| Literature DB >> 35621784 |
Binglin Xing1,2, Lei Yang1,2,3, Ahamaijiang Gulinuer1,2, Fen Li1, Shaoying Wu1.
Abstract
As a major invasive pest in China, Spodoptera frugiperda (Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) has caused great damage to crops. Hymenopteran parasitoids, especially the braconid wasps, play crucial roles in depressing pest populations. However, there was little information about the ideal storage of parasitoids to achieve their mass-rearing. Here, we identified a dominant parasitoid of S. frugiperda, Microplitis manilae (Ashmead) (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), in the Hainan province of China with a field parasitism rate of 5.66-19.10%. The investigation of biological parameters revealed that the parasitism rate of M. manilae significantly decreased with an increase in both wasp adult longevity and host age, and the wasp of 1-3 d post eclosion performed best on the first instar of host larvae, showing the highest parasitism rate. We also discovered that the decreased temperature from 30 to 20 °C greatly extended the longevity of wasp adults, and a similar result was observed after feeding on 10% sucrose water compared with sterile water. Then, the effects of different pupal cold storage temperatures (4 and 10 °C), storage period (prepupa, middle-aged pupa, late-aged pupa) and storage time (5, 10 or 20 d) on the emergence rate, parasitism rate, female proportion and longevity of M. manilae were investigated. The results demonstrated that the middle-aged wasp pupae stored at 10 °C for 5-10 d possessed a stronger parasitic ability and longer longevity. These findings may promote the flexibility and efficacy of large-scale production of M. manilae, thus contributing to its biological field control against S. frugiperda.Entities:
Keywords: Microplitis manilae; Spodoptera frugiperda; biological control; cold storage; parasitoid
Year: 2022 PMID: 35621784 PMCID: PMC9146762 DOI: 10.3390/insects13050449
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Insects ISSN: 2075-4450 Impact factor: 3.139
Field parasitism rate of M. manilae in different areas of Hainan Province, China.
| Collection Time | Location | Coordinate | Number of | Number of Parasitized Larvae | Parasitism Rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020.11.10 | Dongfang | 108°64′ E, 18°84′ N | 199 | 38 | 19.10 |
| 2020.11.03 | Ledong1 | 108°91′ E, N18°47′ N | 131 | 18 | 13.74 |
| 2020.10.23 | Qiongzhong | 109°90′ E, N19°13′ N | 131 | 16 | 12.21 |
| 2020.11.01 | Sanya | 109°18′ E, N18°38′ N | 238 | 15 | 6.30 |
| 2020.10.30 | Ledong2 | 108°83′ E, N18°51′ N | 53 | 3 | 5.66 |
| 2021.05.13 | Danzhou | 109°48′ E, N19°51′ N | 235 | 19 | 8.09 |
| 2021.05.10 | Sanya | 109°18′ E, N18°38′ N | 81 | 0 | 0.00 |
| 2020.10–2021.05 | In total | 1068 | 109 | 10.21 | |
Longevity of M. manilae adults fed different food at different temperatures.
| Food | Survival Time (d) | F |
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20 °C | 22.5 °C | 25 °C | 27.5 °C | 30 °C | |||
| 10% sucrose water | 29.66 ± 0.98 a | 28.24 ± 0.81 ab | 26.51 ± 1.18 b | 18.09 ± 0.55 c | 12.26 ± 1.04 d | 206.05 | <0.001 |
| Sterile water | 6.31 ± 0.68 e | 5.22 ± 0.42 ef | 4.75 ± 0.37 ef | 4.06 ± 0.12 fg | 2.39 ± 0.44 g | ||
Note: Data are presented as mean ± SE (standard error) (n ≥ 15). Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences at the 0.05 level according to the Fisher LSD test (two-way ANOVA).
Figure 1Effects of food on adult longevity of M. manilae. (A) Survival curves of M. manilae adults upon feeding on sterile water at different temperatures. (B) Survival curves of M. manilae adults upon feeding on 10% sucrose water at different temperatures. SU means 10% sucrose water, and ST represents sterile water (n ≥ 15).
Figure 2The parasitism rates of M. manilae on different instars of S. frugiperda larvae at different developmental stages. (A) The parasitism rates of M. manilae post 1–2 d eclosion on first, second, third and fourth S. frugiperda larvae (n ≥ 15). (B) The parasitism rates of M. manilae at 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 d post-eclosion on S. frugiperda first larvae (n ≥ 15). One-way ANOVA between different groups was performed followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison tests, and the different letters mean significant differences (p < 0.05). Data are presented as mean ± SE.
Emergence rate of M. manilae after pupal cold storage treatments.
| Storage Time (d) | Storage | Emergence Rate (%) | F |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prepupa | Middle-Aged Pupa | Late-Aged Pupa | ||||
| 5 | 4 | 65.66 ± 1.01 e | 82.32 ± 0.50 c | 74.13 ± 1.40 d | 108.95 | <0.001 |
| 10 | 76.55 ± 2.11 d | 91.88 ± 0.21 b | 83.33 ± 0.00 c | |||
| 25 (control) | 98.68 ± 0.94 a | |||||
| 10 | 4 | 26.26 ± 4.40 f | 63.64 ± 0.00 cd | 47.22 ± 2.78 e | 138.02 | <0.001 |
| 10 | 58.33 ± 0.00 d | 74.88 ± 1.21 b | 65.66 ± 1.01 c | |||
| 25 (control) | 98.68 ± 0.94 a | |||||
| 20 | 4 | 0 f | 27.27 ± 0.00 c | 19.39 ± 0.61 e | 1027.39 | <0.001 |
| 10 | 0 f | 36.56 ± 1.93 b | 29.29 ± 2.02 c | |||
| 25 (control) | 98.68 ± 0.94 a | |||||
Note: Data are presented as mean ± SE (n ≥ 15). Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences at the 0.05 level according to the Fisher LSD test (two-way ANOVA).
Parasitism rate of M. manilae adults after pupal cold storage treatments.
| Storage Time (d) | Storage | Parasitism Rate (%) | H |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prepupa | Middle-Aged Pupa | Late-Aged Pupa | ||||
| 5 | 4 | 23.08(23.08–26.92) f | 42.31(38.46–42.31) d | 26.92(26.92–26.92) e | 83.12 | <0.001 |
| 10 | 50.00(46.15–53.85) c | 69.23(65.38–73.08) b | 53.85(50.00–57.69) c | |||
| 25 (control) | 88.46(84.62–92.31) a | |||||
| 10 | 4 | 7.69(7.69–11.54) d | 30.77(26.92–34.62) c | 11.54(11.54–11.54) d | 69.64 | <0.001 |
| 10 | 34.62(34.62–38.46) c | 61.54(57.69–65.38) b | 38.46(34.62–42.31) c | |||
| 25 (control) | 88.46(84.62–92.31) a | |||||
Note: Data are presented as median (Q1–Q3) (n ≥ 15). Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences at the 0.05 level according to the Kruskal–Wallis H test (Nonparametric test).
Longevity of M. manilae adults after different pupal cold storage treatments.
| Storage Time (d) | Storage | Survival Time of Adults (d) | F |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prepupa | Middle-Aged Pupa | Late-Aged Pupa | ||||
| 5 | 4 | 8.22 ± 1.05 e | 13.58 ± 0.11 d | 10.54 ± 0.47 de | 34.21 | <0.001 |
| 10 | 14.00 ± 0.08 cd | 21.32 ± 0.03 b | 17.87 ± 1.80 c | |||
| 25 (control) | 26.51 ± 1.18 a | |||||
| 10 | 4 | 6.63 ± 0.63 e | 10.88 ± 0.43 d | 6.39 ± 0.72 e | 51.62 | <0.001 |
| 10 | 12.87 ± 0.14 cd | 18.78 ± 0.86 b | 16.35 ± 0.65 bc | |||
| 25 (control) | 26.51 ± 1.18 a | |||||
| 20 | 4 | - | 5.30 ± 0.70 c | 3.88 ± 0.63 c | 76.51 | <0.001 |
| 10 | - | 13.32 ± 0.12 b | 10.63 ± 0.38 b | |||
| 25 (control) | 26.51 ± 1.18 a | |||||
Note: Data are presented as mean ± SE (n ≥ 15). The same lowercase letters indicate no significant differences at the 0.05 level according to the Fisher LSD test (two-way ANOVA).
Figure 3Survival curves of M. manilae adults upon different pupal cold storage treatments for different times. (A) Survival curves of M. manilae adults upon different pupal cold storage for 5 d (n ≥ 15). (B) Survival curves of M. manilae adults upon different pupal cold storage for 10 d (n ≥ 15). (C) Survival curves of M. manilae adults upon different pupal cold storage for 20 d (n ≥ 15).
Emergence rate of F2 M. manilae after different F1 pupal cold storage treatments.
| Storage Time (d) | Storage | Emergence Rate (%) | F |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prepupa | Middle-Aged Pupa | Late-Aged Pupa | ||||
| 5 | 4 | 86.62 ± 1.41 b | 87.84 ± 1.70 b | 85.47 ± 1.17 b | 2.96 | 0.011 |
| 10 | 85.69 ± 1.42 b | 85.51 ± 1.84 b | 86.37 ± 1.89 b | |||
| 25 (control) | 98.68 ± 0.94 a | |||||
| 10 | 4 | 86.17 ± 1.51 b | 87.74 ± 1.57 b | 86.55 ± 1.64 b | 2.88 | 0.013 |
| 10 | 86.76 ± 1.53 b | 84.77 ± 1.81 b | 86.63 ± 1.54 b | |||
| 25 (control) | 98.68 ± 0.94 a | |||||
Note: Data are presented as mean ± SE (n ≥ 15). The same lowercase letters indicate no significant differences at the 0.05 level according to the Fisher LSD test (two-way ANOVA).
Female proportion of F2 M. manilae after different F1 pupal cold storage treatments.
| Storage Time (d) | Storage | Female Proportion (%) | F |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prepupa | Middle-Aged Pupa | Late-Aged Pupa | ||||
| 5 | 4 | 68.12 ± 3.29 a | 67.21 ± 2.87 a | 67.67 ± 3.26 a | 0.06 | 0.999 |
| 10 | 67.01 ± 2.97 a | 68.42 ± 4.38 a | 66.62 ± 3.64 a | |||
| 25 (control) | 68.82 ± 1.46 a | |||||
| 10 | 4 | 67.33 ± 4.96 a | 68.06 ± 2.51 a | 68.93 ± 4.38 a | 0.07 | 0.999 |
| 10 | 68.59 ± 4.42 a | 67.73 ± 3.88 a | 66.12 ± 3.75 a | |||
| 25 (control) | 68.82 ± 1.46 a | |||||
Note: Data are presented as mean ± SE (n ≥ 15). The same lowercase letters indicate no significant differences at the 0.05 level according to the Fisher LSD test (two-way ANOVA).