicae larvae (instars l-lV) by Microplitis mediafor in five field plots sampled in 1999 .....65 Figure 3.3.7 Comparison of estimated and observed (t S.E.M.) probability of parasitism by Microplitis mediatorfor plants infested with only first instar larvae of Mamestra brassicae for field plot E sampled in 1 999 .....78 Figure 3.3.8 Comparison of estimated and observed (t S.E.M.) probability of parasitism by Microplitis mediatorfor plants infested with only second instar larvae of Mamestra brassicae for C field plot sampled in 1999 . ................ B0 Figure 3.3.9 Comparison of estimated and observed (t S.E.M.) probability of parasitism by Microplitis mediatorfor plants infested with only third instar larvae of Mamestra brassicaefor field plot C sampled in 1999 ........82 Figure 3.3.10 Comparison of estimated and observed (l S.E.M.) probability of parasitism by Microplitis mediatorfor plants infested with only fourlh instar larvae of Mamestra brassicaefor field plot E sampled in 1999 ..........84 vii Figure 3.4.1 Seasonal abundance of early larval instars (l-lll) of Mamestra brassicae for 1998 showing the upper and lower limits of the economic threshold ..............87 Figure 3.4.2 Seasonal abundance of early larval instars (l-lll) of Mamestra brassicae for 1999 showing the upper and lower limits of the economic threshold .... 89 Figure 3.4.3 Seasonal abundance of late larval instars (lV-Vl) of Mamestra brassicae for 1998 showing the upper and lower limits of the economic threshold ..........91 Figure 3.4.4 Seasonal abundance of early larval instars (lV-Vl) of Mamestra brassicae for 1999 showing the upper and lower limits of the economic threshold ........93 Figure 4.2.1 Schematic illustration of the methodology used to investigate the number of Mamestra brassicae larvae attacked by Microplitis mediafor in no- choice exposures ..114 Figure 4.2.2 Schematic illustration of the methodology used to investigate the number of Mamestra brassicae larvae attacked by Microplitis mediatorin choice exposures ......116 Figure 4.3.1 Percent (t S.E.M) of first, second and third instar larvae of Mamestra brassicae attacked by Microplitis mediaforfemales in the no-choice experiment .....