Bionomics of <i>Trioxys (Binodoxys) indicus</i> Subba Rao &amp; Sharma, an aphidiid parasitoid of <i>Aphis craccivora</i> Koch

Singh, Rajendra; Sinha, T. B.

doi:10.1111/j.1439-0418.1982.tb03571.x

Cited by 39 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Attraction to (undamaged) host plants has been shown for a number of aphid parasitoids (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), e.g. Diaretiella rapae (M'Intosh) (Read et al, 1970), Lysiphlebus testaceipes (Cresson) (Schuster & Starks, 1974), Trioxys indicus Subba Rao and Sharma (Singh & Sinha, 1982), Aphidius uzbekistanicus Luzhetski, Aphidius ervi Haliday (Powell & Zhang, 1983), Aphidius rhopalosiphi De Stephani-Perez, Lysiphlebus fabarum (Marshall), Praon sp. (Van Emden, 1988), and Aphidius funebris Mackauer (Pareja et al, 2007) so that at first sight it appears to be a general phenomenon in aphid parasitoids.…”

Section: Habitat Locationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chemical cues mediating aphid location by natural enemies

Hatano¹,

Kunert²,

Michaud³

et al. 2008

Eur. J. Entomol.

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. There is increasing evidence that chemical cues play a pivotal role in host selection by the natural enemies of aphids. We use Vinson's (1976) division of the host selection process into habitat location, host location and host acceptance for both parasitoids and predators and review what is known about the role of semiochemicals in aphid selection by natural enemies. For habitat location (i.e. detection of the host plant), volatiles emitted by plants after aphid attack have been described for a number of plant-aphid interactions. These synomones indicate not only the presence of an aphid host plant to the predator or parasitoid, but also the presence of aphids. Volatiles emitted from undamaged host plants are often attractive to aphid parasitoids, but less so for predators. Host location by the natural enemy on the food plant is guided by semiochemicals that mostly originate from the aphids, in particular aphid alarm pheromone, honeydew, or the smell of the aphid itself. Host acceptance is guided by contact chemicals for both predators and parasitoids. In parasitoids, host recognition may be based on visual cues or on contact chemicals on the aphid's cuticle, whereas host acceptance is ultimately based on as yet unknown substances within the aphid's hemolymph. While it appears that many predators and parasitoids are attracted to the same semiochemicals, synergistic and antagonistic interactions among chemical substances have only rarely been investigated. More research into model systems is needed, not only to identify important semiochemicals, but also to determine their range of attraction. Recent progress in the development of analytical techniques has created new opportunities to improve our understanding of the chemical ecology of aphid-natural enemy interactions in the coming years.

show abstract

Section: Habitat Locationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chemical cues mediating aphid location by natural enemies

Hatano¹,

Kunert²,

Michaud³

et al. 2008

Eur. J. Entomol.

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1997; (37) Shanower et al. 1999; (38) Sigsgaard and Ersbøll 1999; (39) Singh 1991; (40) Singh and Balan 1986; (41) Singh and Mavi 1984; (42) Singh and Sinha 1983; (43) Singh et al. 1991; (44) Sithanantham et al.…”

Section: Pigeonpea Arthropod Food Webmentioning

confidence: 99%

Making effective use of existing data for case‐by‐case risk assessments of genetically engineered crops

Romeis

Lawo

Raybould

2009

J Applied Entomology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many crops in developing countries suffer devastating attacks from insect pests. Expression of insecticidal proteins in genetically engineered (GE) crops is a potentially powerful means of controlling such pests. Potentially harmful effects of these crops on non‐target organisms (NTOs) is of major concern as many of those provide important ecological functions such as pest regulation. Consequently, the likelihood of adverse effects of insect‐resistant GE crops on NTOs is assessed case‐by‐case as part of environmental risk assessments that inform regulatory decision‐making. While risk assessments should be rigorous, it is vital that regulatory barriers do not unnecessarily restrict or prevent the application of genetic engineering to important crops in those countries. Efficient regulatory decision‐making should make effective use of published information on the biology and ecology of the crop in the country where approval is sought, along with regulatory data produced for GE insect‐resistant crops that have received regulatory approvals elsewhere. Just as the risks are assessed for each GE crop individually, the amount of new regulatory data required for a GE crop should vary between crops depending on the amount of existing data and the severity of the perceived risks: new data should be collected only if existing data do not corroborate identified risk hypotheses with sufficient certainty. In this paper, we illustrate how such an approach could work using risks to NTOs from insect‐resistant GE pigeonpea in India as an example.

show abstract

“…The host selection is an essential and complex behavioural component of any host-parasitoid relationship, and it determines the capacity of the species to influence the population density of its host. It is now widely accepted that the parasitoid is first attracted to its host-habitat and then to host, which may be accepted or rejected [20][21]. The recognized phases of the process which results in successful parasitism, comprise the following: 1. host-habitat finding, 2. host-location, 3. host acceptance, 4. hostsuitability and 5. host-regulation [22][23][24].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such host searching behaviour is strongly influenced by natural selection, and has been used in tests of optimal foraging theory [29]. The small size of many parasitoid species, however, makes field observations difficult, often restricting such work to the laboratory [20], [30][31]. Inside a host habitat, the parasitoids have evolved a variety of strategies to detect and orient to hosts from a considerable distance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a single species of parasitoid it can involve long-distance orientation via chemicals, sound or light; short-range intensive searching of hosts traces; and direct detection of hosts through integumentary chemicals or physical characterstics. In general, the factors associated with the host location comprise various stimuli, viz., [20]. Relatively few definitive studies involving physical stimuli have been done.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Untitled

2018

RJLBPCS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From a series of experiments, the host finding behaviour of by Lipolexis oregmae are studied through perception of various stimuli, viz., olfactory, contact of host substrate, visual and gustatory. Olfactory and contact receptors in parasitoid are located in her antennae. Only when 5 segments of both the antennae are amputed or waxed, the parasitoid took significantly more time to make first contact with the host. Similarly, time taken between first contact with the host and oviposition only vary significantly when 5 antennal segments were nullified their function. Oviposition by blind parasitoid suggests that sight does play a part in host finding but has a greater role in the proper orientation of the parasitoid to hosts during oviposition. Normal females were found to spend more time (452 ± 156 s) on the infested (with hosts) leaf of host plant followed by on leaves from which the aphids were shortly removed (235 ± 125 s) and on uninfested leaves (fresh and healthy) (107 ± 31 s). The additional time was spent by the normal females in the licking of the honeydew. Licking of honeydew not only provides necessary nourishment to the parasitoids but also it assures them of the presence of their hosts. The presence of kairomones in the honeydew cannot be ruled out. Therefore, gustation (tasting honeydew) is partly helpful in host finding by reducing the host approaching period. The data presented herein demonstrated that the olfaction of chemical cues (kairomones) secreted by the aphid, vision and gustation of honeydew excreted by the aphid play major role in host finding by the parasitoid, Lipolexis oregmae and its antennae play major role in this process.

show abstract

Bionomics of Trioxys (Binodoxys) indicus Subba Rao & Sharma, an aphidiid parasitoid of Aphis craccivora Koch

Cited by 39 publications

References 66 publications

Chemical cues mediating aphid location by natural enemies

Chemical cues mediating aphid location by natural enemies

Making effective use of existing data for case‐by‐case risk assessments of genetically engineered crops

Untitled

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About