Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-c52kr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T10:13:43.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Response to host density by the parasitoid Dolichogenidea tasmanica (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) and the influence of grapevine variety

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2013

C.A. Paull*
Affiliation:
Centre for Evolutionary Biology and Biodiversity, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, GPO Box 2583, Brisbane, QLD 4001, Australia
N.A. Schellhorn
Affiliation:
CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, GPO Box 2583, Brisbane, QLD 4001, Australia
A.D. Austin
Affiliation:
Centre for Evolutionary Biology and Biodiversity, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia
*
* Author for correspondence Phone: +61 7 38335661 Fax: +61 7 38335504 E-mail: Cate.Paull@csiro.au
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Natural enemies that respond to prey in a density-dependent manner may be able to quickly suppress pest populations before they reach economically damaging levels. Although it is primarily the combination of a natural enemy's functional response and a population numerical response that will influence the maximum number of pests attacked, other factors may influence a density-dependent response. We conducted large-scale field experiments, both artificially inoculating grapevines with larvae and using naturally occurring populations, to quantify and characterize the response of a parasitoid, Dolichogenidea tasmanica (Cameron) (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) to different densities of its host, the pest of grapevines, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). We showed that the response of D. tasmanica to the density of E. postvittana was inversely density-dependent, and that the degree of parasitism was consistently and significantly higher in the grape variety Cabernet Sauvignon compared with Chardonnay. While the significant effect of variety on the degree of parasitism may provide an option for increasing the parasitism of E. postvittana by D. tasmanica, it also highlights how differences in host plant can influence trophic interactions.

Information

Type
Research Paper
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 
Figure 0

Table 1. Inoculated population.

Figure 1

Table 2. Natural population.

Figure 2

Fig. 1. Proportion of inoculated E. postvittana larvae parasitized by D. tasmanica from Chardonnay panels for December, January and February in 2003–04 at the Kidman (black) and Messenger (grey) sites. Numbers in brackets are the total numbers of inoculated first, second and early third instar larvae recovered.

Figure 3

Fig. 2. Relationship between inoculated host density and proportion of larvae parasitized by D. tasmanica per panel for each of the three dates during 2003–04. December y=−0.5162x+0.7074, R2 0.71; January y=−0.2196x+0.8039, R2 0.20; February y=−0.5907x+0.8579, R2 0.63. Data from both sites were combined because site was not different. December=▵, ___, January=□, - - - - - and February=◊, - . - . - . -.

Figure 4

Fig. 3. Mean (±1 SD) number of first and second instar E. postvittana larvae per panel in 2004–05 from Chardonnay and Cabernet Sauvignon varieties at sites (a) Kidman, (b) Messenger and (c) Provis. * represents the dates where collection of larvae from Cabernet Sauvignon panels was incomplete or did not take place. The short vertical arrows represent the dates when the insecticide Dipel® was sprayed onto vines. Long vertical arrows represent the date when the insecticide Avatar® was applied to vines. The split plot bar for Chardonnay 19/11/2004 for the Messenger site indicates the high abundance of E. postvittana larvae.

Figure 5

Fig. 4. Relationship between natural host density per panel and proportion parasitized by D. tasmanica for each site by variety 2004–05 for: (a) Chardonnay: Kidman, y=−0.6162x+0.8303, R2=0.60; Messenger, y=−0.4914x+0.8618; R2=0.82; and Provis, y=−0.6944x+0.9856; R2=0.67 and (b) Cabernet Sauvignon: Kidman, y=−0.5162x+0.9183; R2=0.37; Messenger, y=−0.7078x+0.9686, R2=0.76; and Provis, y=−0.4059x+0.9634, R2=0.20. Data from all the dates were combined and only the panels where parasitism by D. tasmanica was greater than zero were included. Kidman=◊, ____, Messenger=□,. - . - . - . and Provis=∆, - - - - - .

Figure 6

Table 3. Analysis of parameter estimates1: natural population.