4.6 Article

Proximity to host plant of a congener determines parasitism of a waterhyacinth biological control agent by a native parasitoid

期刊

BIOLOGICAL CONTROL
卷 153, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2020.104477

关键词

Megamelus scutellaris; Mymaridae; Kalopolynema ema; Egg parasitoid; Waterhyacinth; Pontederia crassipes; Integrated plant management

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The experiment showed that parasitism of Megamelus scutellaris decreased with distance from the native host and with increasing Megamelus scutellaris density. Although parasitism increased with Kalopolynema ema density, rainfall, and temperature, over half of the test plants showed no signs of parasitism on Megamelus scutellaris. The lack of density dependent response by Kalopolynema ema suggests it will not interfere with biological control of Pontederia crassipes in Florida.
The biological control agent Megamelus scutellaris Berg (Hemiptera: Delphacidae) was released in Florida in 2010 to improve control of the invasive aquatic plant, Pontederia (Eichhornia) crassipes (Mart.) Solms (Commelinales: Pontederiaceae). A native egg parasitoid, Kalopolynema ema (Schauff and Grissell) (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae), was documented utilizing M. scutellaris, potentially limiting its effectiveness as a biological control agent. An experiment to determine if the distance from K. ema's native host impacted parasitism rate of M. scutellaris was conducted in artificial ponds with naturally occurring populations of the native insect species. Models indicated that parasitism decreased with distance from the native host and with increasing M. scutellaris density. Although parasitism increased with K. ema density, rainfall, and temperature, parasitism was low with over half of the test plants indicating no signs of parasitism on M. scutellaris. The lack of a density dependent response by K. ema suggests it will not interfere with biological control of P. crassipes in Florida.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据