Annurev Ento 44 1 291

P1: ARS/spd P2: ARS/ary QC: ARS
November 4, 1998 12:39 Annual Reviews AR074-12

Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1999. 44:291315
Copyright c 1999 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved
HYPERPARASITISM: Multitrophic
Ecology and Behavior
Daniel J. Sullivan
Department of Biological Sciences, Fordham University, Bronx, New York 10458;
e-mail: sullivan@murray.fordham.edu
Wolfgang V olkl
Department of Animal Ecology, University of Bayreuth, 95440 Bayreuth, Germany;
e-mail: wolfgang.voelkl@uni-bayreuth.de
KEY WORDS: biological control, facultative, heteronomous, habitat specicity, sex ratio,
foraging behavior
ABSTRACT
Hyperparasitoids are secondary insect parasitoids that develop at the expense
of a primary parasitoid, thereby representing a highly evolved fourth trophic
level. This review evaluates multitrophic relationships and hyperparasitoid ecol-
ogy. First, hyperparasitoid communities of various taxa of phytophagous and
predacious insects are described. Second, specic patterns of hyperparasitoid
community organization and hyperparasitoid ecology are described in detail, us-
ing the aphid-parasitoidhyperparasitoid food web as a model system. Aphid
hyperparasitoid communities consist of ecto- and endohyperparasitoids, with ec-
tohyperparasitoids being less host specic than endohyperparasitoids. Lifetime
fecundity and intrinsic rate of increase of hyperparasitoids are generally lower
than those of their primary hosts. Aphid ectohyperparasitoids search randomly for
hosts and do not use specic cues, whereas endohyperparasitoids gain information
that originates from host plants or hosts for long-range search. Interactions with
adult primary parasitoids do not inuence hyperparasitoid searches, but aphid-
attending ants typically prevent successful hyperparasitoid foraging. Impact of
hyperparasitism on biological control is reviewed.
291
0066-4170/99/0101-0291$08.00
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

E
n
t
o
m
o
l
.

1
9
9
9
.
4
4
:
2
9
1
-
3
1
5
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

E
s
t
a
d
u
a
l

P
a
u
l
i
s
t
a

J
u
l
i
o

d
e

M
e
s
q
u
i
t
a

F
i
l
h
o

o
n

0
5
/
2
1
/
1
4
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

292 SULLIVAN & V
OLKL
PERSPECTIVES AND OVERVIEW
Multitrophic ecology and the related behavior of the phytophagous and ento-
mophagous insects interacting as a food-web community was pioneered by
Askew & Shaw (4, 5). Many ecologists such as Price et al (86) have continued
this exciting research over more than 30 years. In emphasizing the bottom-up
effects of hosts on their parasitoids, the rst trophic level shows that both inter-
and intraspecic plant variation can inuence the ecology and behavior of the
second trophic level of phytophagous insects, which, in turn, is one of the major
determinants of the third trophic level of insect parasitoids (21). Insect hyper-
parasitism can be dened as a highly evolved fourth trophic level relationship
that exists between entomophagous insects. It refers to the development of a
secondary insect parasitoid or hyperparasitoid at the expense of a primary insect
parasitoid. The primary parasitoid attacks an insect host that is usually phy-
tophagous, but which could also be a predator or scavenger. Hence, an insect
hyperparasitoid attacks another insect that is or was developing in or on another
insect host, and this sometimes impacts on biological control of a pest insect.
Hyperparasitoids may have a considerable inuence on the top-down con-
trol of terrestrial herbivorous arthropod populations by parasitoids (90), and
their action may have shaped the evolution of parasitoid foraging strategies
(61, 118, 129). The structure of hyperparasitoid communities, representing the
fourth trophic level, has been studied for a representative spectrum of phy-
tophagous hosts (39, 41), and the degree of resource utilization in the eld is
known for most systems of economic importance. In contrast, there is only
limited knowledge of life-history parameters and of foraging behaviors of hy-
perparasitoids. Both factors are of crucial importance for the understanding of
the role of hyperparasitismin natural populations as well as in pest control (104).
Information about hyperparasitoid life history may help in understanding basic
interactions and may give rough estimates about their general capability to inu-
ence primary parasitoid populations (15a, 104). The analysis of hyperparasitoid
foraging behavior may give us an idea of the factors that inuence the hyperpar-
asitoids foraging success and may thus contribute explanations for the levels
of hyperparasitism observed in the eld. There are two multitrophic systems
with a well-studied hyperparasitoid ecology: (a) the heteronomous hyperpar-
asitoids of the genus Encarsia attacking scale insects and whiteies (33) and
(b) the aphid-parasitoid-hyperparasitoid community (104, 105, 120). In both
systems, the involved phytophages are worldwide pests. Furthermore, they are
easy to keep in the laboratory, and the knowledge of hyperparasitoid ecology is
of basic importance for the design of biological control programs. However, in
heteronomous hyperparasitoids or adelphoparasitoids, only males develop as
hyperparasitoids, attacking females of their own or another parasitoid species
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

E
n
t
o
m
o
l
.

1
9
9
9
.
4
4
:
2
9
1
-
3
1
5
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

E
s
t
a
d
u
a
l

P
a
u
l
i
s
t
a

J
u
l
i
o

d
e

M
e
s
q
u
i
t
a

F
i
l
h
o

o
n

0
5
/
2
1
/
1
4
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

HYPERPARASITISM: ECOLOGYBEHAVIOR 293
(33, 68, 82, 84, 104, 117, 134, 136). But aphid hyperparasitoids generally
develop as obligate hyperparasitoids (104, 105). In this review, we rst re-
port on the structure of hyperparasitoid communities in various taxa of host
parasitoid systems and on levels of resource utilization. Concerning ecology
and behavior, we focus on obligate hyperparasitoids. We use the aphid hyper-
parasitoid community as a model system to show typical patterns of selected
life-history aspects and foraging strategies at the fourth trophic level.
TERMINOLOGY
Obligate hyperparasitoids are always secondary parasitoids: Their progeny
can develop only in or on a primary parasitoid. A subcategory includes both
true hyperparasitoids, which attack the primary parasitoid through the her-
bivore, and pseudohyperparasitoids, which attack the primary parasitoid in
the cocoon stage after it has emerged from the host (39). Facultative hy-
perparasitoids have progeny that can develop either as primary or as secondary
parasitoids. Endophagous hyperparasitoids have larvae that feed inside the host,
whereas ectophagous species feed externally. Another feeding-related distinc-
tion is between koinobionts, which allow their hosts to continue development
after oviposition, and idiobionts, which paralyze or kill their hosts in the process
of oviposition (4, 29). Direct hyperparasitoids attack the primary parasitoid
directly by ovipositing in or on it. Indirect hyperparasitoids attack the primary
parasitoids phytophagous host and thus only attack the parasitoid itself indi-
rectly. In this case, the female hyperparasitoid oviposits into the phytophagous
host whether it is parasitized or not (31).
EVOLUTION
Hyperparasitism has evolved in only three insect orders: Hymenoptera (17
families) and perhaps in a few species of Diptera and Coleoptera (33). Only
Hymenoptera are treated here.
Evolution of Hyperparasitism in Hymenoptera
PRIMARY PARASITISM The recent review by Whiteld (131) suggested that
parasitism arose once, in the common ancestor of the Orussoidea (parasitic
wood wasps) and the monophyletic Apocrita (narrow-waisted wasps). The ori-
gin of the Apocrita, and therefore parasitism in the Hymenoptera, dates to the
Jurassic period, about 135 million years ago (88). This precursor specialized
in larval feeding within tunnels in wood and at least partly upon fungi (intro-
duced and/or promoted by secretions from the adult female wasp at the time of
oviposition). Ectoparasitism probably evolved before endoparasitism, with the
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

E
n
t
o
m
o
l
.

1
9
9
9
.
4
4
:
2
9
1
-
3
1
5
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

E
s
t
a
d
u
a
l

P
a
u
l
i
s
t
a

J
u
l
i
o

d
e

M
e
s
q
u
i
t
a

F
i
l
h
o

o
n

0
5
/
2
1
/
1
4
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

294 SULLIVAN & V
OLKL
parasitoid egg deposited near or perhaps on the host rather than in it. Hence,
these ectoparasitoids usually attacked concealed hosts, often within galleries
in wood or plant galls. The use of venom apparently developed very early and
produced physiological changes in the host. While the venom of the more an-
cestral ectoparasitoids resulted in idiobiosis (permanent paralysis or death), the
venomof the more specialized endoparasitoids tended toward koinobiosis (tem-
porary or nonlethal paralysis). However, it is not clear whether endoparasitism
preceded koinobiosis or vice versa (33). Of related interest is the evolution
of teratocytes or giant cells with nutritive and secretory functions that some-
times cause pathologies, then viruses and virus-like particles that can overcome
immune responses, and nally polyembryony, in which many embryos develop
from a single egg.
HYPERPARASITISM According to Godfray (33), facultative hyperparasitism
perhaps evolved fromectoparasitismbecause no special adaptations are needed
to oviposit and feed on a primary parasitoid as well as the primarys host.
Obligate hyperparasitism has a wide taxonomic distribution and could have
evolved in at least two ways: (a) via facultative hyperparasitism as an oppor-
tunistic trade-off to utilize primary or secondary hosts, and/or if the hyper-
parasitic species frequently encounters already parasitized hosts; or (b) by a
host shift from a primary parasitoid of one host to a secondary parasitoid of
another species. This host transfer is facilitated if the old primary and new
secondary hosts share physiological and/or ecological attributes. Finally, some
hyperparasitoids are ectoparasitic whereas others are endoparasitic, and some
are idiobionts whereas others are koinobionts (10).
NON-APHID HYPERPARASITISM
This section reviews hyperparasitism in insect hosts other than aphids and is
presented in descending order of literature citations by major taxa with selected
examples of current research on more common multitrophic relationships and
interesting behaviors, with special reference to the impact of hyperparasitism
on biological control.
Lepidoptera
GYPSY MOTH Lymantria dispar (Lymantriidae) is an exotic insect defoliator
of trees in North America, against which classical biological control has been
used over many years. It is attacked by a number of introduced hymenopterous
primary parasitoids, such as Cotesia (=Apanteles) melanoscela (Braconidae),
Brachymeria intermedia (Chalcididae), and Ooencyrtus kuvanae (Encyrtidae).
In the case of C. melanoscela, their cocoons in turn are attacked by as many
as 16 indigenous hyperparasitoid species, sometimes resulting in an average of
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

E
n
t
o
m
o
l
.

1
9
9
9
.
4
4
:
2
9
1
-
3
1
5
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

E
s
t
a
d
u
a
l

P
a
u
l
i
s
t
a

J
u
l
i
o

d
e

M
e
s
q
u
i
t
a

F
i
l
h
o

o
n

0
5
/
2
1
/
1
4
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

5090%primary mortality, which can interfere with biological control (11, 24).
A nondiapausing Asian strain decreases its exposure time and, hence, reduces
its vulnerability to hyperparasitism (78, 132, 133). A tachinid y, Ceranthia
samarensis (Diptera:Tachinidae), was imported into Canada from Europe and
is the predominent parasitoid in low-density populations of gypsy moths while
suffering 716% hyperparasitism (69).
LEAFMINERS Phyllonorycter crataegella (Gracillariidae) on pin cherry and
Phyllonorycter propinquinella on black cherry have parasitoid fauna similar to
that of apple leafminers (62). However, of the parasitoids that emerged from
these leafminers, nine species were primary parasitoids, and seven were facul-
tative hyperparasitoids. Both cherry leafminers are alternate hosts for parasitoid
species that attack economically important apple leafminers, but obligate hy-
perparasitoids do not seem to be important.
GREEN CLOVERWORM In the soybean canopy, the green cloverworm, Plathy-
pena scabra (Noctuidae), is parasitized by Cotesia marginiventris (Hymenop-
tera: Braconidae), which is hyperparasitized byMesochorus discitergus (Hyme-
noptera: Ichneumonidae). The hyperparasitoid must hang by its tarsi from the
edge of the leaf from which the larva is suspended, and then it reels in the
caterpillar by pulling upward on the caterpillars silken thread. Hyperparasitoid
pupation occurs within the cocoon spun by the primary parasitoid (137a).
CABBAGE BUTTERFLY Pieris rapae (Pieridae) is attacked by the gregarious
parasitoid, Cotesiaglomerata(Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Emergence of adult
hyperparasitoids, Eurytoma sp. (Hymenoptera: Eurytomidae), from the oldest
cocoon clusters was found to be strongly male biased, while the sex ratio from
young cocoons was in favor of females (108).
SPRUCE BUDWORM An extensive study was done by Huber et al (48) on 28
genera representing 10 families of at least 50 chalcidoid parasitoids and hy-
perparasitoids recorded from Choristoneura fumiferana (Tortricidae) and other
Choristoneura spp. in NewBrunswick, Canada. Primary parasitoids belonging
to the Ichneumonidae, Braconidae, and Tachinidae were recorded from 10 of
the 16 Nearctic Choristoneura spp., but chalcidoid hyperparasitoids were from
only 4 of the 16 species.
STEM BORERS Tetrastichus howardi (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) is a gregar-
ious endoparasitoid introduced into South Africa as a biological control agent
against stem borers. Chilo partellus (Pyralidae) and Helicoverpa armigera
(Noctuidae) were preferred by T. howardi and so behaved as a polyphagous
facultative hyperparasitoid rather than as an obligate hyperparasitoid on their
primary parasitoids. When one lepidopteran pupa was parasitized by a single
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

E
n
t
o
m
o
l
.

1
9
9
9
.
4
4
:
2
9
1
-
3
1
5
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

E
s
t
a
d
u
a
l

P
a
u
l
i
s
t
a

J
u
l
i
o

d
e

M
e
s
q
u
i
t
a

F
i
l
h
o

o
n

0
5
/
2
1
/
1
4
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

296 SULLIVAN & V
OLKL
T. howardi female, about 55 progeny emerged, of which 94% were females
(70, 71).
EUCALYPTUS MOTH In South Australia, Uraba lugens (Noctuidae) on several
species of eucalyptus was attacked by 11 primary parasitoids and 10 hyperpar-
asitoids (one of which was facultative). Of these hyperparasitoids, many were
gregarious and polyphagous, and all but one species parasitized the pupae of the
primary parasitoids. Hyperparasitism and the presence of many polyphagous
primary parasitoids in the complex perhaps contributed to the low levels of
parasitism of U. lugens (2).
TRIGONALYID WASPS Weinstein & Austins (127, 128) studies of the relation-
ship of the enigmatic trigonalyid wasps (Hymenoptera: Trigonalyidae) with
their hosts indicated that most species appear to oviposit on a wide variety of
plants. Their eggs are ingested in most cases by lepidopteran or sawy larvae,
and they then develop as obligatory hyperparasitoids in tachinid or ichneumonid
primary parasitoids or in vespid or eumenid wasp larvae. Vespidae are the most
commonly recorded secondary hosts, perhaps via lepidopteran primary hosts
provisioned into nests.
TUFTED APPLE BUD MOTH Platynota idaeusalis (Tortricidae), a pest in apple
orchards, has 41 primary parasitoids, with Exochus atriceps (Hymenoptera:
Ichneumonidae) as the most common. Only two hyperparasitoid species emer-
ged with no major impact noted (9).
SCALE INSECTS AND WHITEFLIES Scale insects and whiteies are phytopha-
gous pests in the order Homoptera. They are often hosts in an unusual relation-
ship of multitrophic ecology and behavior unique to the hymenopterous family
Aphelinidae, which had been reviewed by Viggiani (116).
HETERONOMOUS HYPERPARASITISM Heteronomous hyperparasitism is also
called facultative autoparasitism and adelphoparasitism. Females develop nor-
mally as primary endoparasitoids of Homoptera, whereas males develop hy-
perparasitically in primary endoparasitoids, including their own conspecic
females (68, 117, 134). Abnormal behavior or deviant male ontogeny is as-
sociated with sex differentiation in the host relations of some species in such
genera as Aneristus, Coccophagus, Coccophagoides, Euxanthellus, Encarsia,
Lounburyia, Physcus, and Prococcophagus. This highly evolved mode of de-
velopment results in linkage with progeny sex ratio. Field sex ratios of het-
eronomous hyperparasitoids can uctuate dramatically depending on changes
in the relative availability of male and female hosts (136).
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

E
n
t
o
m
o
l
.

1
9
9
9
.
4
4
:
2
9
1
-
3
1
5
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

E
s
t
a
d
u
a
l

P
a
u
l
i
s
t
a

J
u
l
i
o

d
e

M
e
s
q
u
i
t
a

F
i
l
h
o

o
n

0
5
/
2
1
/
1
4
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

SCALE INSECTS Second instar scales of Filippia gemina are the preferred
hosts for the larvae of the female aphelinid Coccophagus atratus. Late larval
instars and prepupae of the conspecic C. atratus are the preferred hosts of
male C. atratus larvae. Variable population sex ratios observed in C. atratus
apparently result from the behavior of individual females, in which brood sex
ratios are dependent on the relative availability of hosts for males and hosts for
females (23).
When another aphelinid, Encarsia tricolor, was offered pupae of Encarsia
inaron or conspecic pupae, E. tricolor showed a distinct preference to exploit
E. inaron for male production (134). In complexes of parasitoids containing
a heteronomous hyperparasitoid and one or more conventional species, in the
majorityof cases, the heteronomous hyperparasitoidwas the most important and
dominant species. Hence, caution is necessary when using such parasitoids in
classical biological control programs (135). Three forms of Encarsia perniciosi
are recognizedbyStouthamer &Luck(102) basedontheir mode of reproduction
and host choice: a thelytokous formparasitizing California red scale, Aonidiella
aurantii, and both a thelytokous and an arrhenotokous form parasitizing San
Jose scale, Quadraspidiotus perniciosus. The arrhenotokous E. perniciosi is a
heteronomous hyperparasitoid, andit hadbeensuggestedthat the arrhenotokous
formwould become thelytokous inone generationwhenculturedunder constant
temperatures inthe laboratory. However, this was not foundtobe the case infour
cultures under constant temperatures after 2, 3, 11, and 19 generations (102).
WHITEFLIES A tritrophic model of heteronomous hyperparasitism was used
in a cottonwhitey-parasitoid system by Mills & Gutierrez (68). Male aphe-
linid parasitoids develop at the expense of conspecic females or competing
parasitoid species. The unresolved question is whether such heteronomous
hyperparasitismis compatible with the goals of biological control. Three aphe-
linid parasitoids were considered: (a) a typical primary parasitoid (where both
males and females develop on whitey hosts), (b) an obligate autoparasitoid
(where males develop only on conspecic females), and (c) a facultative au-
toparasitoid (where males develop on all other parasitoids including conspecic
females). Results indicate that the combination of a primary parasitoid and an
obligate autoparasitoid provides the greatest suppression of cumulative whitey
abundance. In contrast, the addition of a facultative autoparasitoid disrupts the
control potential of the other parasitoids. Hence, the indiscriminate introduction
of aphelinid parasitoids in biological control programs should be avoided when
some are facultative autoparasitoids. Encarsia formosa (Hymenoptera: Aphe-
linidae) is a parasitoid used worldwide for the biological control of whiteies
on vegetables and ornamental plants grown in greenhouses (43). It is hyper-
parasitized by Signiphora coquilletti, Encarsia pergandiella, and E. tricolor
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

E
n
t
o
m
o
l
.

1
9
9
9
.
4
4
:
2
9
1
-
3
1
5
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

E
s
t
a
d
u
a
l

P
a
u
l
i
s
t
a

J
u
l
i
o

d
e

M
e
s
q
u
i
t
a

F
i
l
h
o

o
n

0
5
/
2
1
/
1
4
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

298 SULLIVAN & V
OLKL
(6, 15, 137). Models suggest that the efcacy of biological control is reduced if
heteronomous hyperparasitoids (such as E. pergandiella, E. tricolor) are used
together with primary parasitoids such as E. formosa (69; see also 82, 84; see
AC Bellotti et al, this volume).
Mealybugs
CASSAVA MEALYBUG The history and success in Africa of a classical biolog-
ical control program to protect cassava (Manihot esculenta) from the South
American mealybug (Phenacoccus manihoti) has been reviewed by Herren
& Neuenschwander (42). The most effective of the primary parasitoids was
Apoanagyrus (=Epidinocarsis) lopezi (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae), which was
introduced from Paraguay into Nigeria in 1981. Even some defensive behavior
bythe cassava mealybuginvolvingencapsulationandmelanizationof the wasps
eggs and larvae did not prevent biological control of this pest (106). At least
10 indigenous hymenopterous hyperparasitoids adapted to this new exotic pri-
mary in Africa: Chartocerus hyalipennis (Signiphoridae) and Prochiloneurus
insolitus were the most common hyperparasitoids, followed by Prochiloneurus
aegyptiacus (Encyrtidae), Tetrastichus sp. (Eulophidae), and Marietta leopar-
dina (Aphelinidae) (1, 80). The rate of hyperparasitism varied considerably
(2090%). Yet, in spite of sometimes high hyperparasitism, no detrimental ef-
fect on the control efciency of A. lopezi was noticed (51, 79). Special eld and
laboratory studies on the biology and impact of Chartocerus and Prochiloneu-
rus spp. conrmed that these hyperparasitoids did not signicantly reduce
A. lopezis success (34, 35).
MANGO MEALYBUG In the early 1980s, the mango mealybug, Rastrococcus
invadens, was accidentally introduced into Togo, causing serious damage on
mango (Mangifera indica), citrus, other fruit, and even shade trees. As part of
a biological control program, a primary parasitoid was introduced from India,
Gyranusoidea tebygi (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae), and became established in
Togo and most of West Africa (79). Although, at times, 5060% of G. tebygi
mortality was attributable to eight species of hyperparasitoids, this still did not
seem to prevent successful control of the mango mealybug (65).
DIPTERA The recent review of Diptera as parasitoids by Feener & Brown (29)
compared them with the Hymenoptera and pointed out that the Diptera use
a wider array of hosts (22 orders across ve phyla) than any other group of
parasitoids. In contrast, hosts of the more diverse parasitic Hymenoptera are
restricted to 19 orders, all within the single phylum Arthropoda. Most dipteran
parasitoids are koinobionts and endoparasitoids. Superparasitism (ovposition
in a host already parasitized by a female of the same species) appears to be both
widely distributed across dipteran species and common within populations, as
reported in Conopidae, Phoridae, and Tachinidae.
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

E
n
t
o
m
o
l
.

1
9
9
9
.
4
4
:
2
9
1
-
3
1
5
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

E
s
t
a
d
u
a
l

P
a
u
l
i
s
t
a

J
u
l
i
o

d
e

M
e
s
q
u
i
t
a

F
i
l
h
o

o
n

0
5
/
2
1
/
1
4
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

GALL-MAKERS Hawkins & Goeden (40), Hawkins & Sheehan (41), and Craig
(21) have pointed out that multitrophic ecology and the related behavior of
the phytophagous and entomophagous insect community are especially well
demonstrated with dipteran gall-makers. In Florida, Stiling & Rossi (101)
studied the dipteran midge Asphondylia borrichiae (Cecidomyiidae), which
induces the formation of galls on three different plant species: sea oxeye daisy
(Borrichia frutescens), marsh elder (Iva frutescens), and beach elder (Iva imbri-
cata). The dipteran gall-maker is attackedbyfour mainspecies of hymenopteran
parasitoids. Two of these parasitoids, Torymus umbilicatus (Torymidae) and
Galeopsomyia haemon (Eulophidae), are ectoparasitic and facultatively hy-
perparasitic (Figure 1). They were the dominant species because the two other
parasitoids are primaries only and endoparasitic: Rileya cecidomyiae (Euryto-
midae) and Tenuipetiolus teredon (Eurytomidae). As endoparasitic primaries,
they are available for attack by the two ectoparasitoids when behaving as facul-
tative hyperparasitoids. However, gall size is also important in the further com-
petition between these two ectoparasitic and facultative hyperparasitoids. One
Figure 1 Multitrophic ecology and behavior of the parasitoids and hyperparasitoids associated
with the dipteran gall-maker Asphondylia borrichiae. Redrawn from Stiling & Rossi (101), with
permission from Oxford University Press.
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

E
n
t
o
m
o
l
.

1
9
9
9
.
4
4
:
2
9
1
-
3
1
5
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

E
s
t
a
d
u
a
l

P
a
u
l
i
s
t
a

J
u
l
i
o

d
e

M
e
s
q
u
i
t
a

F
i
l
h
o

o
n

0
5
/
2
1
/
1
4
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

300 SULLIVAN & V
OLKL
of these, G. haemon, displaces the other hyperparasitic species, T. umbilicatus,
in small galls. But T. umbilicatus has a much longer ovipositor than G. haemon,
enabling it to oviposit later as galls grow in size. As a result, T. umbilicatus has
a competitive advantage in larger galls.
LEAFMINERS The dipteran honeysuckle leafminer, Chromatomyia suikasurae
(Agromyzidae), in a natural forest in Kyoto, Japan, was found to have a com-
plex of primary parasitoids, of which 3 were koinobiont (all larval-pupal soli-
tary) and 22 idiobiont species (11 larval solitary, 9 pupal solitary, and 2 pupal
gregarious). Although competition among these primaries contributed to low
emergence rates of parasitoids at high host densities, these primary parasitoid
rates were also reduced at lowhost densities, probably by inter- and intraspecic
hyperparasitism (54).
DROSOPHILIDAE A facultative hyperparasitoid, Pachycrepoideus vindemiae
(Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae), attacks both as a primary parasitoid on Droso-
phila melanogaster and as a hyperparasitoid on the primary Asobara tabida
(Hymenoptera: Braconidae) (85).
BOMBYLIIDAE Unlike most of the dipteran parasitoids, bombyliids are ec-
toparasitoids. Hyperparasitism on dipteran parasitoids as hosts seems uncom-
mon, but there are some records of hyperparasitism by bombyliid parasitoids
(in genera of Anthracinae) on primary hosts (138). However, all bombyliids
recorded as hyperparasitoids do not appear to have evolved in any close associa-
tion with the primary host and are best termed pseudohyperparasitoidswith
both facultative and obligate hyperparasitic behaviors existing.
Wasps and Bees
CYNIPID GALL-MAKERS The wasppest Dryocosmus kuriphilus (Hymenoptera:
Cynipidae) induces galls in chestnut orchards in Japan. An imported parasitoid,
Torymus (=Syntomaspis) sinensis (Hymenoptera: Torymidae), was released in
1982 in Kumamoto Prefecture, but disappointingly, the population had not in-
creased at the rate expected. As a result, the density of the host cynipid pest
has not yet decreased but instead continues to uctuate at too high a level. Two
factors were suggested to have delayed the success of the introduced para-
sitoid: the low female sex ratio and high mortality rate due to native facultative
hyperparasitoids (75, 76).
LEAFCUTTER BEES The y Physocephala vittata (Diptera: Conopidae) is a
pest of benecial pollinating alfalfa leafcutter bees, Megachile rotundata
(Hymenoptera: Megachilidae), in the former Yugoslavia. A hyperparasitoid,
Habrocytus eonopidarum (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae), emerged from pupae
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

E
n
t
o
m
o
l
.

1
9
9
9
.
4
4
:
2
9
1
-
3
1
5
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

E
s
t
a
d
u
a
l

P
a
u
l
i
s
t
a

J
u
l
i
o

d
e

M
e
s
q
u
i
t
a

F
i
l
h
o

o
n

0
5
/
2
1
/
1
4
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

of P. vittata in the laboratory, indicating that biological control of this y pest
is a possibility (67).
SAWFLIES Sometimes sawies primary parasitoids in Australia (127, 128)
and in Eurasia (87) are in turn attacked by facultative hyperparasitoids.
Psyllids
PEAR PSYLLA Psylla pyri (Homoptera: Psyllidae) is the key pest in pear
orchards in France and many European countries. Trechynites psyllae (Hy-
menoptera: Encyrtidae) is the main primary parasitoid regulating the pest from
the rst generation. Hyperparasitism, essentially due to Syrphophagus mami-
tus (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae), appears later on another host species, Psylla
pyrisuga, which acts as a relay species for primary parasitoids between the
rst and second generation of P. pyri. Five other hyperparasitoids appear even
later. Because hyperparasitism is not recorded on the rst generation of P. pyri,
early release of primary parasitoids should be successful in reducing pest
populations (3).
HAWTHORN PSYLLIDS Ant attendance on larval parasitism was studied in
three species of hawthorn psyllids (Cacopsylla peregtina, Cacopsylla mela-
noneura, Cacopsylla crataegi). All three psyllid species had low parasitization
rates by two encyrtid primaries. However, the ant-attended C. crataegi was
almost exclusively parasitized by only one primary: Prionomitus mitratus. The
two other psyllid species that were not ant attended were attacked mainly by
Prionomitus tiliaris. In addition, the dominant hyperparasitoid, Pachyneuron
muscarum(Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae), was most successful on the two psyl-
lid species unattended by ants. Hence, the primary parasitoid beneted from
ant attendance of its psyllid host, C. crataegi, since honeydew-collecting ants
provided it with protection from hyperparasitoids (81).
Coleoptera
COCCINELLID BEETLES The European ladybird beetle, Coccinella septem-
punctata, was introduced into the eastern United States during the 1970s. The
literature and recent North American collection records indicate that at least 16
species of insects (ca 14 Hymenoptera from six families, and 2 Diptera from
two families) are now known as primary parasitoids and hyperparasitoids, such
as Tetrastichus spp., Pachyneuron spp., etc (91).
WEEVILS Two weevil stem borers (Curculionidae) on Rumex crispus differed
in their feeding position. Apion miniatum inhabited the lower 10% of the stem,
while Apion violaceum occurred all along the stem, thus exploiting distinctly
different feeding positions, partly owing to differences in time of oviposition.
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

E
n
t
o
m
o
l
.

1
9
9
9
.
4
4
:
2
9
1
-
3
1
5
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

E
s
t
a
d
u
a
l

P
a
u
l
i
s
t
a

J
u
l
i
o

d
e

M
e
s
q
u
i
t
a

F
i
l
h
o

o
n

0
5
/
2
1
/
1
4
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

302 SULLIVAN & V
OLKL
A. miniatum suffered less parasitization than A. violaceum because its feeding
position in basal, thick parts of the stemconstitutes a refuge as the stemdiameter
increases. Koinobiont endoparasitoids attack the weevils before they enter the
stem (unlike idiobiont ectoparasitoids), and they benet from the refuge itself
by avoiding hyperparasitism (32).
BRUCHID BEETLES Two species of beetles, Callosobruchus maculatus and
Bruchidius atrolineatus (Bruchidae), are attacked by two solitary primary ec-
toparasitoids: Dinarmus basalis (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) and Eupelmus
vuilleti (Hymenoptera: Eupelmidae). In behavioral contrast to D. basalis,
E. vuilleti concentrates ovipositions on hosts already parasitized by the former
and aggressively kills eggs and larvae of D. basalis by thrusts of the ovipos-
itor, resulting in ovicide and larvicide. However, E. vuilleti can also act as a
facultative hyperparasitoid on older larvae of D. basalis (110).
HYPERPARASITISM IN APHID PARASITOIDS
Primary aphid parasitoids are found in two families of Hymenoptera: the Aphi-
diidae (=Braconidae: Aphidiinae) (all genera of this family) and the Aphe-
linidae (genus Aphelinus and related genera). They in turn are attacked by a
species-rich community of hyperparasitoids (104, 105). The members of this
community belong to different hymenopteran subfamilies [Cynipoidea (Al-
loxystidae: Alloxysta, Phaenoglyphis, Lytoxysta), Ceraphronoidea (Megaspili-
dae: Dendrocerus), and Chalcidoidea (Pteromalidae: Asaphes, Pachneuron,
Coruna, Euneura; Encyrtidae: Syrphophagus = Aphidencyrtus)] (66, 104, 105,
109) and represent various life-history strategies. Alloxysta, Lytoxysta, and
Phaenogplyphis spp. develop as koinobiont endohyperparasitoids and para-
sitize the primary parasitoid larva within the living aphid (37, 63, 64, 95, 96,
104, 105). Syrphophagus (=Aphidencyrtus) aphidivorus develops also as a
koinobiont endohyperparasitoid, but females display a dual oviposition behav-
ior by attacking parasitoid larvae both within living aphids and also inside aphid
mummies (53, 105). Dendrocerus spp. and all pteromalid species develop as
idiobiont ectohyperparasitoids. Females attack parasitoid prepupae and pupae
inside the empty aphid cuticle, which is called an aphid mummy (8, 10, 16, 55,
103, 104).
Reproductive Potential
The few studies on life-table characteristics of aphid hyperparasitoids suggest
a relatively low lifetime fecundity when compared with those of primary par-
asitoid species. Singh & Srivastava (97) reported that females of Alloxysta
pleuralis, a hyperparasitoid of Trioxys indicus via Aphis craccivora, laid on
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

E
n
t
o
m
o
l
.

1
9
9
9
.
4
4
:
2
9
1
-
3
1
5
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

E
s
t
a
d
u
a
l

P
a
u
l
i
s
t
a

J
u
l
i
o

d
e

M
e
s
q
u
i
t
a

F
i
l
h
o

o
n

0
5
/
2
1
/
1
4
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

average 113 eggs, with a daily maximum of about 30 eggs. Dendrocerus car-
penteri females produced on average 75 offspring, with a daily maximum of 10
eggs, with Aphidius ervi via Acyrthosiphon pisumbeing the host (125). By con-
trast, the fecundity of Asaphes species seems to be somewhat higher. Asaphes
suspensus females laid on average 432 eggs, with a maximum of 16 mum-
mies per day when the host was Aphidius uzbekistanicus via Sitobion avenae
(19). Lifetime fecundity and longevity reported for Asaphes vulgaris varied for
different host species. Estimates range from 51 offspring per female, a daily
maximum of 9 eggs, and an average longevity of 14 days [host: Lysiphlebus
cardui via Aphis fabae (61)] to 265 offspring per female, a daily maximum of
10 mummies per day, and an average longevity of 47 days [host: A. uzbekistan-
icus via S. avenae (19)] and 1433 offspring per female, 20 mummies per day,
and an average longevity of 46 days [host: Aphidius nigripes via Macrosiphum
euphorbiae (13)].
Sex Ratio and Offspring Sex Allocation
Offspring sex allocation and sex ratio variation was intensively studied for
D. carpenteri. Mated females are able to produce precise sex ratios by ad-
justing the sequence of male (=unfertilized) and female (=fertilized) eggs laid
during a single oviposition bout (18). In laboratory studies, the rst egg to be
laid was fertilized if the host was of high quality (=large mummies) but un-
fertilized if the host was of low quality (=small mummies). The second egg
usually had the opposite sex. Later ovipositions varied with host quality, with
more fertilized eggs being laid in high quality hosts (18). This pattern may ex-
plain sexual size dimorphism. Although immatures of both sexes gain weight
at the same rate, males of D. carpenteri are generally smaller than females
(60, 83). Thus, it should be advantageous for D. carpenteri females to allocate
more female progeny in large hosts, which provide more resources for develop-
ment. Female age had apparently no effect on sex allocation (125). The results
of these laboratory studies are consistent with eld collections, where the pro-
portion of females depended also on host size, varying between approximately
50% in small A. pisum mummies and 75% in large A. pisum mummies (59).
By contrast, there is only very little information about sex ratios in other aphid
hyperparasitoids. Singh &Srivastava (98) reported for Alloxysta pleuralis a sex
ratio of approximately 60% females, which was independent of the number of
eggs laid. In Asaphes vulgaris, the proportion of male progeny increased with
the age of females (13). Across host species, the sex ratio of A. vulgaris seems
to be a result of host size. Field studies revealed a female biased sex ratio in
large host species, while there was an extreme male bias in small host species
(Table 1), as has been reported for many other species of Hymenoptera.
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

E
n
t
o
m
o
l
.

1
9
9
9
.
4
4
:
2
9
1
-
3
1
5
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

E
s
t
a
d
u
a
l

P
a
u
l
i
s
t
a

J
u
l
i
o

d
e

M
e
s
q
u
i
t
a

F
i
l
h
o

o
n

0
5
/
2
1
/
1
4
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

304 SULLIVAN & V
OLKL
Table 1 Sex ratio (proportion of females) in eld samples of the aphid ectohyperparasitoid
Asaphes vulgaris collected near Bayreuth, Bavaria, Germany
a
Primary parasitoids Aphid species Sex ratio
(mummy size) (number mummies) Host plant (females)
Small
Lysaphidus arvense Coloradoa tanacetina (89) Tanacetum vulgare 0.12
Lysiphlebus cardui Aphis fabae (312) Cirsium arvense 0.14
Trioxys angelicae Aphis fabae (122) Evonymus europaeus 0.19
Lysiphlebus hirticornis Metopeurum fuscoviride (76) Tanacetum vulgare 0.22
Trioxys falcatus Periphyllus sp. (38) Acer campestre 0.26
Medium
Euaphidius setiger Periphyllus sp. (26) Acer platanoides 0.35
Aphidius funebris Uroleucon jaceae (116) Centaurea jacea 0.38
Aphidius absinthii Macrosiphoniella absinthii (58) Artemisia vulgaris 0.41
Aphidius absinthii Macrosiphoniella tanacetaria (77) Tanacetum vulgare 0.45
Large
Aphidius rosae Macrosiphum rosae (156) Rosa sp. 0.58
Aphidius funebris Uroleucon cirsii (56) Cirsium arvense 0.64
Aphidius ervi Acyrthosiphon pisum (32) Trifolium pratense 0.69
Pauesia picta Cinara pinea (77) Pinus sylvestris 0.83
a
Primary parasitoids are divided according to mummy size into small-, medium-, and large-sized hosts
(W V olkl, unpublished data).
Host and Habitat Specicity
Generally, externally feeding idiobiont ectohyperparasitoid species need less
physiological adaptations for survival on a living host (such as a mechanism
to overcome the hosts immune system) than koinobiont endohyperparasitoid
species do. Host specicity is much more pronounced in endoparasitic species
than in ectoparasitoid species, and species richness is also higher in endopar-
asitoids (for reviews, see 33, 39, 88). The aphid hyperparasitoid community
presents an excellent example for this general pattern and is discussed below.
In Europe, the genera Dendrocerus (6 spp.), Asaphes (2 spp.), Pachyneuron
(4 spp.), Coruna (1 spp.), and Euneura (2 spp.) comprise altogether 15 species
developing as ectohyperparasitoids of aphids. Of these, 11 species have a very
broad host range and attack various aphidiid genera and species, independent
of the aphid host (22, 30, 36, 99, 105). Only Pachyneuron gibbiscuta and
Euneura laeviuscula are host specic, each of them having been reported up
to nowfromonly a single primary parasitoid species (72, 74). Two other species,
Dendrocerus liebscheri (the only gregarious aphid hyperparasitoid) and
Euneura augarus, seem to be habitat specic, having been reported only from
eld samples of conifer lachnids (30, 57, 77, 99, 120).
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

E
n
t
o
m
o
l
.

1
9
9
9
.
4
4
:
2
9
1
-
3
1
5
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

E
s
t
a
d
u
a
l

P
a
u
l
i
s
t
a

J
u
l
i
o

d
e

M
e
s
q
u
i
t
a

F
i
l
h
o

o
n

0
5
/
2
1
/
1
4
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

By contrast, endohyperparasitic species are much more numerous: more than
50 described species and a number of undescribed or cryptic species, especially
within the genus Alloxysta (26, 27, 44). There are only a fewspecies attacking a
broad range of unrelated aphid and primary parasitoid hosts, such as Alloxysta
victrix and Phaenoglyphis villosa (25). The vast majority of the species, how-
ever, seemto be host specic, attacking either a specic aphid host independent
of the primary parasitoid or a single primary parasitoid genus independent of
the aphid host. An example of the rst strategy is from Phaenoglyphis stricta,
which is restricted to various aphidiid parasitoids of the genus Uroleucon on
various host plants (124). Examples for primary parasitoidspecic alloxystid
species are Alloxysta circumscripta, a hyperparasitoid of various Praon spp. on
different aphid hosts and host plants; Alloxysta pallidicornis, a hyperparasitoid
of Pauesia spp. via Cinara spp.; Alloxysta darci, a hyperparasitoid of Apheli-
nus spp.; and Alloxysta castanea, which attacks Praon volucre via Hyalopterus
pruni (17, 25, 26, 28, 120).
This host specicity is also reected by the composition of faunistic com-
plexes. In native systems, host-specic alloxystid wasps are usually the most
abundant hyperparasitoids, while generalist ectohyperparasitoids, especially
Asaphes spp. or D. carpenteri, are dominant in exotic systems that have been
established after the introduction of a primary parasitoid (73, 100, 107, 111,
112, 118, 124, 139141).
Foraging Behavior
Little information is available on foraging behavior and the cues involved in
host location. Generally, aphid honeydew may represent an unspecic cue pro-
viding information on the presence of aphids on the particular host plant after
the females arrival. Honeydewaccumulation leads to increased residence times
in females of A. victrix, P. villosa, and D. carpenteri (14) and might be respon-
sible for an increase in hyperparasitoid foraging effort and foraging success on
contaminated plants.
The majority of the alloxystid species are host specic, and a cue like hon-
eydew may provide only limited information. There are two possible strate-
gies that might be applied that are not mutually exclusive. First, females may
search for primary parasitoid females. Indeed, females of Alloxysta fuscicor-
nis (=Alloxysta brassicae) responded positively in olfactometer experiments
to the presence of females of their host, Diaeretiella rapae (89). This strat-
egy would assure that females arrive in patches with an available resource but
may confront the alloxystid female with the problem of arriving too early; the
primarys progeny will be available for oviposition only 34 days after ovipo-
sition, a time interval exceeding by far the known patch times of alloxystid
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

E
n
t
o
m
o
l
.

1
9
9
9
.
4
4
:
2
9
1
-
3
1
5
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

E
s
t
a
d
u
a
l

P
a
u
l
i
s
t
a

J
u
l
i
o

d
e

M
e
s
q
u
i
t
a

F
i
l
h
o

o
n

0
5
/
2
1
/
1
4
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

306 SULLIVAN & V
OLKL
females, both in the presence and absence of primary parasitoid females (121,
123). Thus, this foraging strategy by such an endohyperparasitoid might not be
very successful in the eld. Second, females may search for host plant volatiles
and use them, potentially in combination with the presence of aphid honeydew,
as reliable information about the potential occurrence of hosts. After the arrival
in an aphid colony, the female would have to acquire information about (a)
the kind of aphid host and (b) the presence of parasitized individuals. Singh
& Srivastava (94) showed that A. pleuralis females were attracted to foliage
extracts of potential host plants. After the arrival on a host plant, females distin-
guished between host (=parasitized) and nonhost aphids by ovipositor contact
(93, 95, 96). This strategy might explain some extreme host specicities, such
as in A. castanea, which attacks only P. volucre via H. pruni only on the winter
host, Prunus spinosa. A simple searching strategy restricted to cues arising
from the host plant, which is not attacked by other hosts of P. volucre, might
explain why A. castanea does not attack P. volucre on reeds, the summer host of
H. pruni.
By contrast, ectohyperparasitoids with a broad host range depend less on
specic cues for foraging, since their hosts may occur on a broad variety of
host plants. A. vulgaris is obviously using kairomones arising from the silky
cocoon of aphidiid primary parasitoids for host nding (20), and probably
females may use this cue also for locating mummies on a given host plant.
Since larvae of aphelinid species (the other hymenopterous family of aphid
primary parasitoids) do not produce silk for pupation, the low incidence of
hyperparasitism in Aphelinus spp. by Asaphes spp. (45) may be explained by
the missing kairomone (20).
D. carpenteri, the most polyphagous aphid hyperparasitoid species, does
not seem to respond to any cues from hosts or host plants. Females did not
respond to differently colored or differently shaped mummies (18), except for
Praon mummies (18a). They searched with the same efciency during nocturnal
and diurnal conditions (122) and were only slightly inuenced by insecticide
residues (58). Furthermore, residence times did not differ signicantly between
differently structured plants without aphid mummies and between mummy-free
and mummy-containing plants, as long as no hosts were found (56, 92). Females
are searching at random on a host plant, a behavior also known for some other
parasitoid species with a broad host or host plant spectrum (113, 114). The
strategy of random search might be successful, since the hosts of D. carpenteri
may occur on a broad variety of differently structured host plants where their
density and distribution is unpredictable (74).
In petri dishes, hyperparasitoid foraging may also be inuenced by encoun-
ters with primary parasitoids that are also foraging in aphid colonies (46, 47).
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

E
n
t
o
m
o
l
.

1
9
9
9
.
4
4
:
2
9
1
-
3
1
5
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

E
s
t
a
d
u
a
l

P
a
u
l
i
s
t
a

J
u
l
i
o

d
e

M
e
s
q
u
i
t
a

F
i
l
h
o

o
n

0
5
/
2
1
/
1
4
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

By contrast, females of the primary parasitoids Aphidius funebris and L. cardui
did change their behavior after encounters with Alloxysta brevis, A. victrix, and
D. carpenteri when foraging in aphid colonies on plants (but the reverse was
not observed), which suggests that the proximate effect on oviposition behavior
and resource exploitation of aphidiids is negligible (123). However, as one of
the most important mortality factors, it is likely that hyperparasitism may have
had an ultimate effect on the evolution of the foraging strategies of aphidiid
wasps (7, 61, 129).
Also, the behavior of parasitized aphids to leave the aphid colony before
mummication has been suggested as an example of host manipulation by the
primary parasitoid to reduce the risk of hyperparasitismafter mummy formation
(12). However, most primary parasitoids suffered less from hyperparasitism
within aphid colonies than outside (74). Therefore, alternative explanations are
more likely to explain this behavior (33, 74).
Ants and Hyperparasitism
Aphid colonies are often attended by honeydew-collecting ants, which defend
their carbohydrate source against colony intruders (126). Like many other in-
sect species, foraging females of all aphid hyperparasitoid species are heavily
attacked and regularly killed by ant workers (50). The presence of ants leads
to a signicant reduction in hyperparasitoid foraging success, thereby providing
a kind of enemy-free space for the primary parasitoid (81, 119, 120). There
are several strategies among aphid hyperparasitoids to escape ant aggression.
Alloxystid species have evolved a chemical defense, which enables specialized
species to exploit ant-attended resources to a certain degree. A. brevis releases
a mandibular gland secretion, which contains 6-methyl-5-hepten-2-one, actini-
din, and unidentied iridoids in response to an attack of the ant Lasius niger
(121). This secretion functions both as a measure of self-defense if the female is
seized by an ant worker and as a repellent that prevents ant attacks during sub-
sequent encounters. It enables A. brevis females to hyperparasitize ant-attended
aphids that constitute a major proportion of their hosts and signicantly reduces
mortality by ectohyperparasitoids (103, 121). D. carpenteri can avoid ant con-
tacts by quick and exible movements, thereby mainly using visual cues. This
strategy is very successful against Myrmica laevinodis but less effective during
interactions with L. niger (50). Obviously, D. carpenteri is also able to change
its behavior after an aggressive ant contact. Females that survived an attack by
L. niger recognized ant workers by their odor and avoided any contacts with
them during the next few hours (49). The benet of this avoidance learn-
ing may be sought in the nocturnal activity of this species, when neither
hyperparasitoid nor ant is able to respond to visual cues in their environment.
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

E
n
t
o
m
o
l
.

1
9
9
9
.
4
4
:
2
9
1
-
3
1
5
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

E
s
t
a
d
u
a
l

P
a
u
l
i
s
t
a

J
u
l
i
o

d
e

M
e
s
q
u
i
t
a

F
i
l
h
o

o
n

0
5
/
2
1
/
1
4
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

308 SULLIVAN & V
OLKL
Syrphophagus aphidivorus, Pachyneuron aphidis, A. vulgaris, and Euneura
stomaphidis possess jumping ability and were hardly exposed to mortality risks
in experimental studies (50, 52).
CONCLUSIONS
Hawkins (39) notes that evolution at the fourth trophic level often measures
hyperparasitoid species richness based on the number of species per herbi-
vore species. A positive relationship between the numbers of hyperparasitoid
species and primary parasitoids is not surprising, and species richness at these
trophic levels is therefore dependent on the biological and ecological charac-
teristics of the herbivores. In fact, the difculty in sampling many ecosystems
probably results in an underestimation of the hyperparasitoid species. For in-
stance, most of the data come fromrearings of phytophagous insects, with fewer
rearings of eld-collected parasitoid cocoons that may have been attacked or
will be attacked by hyperparasitoids. Hence, a hyperparasitoid larva or pupa
could be developing in these uncollected cocoons, resulting in an undercount
of species diversity. Despite these shortcomings, the emerging patterns suggest
that hyperparasitoid community structure seems to follow the same organiza-
tion patterns as primary parasitoid communities. Many parasitoids are attacked
by generalist ectohyperparasitoids, and by more host-specic endoparasitoids.
Furthermore, host-specic hyperparasitoids seem to be generally more abun-
dant than unspecialized generalists, a pattern that is also found in primary
parasitoid communities (33, 39, 41, 88).
In contrast to hyperparasitoid community organization, more information on
hyperparasitoid foraging and on oviposition decisions might contribute to a bet-
ter explanation of the patterns of resource utilization. Most of our knowledge
comes from studies on a small-scale range, i.e. on patch level (14, 19, 46, 47,
49, 56, 83, 93, 121, 123), while there are virtually no studies that analyzed
hyperparasitoid foraging on a larger scale, for example, between patches on the
same plant, between plants, or between habitats (91a). Studies on a small-scale
range suggest, together with eld data from biological control measures (61,
104, 112), that the impact of hyperparasitism on primary parasitoid popula-
tion dynamics may be overestimated, although hyperparasitoids can be clearly
identied as an important host mortality factor (90). Although there is no clear
evidence for density dependence at the patch level, we have no information
about such processes on a larger spatial scale. Studies on this topic should com-
bine eld studies with an experimental laboratory approach, for example, by
using microcosmos systems, and should also include detailed examinations
of the cues involved in habitat and host location and of the importance of in-
teractions with adult primary parasitoids and with hyperparasitoid predators at
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

E
n
t
o
m
o
l
.

1
9
9
9
.
4
4
:
2
9
1
-
3
1
5
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

E
s
t
a
d
u
a
l

P
a
u
l
i
s
t
a

J
u
l
i
o

d
e

M
e
s
q
u
i
t
a

F
i
l
h
o

o
n

0
5
/
2
1
/
1
4
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

the habitat level (61, 90, 104, 120). In general, such an analysis may help to
better understand individual patterns of resource utilization, which are one key
factor of hyperparasitoid population dynamics and its role in pest control.
Finally, as was mentioned in a review published in this series in 1987 by
Sullivan (104), it is standard quarantine procedure in biological control pro-
grams to exclude exotic obligate hyperparasitoids. Whether or not exotic fac-
ultative hyperparasitoids should be imported and released must be evaluated
separately for each candidate species depending on the availability of conven-
tional natural enemies and the seriousness of the insect pest problem. Most
researchers urge caution and advise a conservative policy in biological control
programs in order to exclude exotic facultative hyperparasitoids (130). Indige-
nous hyperparasitoids, on the other hand, already exist in the ecosystem and
usually cannot be eliminated even if they interfere (in varying degrees) with
biological control by exotic primary parasitoids.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank GH ubner, P Kranz, and USchw orer for sharing unpublished data and
P Stiling and AM Rossi (101) for permission to use their drawing (Figure 1),
as well as the editors (BA Hawkins and W Sheehan) and Oxford University
Press for use of this copyright material. M Romst ock-V olkl, G H ubner, M
Mackauer, and K Dettner provided helpful comments on the manuscript. The
German Research Council provided nancial support to WV(DFGVo 628/3-1).
Visit the Annual Reviews home page at
http://www.AnnualReviews.org
Literature Cited
1. Agricola U, Fischer HU. 1991. Hy-
perparasitism in two newly introduced
parasitoids, Epidinocarsis lopezi and
Gyranusoidea tebygi (Hymenoptera:
Encyrtidae), after their establishment in
Togo. Bull. Entomol. Res. 81:12732
2. Allen GR. 1990. Uraba lugens Walker
(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae): larval sur-
vival and parasitoid biology in the eld
inSouthAustralia. J. Aust. Entomol. Soc.
29:30112
3. ArmandE, LyoussouA, RieuxR. 1991.
Evolution of Psylla pyri (L.) and Psylla
pyrisuga (Foerster) [Homoptera: Psylli-
dae] parasitoid complex in pear orchards
of southeastern France in winter, spring
and summer. Entomophaga 36:287
94
4. Askew RR. 1961. On the biology of the
inhabitants of oak galls of Cynipidae
(Hymenoptera) in Britain. Trans. R. En-
tomol. Soc. London 14:23768
5. Askew RR, Shaw MR. 1986. Parasitoid
communities: their size, structure and
development. In Insect Parasitoids, ed.
JK Waage, D Greathead, pp. 22564.
London: Academic. 389 pp.
6. Avilla J, AnandonJ, Sarasua MJ, Albajes
R. 1991. Egg allocation of the autopar-
asitoid Encarsia tricolor at different
relative densities of the primary host
(Trialeurodes vaporariorum) and two
secondary hosts (Encarsia formosa and
E. tricolor). Entomol. Exp. Appl. 59:
21927
7. Ayal Y, Green R. 1993. Optimal egg dis-
tribution among host patches for para-
sitoids subject to attack by hyperpara-
sitoids. Am. Nat. 141:12038
8. Bennett AW, Sullivan DJ. 1978. Defen-
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

E
n
t
o
m
o
l
.

1
9
9
9
.
4
4
:
2
9
1
-
3
1
5
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

E
s
t
a
d
u
a
l

P
a
u
l
i
s
t
a

J
u
l
i
o

d
e

M
e
s
q
u
i
t
a

F
i
l
h
o

o
n

0
5
/
2
1
/
1
4
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

310 SULLIVAN & V
OLKL
sive behavior against tertiary parasitism
by the larva of Dendrocerus carpenteri,
anaphidhyperparasitoid. J. NYEntomol.
Soc. 86:15360
8a. Bellotti AC, Smith L, Lapointe S. 1999.
Recent advances in cassava pest man-
agement. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 44:343
70
9. Biddinger DJ, Felland CM, Hull LA.
1994. Parasitism of tufted apple bud
moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in con-
ventional insecticide and pheromone-
treated Pennsylvania apple orchids. En-
viron. Entomol. 23:156879
10. Bocchino F, Sullivan DJ. 1981. Effects
of venoms from two hyperparasitoids,
Asaphes lucens and Dendrocerus car-
penteri (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae
and Megaspilidae), on larvae of Aphid-
ius smithi (Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae).
Can. Entomol. 113:88789 (color plate)
11. Bourchier RS, Nealis VG. 1992. Patterns
of hyperparasitism of Cotesia mela-
noscela (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) in
southern Ontario. Environ. Entomol. 21:
90712
12. Brodeur J, McNeil JN. 1992. Host be-
haviour modication by the endopara-
sitoid Aphidius nigripes: a strategy to
reduce hyperparasitism. Ecol. Entomol.
17:97104
13. Brodeur J, McNeil JN. 1994. Life his-
tory of the aphid hyperparasitoid As-
aphes vulgaris Walker (Pteromalidae):
possible consequences on the efcacy
of the primary parasitoids Aphidius ni-
gripes Ahsmead (Aphidiidae). Can. En-
tomol. 126:149397
14. Budenberg WJ. 1990. Honeydew as a
contact kairomone for aphid parasitoids.
Entomol. Exp. Appl. 55:13948
15. Buijs MJ, Pirovano I, van Lenteren JC.
1981. Encarsia pergandiella, a possible
biological control agent for the green-
house whitey, Trialeurodes vaporario-
rum. A study on intra and interspecic
host selection. Med. Fac. Landbouww.
Rijksuniv. Gent 46:46575
15a. Campbell A, Frazer BD, Gilbert N,
Gutierrez AP, Mackauer M. 1974. Tem-
perature requirements of some aphids
and their parasites. J. Appl. Ecol. 11:
43138
16. Carew WP, Sullivan DJ. 1993. Interspe-
cic parasitism between two aphid hy-
perparasitoids, Dendrocerus carpenteri
(Hymenoptera: Megaspilidae) and As-
aphes lucens (Hymenoptera: Pteromal-
idae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 86:794
98
17. Carver M. 1992. Alloxystinae (Hy-
menoptera: Cynipoidea: Charipidae) in
Australia. Invertebr. Taxon. 6:76985
18. Chow A, Mackauer M. 1996. Sequen-
tial allocation of offspring sexes in the
hyperparasitoid Dendrocerus carpen-
teri. Anim. Behav. 51:85970
18a. Chow A, Mackauer M. 1998. Host han-
dling and specicity of the hyperpar-
asitoid wasp, Dendrocerus carpenteri:
importance of host age and species. J.
Appl. Entomol. In press
19. Christiansen-Weniger P. 1992. Wirt-
Parasitoid-Beziehungen zwischen Blatt-
laus prim ar-parasitoiden und den Blatt-
laushyperparasitoiden Asaphes vulgaris
Wlk. und Asaphes suspensus (Nees) (Hy-
menoptera: Pteromalidae). PhD thesis.
Univ. Kiel, Germany. 96 pp.
20. Christiansen-Weniger P. 1994. Studies
on semiochemicals affecting the host
acceptance behaviour of Asaphes vulga-
ris Wlk. (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae).
Norw. J. Agric. Sci. 16(Suppl.):27782
21. Craig TP. 1994. Effects of intraspecic
plant variation on parasitoid communi-
ties. In Parasitoid Community Ecology,
ed. BHawkins, WSheehan, pp. 20527.
Oxford, UK: OxfordUniv. Press. 516pp.
22. Dessart P. 1972. R evision des esp` eces
europ eennes du genre Dendrocerus Rat-
zeburg 1852 (Hymenoptera: Ceraphro-
noidea). M em. Soc. R. Belge Entomol.
32:1312
23. Donaldson JS, Walter GH. 1991. Host
population structure affects eld sex
ratios of the heteronomous hyperpara-
sitoid, Coccophagus atratus. Ecol. En-
tomol. 16:3544
24. Eichhorn O. 1996. Experimental stud-
ies upon the parasitoid complex of the
gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar L.) (Lep.:
Lymantriidae) in lower host populations
in Eastern Austria. J. Appl. Entomol.
120:20512
25. Evenhuis HH. 1976. Studies on Cynip-
idae Alloxystinae. 5. Alloxysta citripes
(Thomson) and Alloxysta ligustri n. sp.,
with remarks on host specity in the sub-
family. Entomol. Ber. 36:14044
26. Evenhuis HH. 1982. A study of Har-
tigs Xystus species with type designa-
tions and newsynonyms. Spixiana 5:19
29
27. Evenhuis HH, Barbotin F. 1987. Types
des esp` eces dAlloxystidae (Hymenop-
tera: Cynipoidea) de la collection Car-
pentier, d ecrits par J. J. Kieffer, avec
synonymes nouveaux et un nomen
novum. Bull. Annls. Soc. R. Belge En-
tomol. 123:21124
28. Evenhuis HH, Kiriak IG. 1985. Stud-
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

E
n
t
o
m
o
l
.

1
9
9
9
.
4
4
:
2
9
1
-
3
1
5
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

E
s
t
a
d
u
a
l

P
a
u
l
i
s
t
a

J
u
l
i
o

d
e

M
e
s
q
u
i
t
a

F
i
l
h
o

o
n

0
5
/
2
1
/
1
4
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

ies on Alloxystidae (Hymenoptera:
Cynipoidea). 8. Cynips minuteaZetterst-
edt and Xystus minutus Hartig. Entomol.
Ber. 45:1620
29. Feener DH, Brown BV. 1997. Diptera as
parasitoids. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 42:73
97
30. Ferguson NDM. 1980. A revision of the
British species of Dendrocerus Ratze-
burg (Hymenoptera: Ceraphronoidea)
with a review of their biology as aphid
hyperparasites. Bull. Br. Mus. Nat. Hist
(Entomol.). 41:255314
31. Flanders SE. 1943. Indirect hyperpara-
sitism and observations on three species
of indirect hyperparasites. J. Econ. En-
tomol. 36:92126
32. Freese G. 1995. Structural refuges in two
stem-boring weevils on Rumex crispus.
Ecol. Entomol. 20:35158
33. Godfray HCJ. 1994. Parasitoids: Beha-
vioral and Evolutionary Ecology. Prin-
ceton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press. 473
pp.
34. Goergen G, Neuenschwander P. 1990.
Biology of Prochiloneurus insolitus
(Alam) (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae), a
hyperparasitoid on mealybugs (Homop-
tera: Pseudococcidae): immature mor-
phology, host acceptance and host range
in West Africa. Mitt. Schweiz. Entomol.
Ges. 63:31726
35. Goergen G, Neuenschwander P. 1992. A
cage experiment with four trophic lev-
els: cassava plant growth as inuencd by
cassava mealybug, Phenacoccus mani-
hoti, its parasitoid Epidinocarsis lopezi,
and the hyperparasitoids Prochiloneurus
insolitus. Z. Panzenkrankh. Panzen-
schutz. 99:182905
36. Graham MR de V. 1969. The Pteroma-
lidae of North Western Europe (Hyme-
noptera, Chalcidoidea). Bull. Brit. Mus.
Nat. Hist. Entomol. Suppl. 16:1934
37. Gutierrez AP, van den Bosch R. 1970.
Studies on the host selection and host
specity of the aphid hyperparasite
Charips victrix (Hymenoptera: Cynip-
idae). 2. The bionomics of Charips vic-
trix. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 63:135560
38. Deleted in proof
39. Hawkins B. 1994. Pattern and Process
in Host-Parasitoid Interactions. Cam-
bridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press. 190
pp.
40. Hawkins BA, Goeden RD. 1984. Or-
ganization of a parasitoid community
associated with a complex of galls on
Atriplex spp. in southern California.
41. Hawkins BA, Sheehan W, eds. 1994.
Parasitoid Community Ecology. Oxford,
UK: Oxford Univ. Press. 516 pp.
42. Herren HR, Neuenschwander P. 1991.
Biological control of cassava pests in
Africa. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 36:25783
43. Hoddle MS, Van Driesche RG, Sander-
son J. 1998. Biology and use of the
whitey parasitoid Encarsia formosa.
Annu. Rev. Entomol. 43:64569
44. Hoffer A, Stary P. 1970. A review of
biologies of palaearctic Aphidencyrtus
species (Hym., Chalcidoidea, Encyr-
tidae). Stud. Entomol. For. 1:8195
45. H oller C, Borgemeister C, Haardt H,
Powell W. 1993. The relationship be-
tween primary parasitoid and hyperpar-
asitoids of cereal aphids: an analysis of
eld data. J. Anim. Ecol. 62:1221
46. H oller C, Christiansen-Weninger P, Mi-
cha SG, Siri N, Borgemeister C. 1991.
Hyperparasitoid-aphid and hyperpara-
sitoid-primary parasitoid relationships.
Redia 74:15361
47. H oller C, Micha SG, Schulz S, Francke
W, Pickett JA. 1994. Enemy-induced
dispersal in a parasitic wasp. Experientia
50:18285
48. Huber JT, Eveleigh E, Pollock S,
McCarthy P. 1996. The chalcidoid
parasitoids and hyperparasitoids (Hy-
menoptera: Chalcidoidea) of Choristo-
neura species (Lepidoptera: Tortrici-
dae) in America North of Mexico. Can.
Entomol. 128:1167220
49. H ubner G. 1997. Instinktives und erl-
erntes Meideverhalten von Dendroce-
rus carpenteri als Teil einer Verhaltens-
strategie bei Ameisenreaktionen. Mitt.
Dtsch. Ges. Allg. Angew. Entomol. 11:
39599
50. H ubner G, V olkl W. 1996. Behav-
ioral strategies of aphid hyperparasitoids
to escape aggression by honeydew-
collecting ants. J. Insect Behav. 9:143
157
51. Iziquel Y, Le Ru B. 1989. Inuence of
hyperparasitism on populations of the
encyrtid Epidinocarsis lopezi, a para-
sitoid of Phenacoccus manihoti intro-
duced in Congo. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 52:
23948
52. Kamijo K, Takada H. 1983. A new
species of Euneura hyperparasitic on
Stomaphis aphids. Akitu Kyoto NS 55:
18
53. Kanuck MJ, Sullivan DJ. 1992. Ovi-
positional behavior and larval deve-
lopment of Aphidencyrtus aphidivorus
(Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae), an aphid
hyperparasitoid. J. NY Entomol. Soc.
100:52732 (color plate)
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

E
n
t
o
m
o
l
.

1
9
9
9
.
4
4
:
2
9
1
-
3
1
5
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

E
s
t
a
d
u
a
l

P
a
u
l
i
s
t
a

J
u
l
i
o

d
e

M
e
s
q
u
i
t
a

F
i
l
h
o

o
n

0
5
/
2
1
/
1
4
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

312 SULLIVAN & V
OLKL
54. Kato M. 1994. Structure, organization,
and response of a species-rich parasitoid
community to host leafminer population
dynamics. Oecologia 97:1725
55. Keller LJ, Sullivan DJ. 1976. Oviposi-
tion behavior and host-feeding of As-
aphes lucens, an aphid hyperparasitoid
(Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae). J. NY
Entomol. Soc. 84:20611
56. Kranz P. 1994. Das Fouragierverhalten
des Blattlaushyperparasitoiden Dendro-
cerus carpenteri (Curtis) (Hymenoptera:
Megaspilidae): Untersuchungen zur
Wirtsndung und Ressourcennutzung.
Diploma thesis. Univ. Bayreuth, Ger-
many. 105 pp.
57. Liebscher S. 1972. Zur Taxonomie und
Biologie von Dendrocerus-Arten (Hy-
menoptera, Ceraphronoidea, Megaspi-
lidae) imHyperparasitenkreis der Lach-
nidae (Homoptera, Aphidoidea) auf
Pinus und Larix. Diploma thesis. Tech.
Univ. Dresden. 173 pp.
58. Longley M, Jepson PC. 1996. The
inuence of insecticides residues on
primary parasitoid and hyperparasitoid
foraging behaviour in the laboratory. En-
tomol. Exp. Appl. 81:25969
59. Mackauer M, Lardner RM. 1995. Sex-
ratio bias in an aphid parasitoid-
hyperparasitoid association: a test of
two hypotheses. Ecol. Entomol. 20:118
24
60. Mackauer M, Sequeira R, Otto M. 1997.
Growth and development in parasitoid
wasps: adaptations to variable host re-
sources. Ecol. Stud. 130:191203
61. Mackauer M, V olkl W. 1993. Regulation
of aphid populations by aphidiid wasps:
Does aphidiid foraging behaviour or hy-
perparasitism limit impact? Oecologia
94:33950
62. Maier CT. 1988. Parasitoid fauna of two
Phyllonorycter spp. (Lepidoptera: Gra-
cillariidae) on wild cherries, and simi-
larity to fauna of apple leafminers. Ann.
Entomol. Soc. Am. 81:46066
63. Matejko I, Sullivan DJ. 1979. Bionomics
and behavior of Alloxysta megourae,
an aphid hyperparasitoid (Hymenoptera:
Alloxystidae). J. NY Entomol. Soc. 87:
27582
64. Matejko I, Sullivan DJ. 1984. Interspe-
cic tertiary parasitoidism between two
aphid hyperparasitoids: Dendrocerus
carpenteri and Alloxysta megourae (Hy-
menoptera: Megaspilidae and Cynipi-
dae). J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 74:3138
65. Matokot L, Reyd G, Malonga P, Le Ru
B. 1992. Population dynamics of Ras-
trococcus invadens (Hom.: Pseudococ-
cidae) in Congo: inuence of accidental
introduction of the asiatic parasitoid Gy-
ranusoidea tebygi (Hym.: Encyrtidae).
Entomophaga 37:12340
66. Menke AS, Evenhuis HH. 1991. North
American Charipidae: key to genera,
nomenclature, species checklists, and
a new species of Dilyta Forster (Hy-
menoptera: Cynipoidea). Proc. Ento-
mol. Soc. Wash. 93:13658
67. Mihajlovic L, Krunic MD, Richards
KW. 1989. Hyperparasitismof Physoce-
phala vittata (F.) (Diptera: Conopidae)
by Habrocytus eonopidarum (Boucek)
(Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae), a pest
of Megachile rotundata (F.) (Hymenop-
tera: Megachilidae) in Yugoslavia. J.
Kans. Entomol. Soc. 62:41820
68. Mills NJ, Gutierrez AP. 1996. Prospec-
tive modelling in biological control:
an analysis of the dynamics of hete-
ronomous hyperparasitism in a cotton-
whitey-parasitoid system. J. Appl.
Ecol. 33:137994
69. Mills NJ, Nealis VG. 1992. European
eld collections and Canadian releases
of Cernathis samarensis (Dipt.: Tachi-
nidae), a parasitoid of the gypsy moth.
Entomophaga 37:18191
70. Moore SD, Kr R. 1995. Host prefer-
ence of the facultaive hyperparasitoid
Tetrastichus howardi (Hym.: Eulophi-
dae). Entomophaga 40:6976
71. Moore SD, Kr R. 1995. Aspects of the
biology of the parasitoid, Tetrastichus
howardi (Olliff) (Hymenoptera: Eulo-
phidae). J. Afr. Zool. 109:45566
72. Moraal LG. 1990. Some parasitoid com-
plexes of aphids on poplar and Scots
pine, newto the fauna of the Netherlands
(Homoptera: Lachnidae). Entomol. Ber.
(Amsterdam) 50:10912
73. M uller C, Adriaanse ICT, Belshaw R,
Godfray HCJ. 1998. The structure of
an aphid-parasitoid community. J. Anim.
Ecol. In press
74. M uller C, V olkl W, Godfray HCJ. 1997.
Are behavioural changes in parasitised
aphids a protection against hyperpara-
sitism? Eur. J. Entomol. 94:22134
75. Murakami Y, Gyoutoku Y. 1995. A
delayed increase in the population of
an imported parasitoid, Torymus (Syn-
tomaspis) sinensis (Hymenoptera: To-
rymidae) in Kumamoto, southwestern
Japan. Jpn. J. Appl. Entomol. Zool. 30:
21524
76. Murakami Y, Hiramatsu T, Maeda M.
1994. Parasitoidcomplexes of the Chest-
nut gall wasp (Hymenoptera: Cynipi-
dae) in two localities before introduction
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

E
n
t
o
m
o
l
.

1
9
9
9
.
4
4
:
2
9
1
-
3
1
5
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

E
s
t
a
d
u
a
l

P
a
u
l
i
s
t
a

J
u
l
i
o

d
e

M
e
s
q
u
i
t
a

F
i
l
h
o

o
n

0
5
/
2
1
/
1
4
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

of Torymus (Syntomaspis) sinensis (Hy-
menoptera: Torymidae), with special
reference to predictions. Jpn. J. Appl.
Entomol. Zool. 38:2941
77. Murphy ST, V olkl W. 1996. Popula-
tion dynamics and foraging behaviour
of Diaeretus leucopterus Haliday (Hy-
menoptera: Braconidae), and its poten-
tial for the biological control of pine
damaging Eulachnus spp. (Homoptera:
Aphididae). Bull. Entomol. Res. 86:397
405
78. Nealis VG, Bourchier RS. 1995. Re-
duced vulnerability to hyperparasi-
tism in nondiapause strains of Cotesia
melanoscela (Ratzeburg) (Hymenopte-
ra: Braconidae). Proc. Entomol. Soc.
Ont. 126:2935
79. Neuenschwander P. 1996. Evaluating
the efcacy of biological control of
three exotic homopteran pests in tropi-
cal Africa. Entomophaga 41:40524
80. Neuenschwander P, Hammond WNO.
1988. Natural enemy activity following
the introduction of Epidinocarsis lopezi
(Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) against the
cassava mealybug, Phenacoccus mani-
hoti (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae), in
southwestern Nigeria. Environ. Ento-
mol. 17:894902
81. Novak H. 1994. The inuence of
ant-attendance on larval parasitism in
Hawthorn psyllids (Homoptera: Psyll-
idae). Oecologia 99:7278
82. Nguyen R, Sailer RI. 1987. Facul-
tative hyperparasitism and sex deter-
mination of Encarsia smithi Silvestri
(Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae). Ann. En-
tomol. Soc. Am. 80:71319
83. Otto M, Mackauer M. 1998. The deve-
lopmental strategy of an idiobiont par-
asitoid, Dendrocerus carpenteri: in-
uence of variations in host quality on
offspring growth and tness. Oecologia.
In press
84. Pedata P, Hunter M. 1996. Secondary
host choice by the autoparasitoid Encar-
sia pergandiella. Entomol. Exp. Appl.
81:20714
85. Phillips DS. 1993. Host-feeding and
egg maturation by Pachycrepoideus vin-
demiae. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 69:75
82
86. Price PW, Bouton CE, Gross P,
McPheron BA, Thompson JN, Weis AE.
1980. Interactions among three trophic
levels: inuence of plants on interac-
tions between herbivores and natural en-
emies. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 11:41
65
87. Pschorn-Walcher H. 1988. Parasite com-
munityof EuropeanDiprionidae froman
ecological-evolutionary point of view. Z.
Zool. Syst. Evol.forsch. 26:89103
88. Quicke DLJ. 1997. Parasitic Wasps.
Cambridge, UK: Chapman & Hall. 470
pp.
89. Read DP, Feeny PP, Root RB. 1970.
Habitat selection by the aphid parasite
Diaeretiella rapae and the hyperpara-
site Charips brassicae. Can. Entomol.
102:156778
90. Rosenheim JA. 1998. Higher-order
predators and the regulation of insect
herbivore populations. Annu. Rev. Ento-
mol. 43:42147
91. Schaefer PW, Semyanov VP. 1992.
Arthropod parasites of Coccinella sep-
tempunctata (Coleoptera: Coccinelli-
dae) world parasite list and bibliography.
Entomol. News 103:12534
91a. Schooler SS, Ives AR, Harmon J. 1996.
Hyperparasitoid aggregation in response
to variations in Aphidius ervi host den-
sity at three spatial scales. Ecol. Ento-
mol. 21:24958
92. Schw orer U. 1997. Suchverhalten und
Ressourcennutzung beim Blattlaushy-
perparasitoiden Dendrocerus carpen-
teri: Der Einu von Panzenstruk-
tur und Regen. Diploma thesis. Univ.
Bayreuth, Germany. 104 pp.
93. Singh R, Srivastava PN. 1987. Fac-
tors associated with host-location by
Alloxysta pleuralis (Cameron), a hyper-
parasitoid of Trioxys indicus Subba Rao
& Sharma (Alloxystidae: Hymenopte-
ra/Aphidiidae: Hymenoptera). Entomon
12:32528
94. Singh R, Srivastava PN. 1987. Poten-
tial host habitat location by Alloxysta
pleuralis (Cameron) (Alloxystidae: Hy-
menoptera). Z. Ang. Zool. 74:33741
95. Singh R, Srivastava PN. 1987. Bio-
nomics of Alloxystapleuralis, a cynipoid
hyperparasitoid of an aphidiid parasitoid
Trioxys indicus. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 43:
1115
96. Singh R, Srivastava PN. 1988. Host ac-
ceptance behaviour of Alloxysta pleu-
ralis, a cynipoid hyperparasitoid of an
aphidiid parasitoid Trioxys indicus on
aphids. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 47:89
94
97. Singh R, Srivastava PN. 1989. Life-
table studies of an aphid hyperparasitoid
Alloxysta pleuralis (Cameron) (Hym.,
Alloxystidae). J. Appl. Entomol. 107:
35156
98. Singh R, Srivastava PN. 1989. Ef-
fects of parasitoid density on the func-
tional response and sex ratio of a
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

E
n
t
o
m
o
l
.

1
9
9
9
.
4
4
:
2
9
1
-
3
1
5
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

E
s
t
a
d
u
a
l

P
a
u
l
i
s
t
a

J
u
l
i
o

d
e

M
e
s
q
u
i
t
a

F
i
l
h
o

o
n

0
5
/
2
1
/
1
4
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

314 SULLIVAN & V
OLKL
cynipoidhyperparasitoidAlloxystapleu-
ralis (Cameron) (Hym: Alloxystidae).
Entomophaga 34:1118
99. Stary P. 1977. Dendrocerushyper-
parasites of aphids in Czechoslovakia
(Hymenoptera: Ceraphronoidea). Acta
Entomol. Bohemoslov. 74:19
100. Stechmann DH, V olkl W. 1990. A
preliminary survey of aphidophagous in-
sects of Tonga, with regards to the bio-
logical control of the banana aphid. J.
Appl. Entomol. 110:40815
101. Stiling P, Rossi AM. 1994. The window
of parasitoid vulnerability to hyperpar-
asitism: template for parasitoid com-
plex structure. In Parasitoid Community
Ecology, ed. B Hawkins, W Sheehan,
pp. 22844. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ.
Press. 516 pp.
102. Stouthamer R, Luck RF. 1991. Transi-
tion from bisexual to unisexual cultures
in Encarsia perniciosi (Hymenoptera:
Aphelinidae): newdata and a reinterpre-
tation. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 84:150
57
103. Sullivan DJ. 1972. Comparative be-
havior and competition between two
aphid hyperparasites: Alloxysta victrix
and Asaphes californicus (Hymenop-
tera: Cynipidae, Pteromalidae). Envi-
ron. Entomol. 1:23444
104. Sullivan DJ. 1987. Insect hyperpara-
sitism. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 32:4970
105. Sullivan DJ. 1988. Aphid hyperpara-
sites. In Aphids, Their Biology, Natu-
ral Enemies and Control, ed. AKMinks,
P Harrewijn, 2B:189203. Amsterdam:
Elsevier. 382 pp.
106. Sullivan DJ, Neuenschwander P. 1988.
Melanization of eggs and larvae of the
parasitoid, Epidinocarsis lopezi, (Hy-
menoptera: Encyrtidae), by the cas-
sava mealybug, Phenacoccus manihoti
Matile-Ferrero (Homoptera: Pseudo-
coccidae). Can. Entomol. 120:6371
107. Sullivan DJ, van den Bosch R. 1971.
Field ecology of the primary parasites
and hyper-parasites of the potato aphid,
Macrosiphum euphorbiae, in the East
San Francisco Bay area. Ann. Entomol.
Soc. Am. 64:38994
108. Tagawa J, Fukushima H. 1993. Effects
of host age and cocoon position on at-
tack rate by the hyperpaprasitoid Eury-
toma sp. (Hym.: Eurytomidae) on co-
coons of the parasitoid Cotesia glom-
erata ( =Apanteles glomerata) (Hym.:
Braconidae). Entomophaga 38:6977
109. Takada H. 1973. Studies on aphid hyper-
parasites of Japan. II. Aphid hyperpar-
asites of the Pteromalidae occurring in
Japan (Hymenoptera). Insecta Matsum.
N.S. 2:3976
110. Van Alebeek FAN, Rojas-Rousse D,
Leveque L. 1993. Interspecic competi-
tion between Eupelmus vuilleti and Di-
narmus basalis, two solitary ectopara-
sitoids of Bruchidae larvae and pupae.
Entomol. Exp. Appl. 69:2131
111. van den Bosch R. 1981. Specity of hy-
perparasitoids. In The Role of Hyperpar-
asitismin Biological Control: A Sympo-
sium, Priced Publ. 4103, ed. D Rosen,
pp. 2733. Berkeley, CA: Div. Agric.
Sci. Univ. Calif.
112. van den Bosch R, Hom R, Matteson P,
Frazer BD, Messenger PS, Davis CS.
1979. Biological control of the walnut
aphid in California: impact of the para-
site, Trioxys pallidus. Hilgardia 47:113
113. van Roermund HJW, van Lenteren JC.
1995. Residence times of the white-
y parasitoid Encarsia formosa Gahan
(Hym.: Aphelinidae) on tomato leaets.
J. Appl. Entomol. 119:46571
114. van Roermund HJW, van Lenteren JC,
Rabbinge R. 1997. Analysis of the forag-
ing behaviour of the whitey parasitoid
Encarsia formosa on a plant: a simula-
tion study. Biocontr. Sci. Tech. 7:13151
115. Deleted in proof
116. Viggiani G. 1984. Bionomics of the
Aphelinidae. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 29:
25776
117. Viggiani G. 1987. Biological notes
on Encarsia aleurolicis Viggiani (Hy-
menoptera: Aphelinidae). Boll. Ist. En-
tomol. Univ. Stud. Bologna. 41:8792
118. V olkl W. 1990. Fortpanzungsstrate-
gien von Blattlausparasitoiden (Hyme-
noptera, Aphidiidae): Konsequenzen
ihrer Interaktionenmit WirtenundAmei-
sen. PhD thesis. Univ. Bayreuth, Ger-
many. 130 pp.
119. V olkl W. 1992. Aphids or their para-
sitoids: Who actually benets from ant-
attendance? J. Anim. Ecol. 61:27381
120. V olkl W. 1997. Interactions between
ants and aphid parasitoids: patterns and
consequences for resource utilization.
Ecol. Stud. 130:22540
121. V olkl W, H ubner G, Dettner K. 1994. In-
teractions between Alloxysta brevis (Hy-
menoptera: Cynipoidea, Alloxystidae)
and honeydew collecting ants: how an
aphid hyperparasitoid overcomes ant ag-
gression by chemical defense. J. Chem.
Ecol. 20:262135
122. V olkl W, Kranz P. 1995. Nocturnal activ-
ity and resource utilization in the aphid
hyperparasitoid, Dendrocerus carpen-
teri. Ecol. Entomol. 20:29397
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

E
n
t
o
m
o
l
.

1
9
9
9
.
4
4
:
2
9
1
-
3
1
5
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

E
s
t
a
d
u
a
l

P
a
u
l
i
s
t
a

J
u
l
i
o

d
e

M
e
s
q
u
i
t
a

F
i
l
h
o

o
n

0
5
/
2
1
/
1
4
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

123. V olkl W, Kranz P, Weisser WW, H ubner
G. 1995. Patch time allocation and re-
source exploitation in aphid primary par-
asitoids and hyperparasitoids searching
simultaneously within aphid colonies. J.
Appl. Entomol. 119:399404
124. V olkl W, Stary P. 1988. Parasitiza-
tion of Uroleucon species (Homoptera,
Aphidiidae) on thistles (Compositae,
Cardueae). J. Appl. Entomol. 106:5006
125. Walker GP, Cameron PJ. 1981. The bi-
ology of Dendrocerus carpenteri (Hy-
menoptera: Ceraphronidae), a parasite
of Aphidius species, and eld observa-
tions of Dendrocerus species as hyper-
parasites of Acyrthosiphon species. NZ
J. Zool. 8:53138
126. Way MJ. 1963. Mutualism between ants
and honeydew-producing homoptera.
Annu. Rev. Entomol. 8:30744
127. Weinstein P, Austin AD. 1991. The host
relationships of trigonalyid wasps (Hy-
menoptera: Trigonalyidae), with a re-
view of their biology and catalogue to
world species. J. Nat. Hist. 25:399434
128. Weinstein P, Austin AD. 1995. Primary
parasitism, development and adult biol-
ogy in the wasp Taeniogonalos venato-
ria Riek (Hymenoptera: Trigonalyidae).
Aust. J. Zool. 43:54155
129. Weisser WW, Houston AI, V olkl W.
1994. Foraging strategies in solitary
parasitoids: the trade-off between fe-
male and offspring mortality. Evol. Ecol.
8:58797
130. White EB, Bernal JS, Gonzlez D, Tria-
pitsyn SV. 1998. Facultative hyper-
parasitism in Brachymeria pomonae
(Cameron) (Hymenoptera: Chalcidi-
dae). Eur. J. Entomol. In press
131. Whiteld JB. 1998. Phylogeny and evo-
lution of the host-parasitoid relationship
in the Hymenoptera. Annu. Rev. Ento-
mol. 43:12951
132. Wieber AM, Cook SP, Webb RE, Rear-
don RC, Tatman KM. 1996. Similar-
ity of the hyperparasitoid communities
attacking two strains of a gypsy moth
(Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) primary
parasitoid, Cotesia melanoscela (Hy-
menoptera: Braconidae). Ann. Entomol.
Soc. Am. 89:4752
133. Wieber AM, Webb RE, Ridgway RL,
Thorpe KW, Reardon RC, et al. 1995.
Effect of seasonal placement of Cote-
sia melanoscela (Hym.: Braconidae) on
its potential for effective augmentative
release against Lymantria dispar (Lep.:
Lymantriidae). Entomophaga 40:281
92
134. Williams T. 1991. Host selection and sex
ratio in a heteronomous hyperparasitoid.
135. Williams T. 1996. Invasion and dis-
placement of experimental populations
of a conventional parasitoid by a hete-
ronomous hyperparaitoid. Biocontr. Sci.
Technol. 6:60318
136. Williams T, Polaszek A. 1996. Are-exa-
minationof host relations inthe aphelini-
dae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). Biol.
J. Linn. Soc. 57:3545
137. Woolley JB, Vet LEM. 1981. Postovipo-
sitional web-spinning behavior in a hy-
perparasite Signiphora coquelletti Ash-
mead (Hymenoptera: Signiphoridae).
Neth. J. Zool. 31:62733
137a. Yeargan KV, Braman SK. 1989. Life
history of hyperparasitoid Mesocho-
rus discitergus (Hymenoptera: Ichneu-
monidae) and tactics used to overcome
the defensive behavior of the green
cloverworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae).
Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 82:39398
138. Yeates DK, Greathead D. 1997. The
evolutionary pattern of host use in the
Bombyliidae (Diptera): a diverse fam-
ily of parasitoid ies. Biol. J. Linn. Soc.
60:14985
139. Zuparko R. 1995. Evalution of the bi-
ological control of the linden aphid by
Trioxys curvicaudus in Northern Cali-
fornia. PhD thesis. Univ. Calif., Berke-
ley. 128 pp.
140. Zuparko R, Dahlsten DL. 1993. Survey
of the parasitoids of the tuliptree aphid,
Illinoia liriodendri (Hom.: Aphididae)
in Northern California. Entomophaga
38:3140
141. Zuparko R, Dahlsten DL. 1995. Para-
sitoid complex of Eucallipterus tiliae
(Homoptera: Drepanosiphidae) in Nor-
thern California. Environ. Entomol. 24:
73037
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

E
n
t
o
m
o
l
.

1
9
9
9
.
4
4
:
2
9
1
-
3
1
5
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

E
s
t
a
d
u
a
l

P
a
u
l
i
s
t
a

J
u
l
i
o

d
e

M
e
s
q
u
i
t
a

F
i
l
h
o

o
n

0
5
/
2
1
/
1
4
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
Annual Review of Entomology
Volume 44, 1999
CONTENTS
Mites in Forest Canopies: Filling the Size Distribution Shortfall? David
Evans Walter, Valerie Behan-Pelletier
1
Insects as Food: Why the Western Attitude is Important, Gene R.
DeFoliart
21
Emerging and Resurging Vector-Borne Diseases, Norman G. Gratz 51
Insect Pests of Pigeonpea and Their Management, T. G. Shanower, J.
Romeis, E. M. Minja
77
The Evolution and Development of Dipteran Wing Veins: A Systematic
Approach, Julian Stark, James Bonacum, James Remsen, Rob DeSalle
97
Odor-Mediated Behavior of Afrotropical Malaria Mosquitoes, Willem
Takken, Bart G. J. Knols
131
Pathogens and Predators of Ticks and Their Potential in Biological
Control, M. Samish, J. Rehacek
159
The Role of Stingless Bees in Crop Pollination, Tim A. Heard 183
Bionomics of the Anthocoridae, John D. Lattin 207
Adaptative Strategies of Edaphic Arthropods, M. G. Villani, L. L. Allee,
A. Daz, P. S. Robbins
233
Assessment of the Application of Baculoviruses for Control of
Lepidoptera, Flvio Moscardi
257
Hyperparasitism: Multitrophic Ecology and Behavior, Daniel J. Sullivan,
Wolfgang Vlkl
291
Density-Dependent Physiological Phase in Insects, S. W. Applebaum, Y.
Heifetz
317
Recent Advances in Cassava Pest Management, Anthony C. Bellotti,
Lincoln Smith, Stephen L. Lapointe
343
Mate Choice in Tree Crickets and Their Kin, W. D. Brown 371
CONGRUENCE AND CONTROVERSY: Toward a Higher-Level
Phylogeny of Diptera, D. K. Yeates, B. M. Wiegmann
397
The Insect Voltage-Gated Sodium Channel As Target of Insecticides,
Eliahu Zlotkin
429
Management of Plant Viral Diseases Through Chemical Control of Insect
Vectors, Thomas M. Perring, Ned M. Gruenhagen, Charles A. Farrar
457
Influence of the Larval Host Plant on Reproductive Strategies in
Cerambycid Beetles, L. M. Hanks
483
Insect P450 Enzymes, Ren Feyereisen 507
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

E
n
t
o
m
o
l
.

1
9
9
9
.
4
4
:
2
9
1
-
3
1
5
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

E
s
t
a
d
u
a
l

P
a
u
l
i
s
t
a

J
u
l
i
o

d
e

M
e
s
q
u
i
t
a

F
i
l
h
o

o
n

0
5
/
2
1
/
1
4
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
Risk-Spreading and Bet-Hedging in Insect Population Biology, Keith R.
Hopper
535
Nutrition and Culture of Entomophagous Insects, S. N. Thompson 561
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

E
n
t
o
m
o
l
.

1
9
9
9
.
4
4
:
2
9
1
-
3
1
5
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

E
s
t
a
d
u
a
l

P
a
u
l
i
s
t
a

J
u
l
i
o

d
e

M
e
s
q
u
i
t
a

F
i
l
h
o

o
n

0
5
/
2
1
/
1
4
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.

Annurev Ento 44 1 291

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Annurev Ento 44 1 291

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

P1: ARS/spd P2: ARS/ary QC: ARS

November 4, 1998 12:39 Annual Reviews AR074-12

You might also like