Advertisement

Biology Bulletin Reviews

, Volume 4, Issue 6, pp 484–495 | Cite as

The role of parasitoids and virus infections in the population dynamics of mass species of insects-phyllophages

  • E. V. Koltunov
  • S. A. Bakhvalov
  • V. N. Bakhvalova
  • V. N. Zhimerikin
Article

Abstract

The role of parasites (parasitoids and infections) in the population dynamics of the gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar L.) and the nun moth (Lymantria monacha L.), which are prone to large-scale and panzonal periodic outbreaks, is discussed. The results of long-term research have shown that parasites are not the key regulators of the abundance of forest phytophagous insects with high biotic potential, even though they reduce its values, mainly because of the elimination of specimens with low viability. Outbreaks of these parasites are explained by the influence of stress abiotic factors (for example, of droughts) on cenopopulations of woody plants rather than by a delay in parasitic activity or insect escape. Plant reactions to stress under certain biotopic conditions cause changes in the biochemical composition of leaves and needles that are favorable for phyllophages with high biotic potential and rapid adaptation to new environmental and climatic conditions. For this reason, in the system of tree-phytophage interactions, the trophic factor is of primary importance. This role in the phytophage-parasite system is indirectly associated with a sharp decline in the immunity of insects and their increased sensitivity to parasites. It should be noted that this assumption is significant only for forest phytophagous insects having high biotic potential, which are subjected to large-scale and panzonal periodic outbreaks of their abundance.

Keywords

forest phytophagous insects population dynamics parasites viral infections 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abbott, K.C. and Dwyer, G., Food limitation and insect outbreaks: complex dynamics in plant-herbivore models, J. Anim. Ecol., 2007, vol. 76, no. 5, pp. 1004–1014.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Agrawal, A.A., Lau, J.A., and Hamback, P.A., Community heterogeneity and the evolution of interactions between plants and insect herbivores, Quart. Rev. Biol., 2006, vol. 81, no. 4, pp. 349–376.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahmad, S. and Pardini, R.S., Mechanisms for regulating oxygen toxicity in phytophagous insects, Free Radic. Biol. Med., 1990, vol. 8(4), pp. 401–413.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bakhvalov, S.A., Influence of relationships in the system plant-insect-parasite on development and population dynamics of insects, Extended Abstracts of Doctoral (Biol.) Dissertation, Novosibirsk, 2008.Google Scholar
  5. Bakhvalov, S.A., Bakhvalova, V.N., and Martem’yanov, V.V., Role of trophic factor in insect population dynamic: problem analysis, Usp. Sovrem. Biol., 2006, vol. 126, no. 1, pp. 49–60.Google Scholar
  6. Bakhvalov, S.A., Bashev, A.N., and Knor, I.B., Dynamics of populations of black arches Lymantria monacha L. (Lymantriidae: Lepidoptera) and its parasite baculovirus in Western Siberia, Lesovedenie, 1998, no. 4, pp. 26–33.Google Scholar
  7. Bakhvalov, S.A., Il’inykh, A.V., Zhimerikhin, V.N., and Martem’yanov, V.V., Dynamics of black arches Lymantria monacha L. and gypsy moth L. dispar L. (Lymantriidae, Lepidoptera): role of food resources and virus infection, Evraz. Entomol. Zh., 2002, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 101–108.Google Scholar
  8. Bakhvalov, S.A., Koltunov, E.V., and Martem’yanov, V.V. Faktory i ekologicheskie mekhanizmy populyatsionnoi dinamiki lesnykh nasekomykh-fillofagov (Factors and Environmental Mechanisms of Population Dynamics of Forest Insects-Phyllophages), Novosibirsk: Nauka, 2010.Google Scholar
  9. Battisti, A., Host-plant relationships and population dynamics of the pine processionary caterpillar Thaumetopoea pityocampa (Denis & Schiffermuller), Z. Angew. Entomol., 1988, vol. 105, no. 4, pp. 393–402.Google Scholar
  10. Beninger, C.W., Abou-Zaid, M.M., Kinstner, A.L.E., et al., A flavanone and two phenolic acids from Chrysanthemum morifolium with phytotoxic and insect growth regulating activity, J. Chem. Ecol., 2004, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 589–606.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Bernays, E.A. and Chapman, R.F., Plant secondary compounds and grasshoppers: beyond plant defenses, J. Chem. Ecol., 2000, vol. 26, pp. 1773–1794.Google Scholar
  12. Bonsall, M.B., van der Meijden, E., and Crawley, M.J., Contrasting dynamics in the same plant-herbivore interaction, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 2003, vol. 100, no. 25, pp. 1493–1498.Google Scholar
  13. Bruinsma, M. and Dicke, M., Herbivore-induced indirect defense: from induction mechanisms to community ecology, in Induced Plant Resistance to Herbivory, Springer, 2008, pp. 31–60.Google Scholar
  14. Bryant, J.P., Heitkonig, I. Kuropat, P., and Owen-Smith, N., Effects of severe defoliation on the long-term resistance to insect attack and on leaf chemistry in six woody species of the southern African savanna, Am. Nat., 1991, vol. 137, pp. 50–63.Google Scholar
  15. Buntgen, U., Frank, D., Liebhold, A., et al., Three centuries of insect outbreaks across, Eur. Alps New Phytol., 2009, vol. 182, no. 4, pp. 929–941.Google Scholar
  16. Byington, T.S., Gottschalk, K.W., and Mcgraw, J.B., Within—population variation in response of red oak seedlings to herbivory by gypsy moth larvae, Am. Midl. Nat., 1994, vol. 132, no. 2, pp. 328–339.Google Scholar
  17. Cai, Q.N, Ma, X.M, Zhao, X., et al., Effects of host plant resistance on insect pests and its parasitoid: a case study of wheat-aphid-parasitoid system, Biol. Control, 2009, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 134–138.Google Scholar
  18. Chernyshev, V.B., Ekologiya nasekomykh (Ecology of the Insects), Moscow: Mosk. Gos. Univ., 1996.Google Scholar
  19. Classen, A.T., Chapman, S.K., Whitham, T.G., et al., Genetic based plant resistance and susceptibility traits to herbivory influence needle and root litter nutrient dynamics, J. Ecol., 2007, vol. 95, no. 6, pp. 1181–1194.Google Scholar
  20. Cory, J.S. and Hoover, K., Plant-mediated effects in insect-pathogen interactions, Trends Ecol. Evol., 2006, vol. 21, pp. 278–286.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Crone, E.E. and Jones, C.G., The dynamics of carbon-nutrient balance: effects of cottonwood to short- and long-term shade on beetle feeding preferences, J. Chem. Ecol., 1999, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 635–656.Google Scholar
  22. Cuevas-Reyes, P., Quesada, M., Hanson, P., and Oyama, K., Interactions among three trophic levels and diversity of parasitoids: a case of top-down processes in Mexican tropical dry forest, Environ. Entomol., 2007, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 792–800.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Dalin, P., Habitat difference in abundance of willow leaf beetle Phratora vulgatissima (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae): plant quality or natural enemies? Bull. Entomol. Res., 2006, vol. 96, no. 6, pp. 629–635.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Damico, V., Elkinton, J.S. Dwyer, G., Willis, R.B., and Montgomery, M.E., Foliage damage does not affect within-season transmission of an insect virus, Ecology, 1998, vol. 79, no. 3, pp. 1104–1110.Google Scholar
  25. Denno, R.F., Lewis, D., and Gratton, C., Spatial variation in the relative strength of top-down and bottom-up forces: causes and consequences for phytophagous insect populations, Ann. Zool. Fenn., 2005, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 295–311.Google Scholar
  26. Donaldson, J.R., Kruger, E.L., and Lindroth, R.L., Competition- and resource-mediated tradeoffs between growth and defensive chemistry in trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides), New Phytol., 2006, vol. 169, no. 3, pp. 561–570.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Dwyer, G., Firestone, J., and Stevens, T.E., Should models of disease dynamics in herbivorous insects include the effects of variability in host plant foliage quality? Am. Nat., 2005, vol. 165, pp. 16–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Dynamics of Forest Insect Populations, Berryman, A.A., Ed., New York: Plenum Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  29. Felton, G.W. and Gtehouse, J.A., Antinutritive plant defense mechanisms, in Biology of the Insect Midgut, Lehane, M.J. and Billingsley, P.F., Eds., London: Chapman and Hall, 1996, pp. 373–416.Google Scholar
  30. Fleder, W., Waldbauliche Aspecte im Zusammenhang mit Kalamitaten durch “Freifressende Schmetterlingsraupen im Forst,” in Mitteilungen aus der Biologischen Bundesanstalt für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Berlin: Dahlem, 1994, vol. 293, pp. 82–93.Google Scholar
  31. Gandhi, K.J.K. and Herms, D.A., Direct and indirect effects of alien insect herbivores on ecological processes and interactions in forests of eastern North America, Biol. Invasions, 2010, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 389–405.Google Scholar
  32. Gaylord, E.S., Preszler, R.W., and Boecklen, W.J., Interactions between host plants, endophytic fungi and a phytophagous insect in an oak (Quercus griseax, Q. gambelii) hybrid zone, Oecologia, 1996, vol. 105, no. 3, pp. 336–342.Google Scholar
  33. Georgievska, L., Joosten, N., Hoover, K., et al., Effects of single and mixed infections with wild type and genetically modified Helicoverpa armigera nucleopolyhedrovirus on movement behavior of cotton bollworm larvae, Auth. Entomol. Exp. Appl., 2010, vol. 135, pp. 56–67.Google Scholar
  34. Giertych, M.J., Bakowski, M., Karolewski, P., et al., Influence of mineral fertilization on food quality of oak leaves and utilization efficiency of food components by the gypsy moth, Entomol. Exp. Appl., 2005, vol. 117, no. 1, pp. 59–69.Google Scholar
  35. Giertych, M.J., Karolewski, P., Grzebyta, J., and Oleksyn, J., Feeding behavior and performance of Neodiprion sertifer larvae reared on Pinus sylvestris needles, For. Ecol. Manage., 2007, vol. 242, nos. 2–3, pp. 700–707.Google Scholar
  36. Glupov, V.V. and Bakhvalov, S.A., Resistance mechanisms of the insects at pathogenesis, Usp. Sovrem. Biol., 1998, vol. 118, no. 4, pp. 466–482.Google Scholar
  37. Gruppe, A., Die Bedeutung von Nadelinhaltsstoffen fur den Entwicklungserfolg von Nonen-Larven (Lymantria monacha L.), Mitt. Dtsch. Ges. Allg. Angew. Entomol., 1993, vol. 8, nos. 4–6, pp. 497–498.Google Scholar
  38. Haack, R.A. and Mattson, W.J., They nibbled while the forests burned, Nat. Hist., 1989, vol. 98, no. 1, pp. 56–57.Google Scholar
  39. Harrison, S., Persistent, localized outbreaks in the western tussock moth Orgyia vetusta: the roles of resource quality, predation and poor dispersal, Ecol. Entomol., 1997, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 158–166.Google Scholar
  40. Harvey, J.A., van Nouhuys, S., and Biere, A., Effects of quantitative variation in allelochemicals in Plantago lanceolata on development of a generalist and a specialist herbivore and their endoparasitoids, J. Chem. Ecol., 2005, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 287–302.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Haukioja, E., Induction of defense in trees, Ann. Rev. Entomol. (Palo Alto, Calif.), 1991, pp. 25–42.Google Scholar
  42. Haukioja, E., Nutritive quality as a defense against herbivores, in Proc. 18th Int. Congr. Entomol., Abstracts and Author Index, Vancouver, 1988, p. 421.Google Scholar
  43. Haukioja, E., Plant defenses and population fluctuations of forest defoliators: mechanism-based scenarios, Ann. Zool. Fennici., 2005, vol. 42, pp. 313–325.Google Scholar
  44. Haukioja, E., Putting the insect into the birch-insect interaction, Oecologia, 2003, vol. 136, pp. 161–168.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Hausmann, C., Wackers, F.L., and Dorn, S., Sugar convertibility in the parasitoid Cotesia glomerata (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), Arch. Insect Biochem. Physiol., 2005, vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 223–229.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Helms, S.E. and Hunter, M.D., Variation in plant quality and the population dynamics of herbivores: there is nothing average about aphids, Oecologia, 2005, vol. 145, no. 2, pp. 197–204.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Hemming, J.D.C. and Lindroth, R.L., Intraspecific variation in aspen phytochemistry: effects on performance of gypsy moth and forest tent caterpillars, Oecologia, 1995, vol. 103, no. 1, pp. 79–88.Google Scholar
  48. Herniou, E.A. and Jehle, J.A., Baculovirus phylogeny and evolution, Curr. Drug Targets, 2007, vol. 8, no. 10, pp. 1043–1050.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Hogstedt, G., Seldal, T., and Breistol, A., Period length in cyclic animal populations, Ecology, 2005, vol. 86, pp. 373–378.Google Scholar
  50. Hunter, A.F., Ecology, life history, and phylogeny of outbreak and nonoutbreak species, in Population Dynamics: New Approaches and Synthesis, Cappucino, N. and Price, P.W., Åds., New York: Academic Press, 1995, pp. 41–64.Google Scholar
  51. Hunter, M.D., Multiple approaches to estimating the relative importance of top-down and bottom-up forces on insect populations: experiments, life tables and time series analysis, Basic Appl. Ecol., 2001, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 295–309.Google Scholar
  52. Insect Outbreaks, Barbosa, P. and Schultz, J.C., Eds., London: Academic, 1987.Google Scholar
  53. Isaev, A.S., Khlebopros, R.G., Nedorezov, L.V., et al., Dinamika chislennosti lesnykh nasekomykh (Population Dynamics of Forest Insects), Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1984.Google Scholar
  54. Ivashchenko, L.S., Role of the plants in interaction with the insects, in Zashchishchennost’ rastitel’nosti v usloviyakh reformirovaniya agropromyshlennogo kompleksa (Protection of Vegetation in Conditions of Reforms in Agricultural Complex), St. Petersburg, 1995, pp. 198–199.Google Scholar
  55. Johnson, M.T.J., Bottom-up effects of plant genotype on aphids, ants, and predators, Ecology, 2008, vol. 89, no. 1, pp. 145–154.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Kaitaniemi, P. and Ruohomaki, K., Sources of variability in plant resistance against insects: free caterpillars show strongest effects, Oikos, 2001, vol. 95, no. 3, pp. 461–470.Google Scholar
  57. Kaitaniemi, P., Ruohomaki, K., Ossipov, V., et al., Delayed induced changes in the biochemical composition of host plant leaves during an insect outbreak, Oecologia, 1998, vol. 116, nos. 1–2, pp. 182–190.Google Scholar
  58. Kendall, B.E., Ellner, S.P., McCauley, E., et al., Population cycles in the pine looper moth: dynamical tests of mechanistic hypotheses, Ecol. Monogr., 2005, vol. 75, pp. 259–276.Google Scholar
  59. Knape, J. and de Valpine, P., Effects of weather and climate on the dynamics of animal population time series, Proc. R. Soc. B., 2011, vol. 278, no. 1708, pp. 985–992.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Koltunov, E.V., Nasekomye-fitofagi lesnykh biogeotsenozov v usloviyakh antropogennogo vozdeistviya (Insects-Phytophages in Forest Biogeocenosises Affected Anthropogenic Factors), Yekaterinburg: Nauka, 1993.Google Scholar
  61. Koltunov, E.V., Ekologiya neparnogo shelkopryada v lesakh Evrazii (Ecology of Gypsy Moth in Eurasian Forests), Yekaterinburg: UrO, Ross. Akad. Nauk, 2006.Google Scholar
  62. Koltunov, E.V. and Khamidullina, M.I., The reasons of mass reproduction burst of the gypsy moth in Trans-Ural forest-steppe, Agro XXI, 2009, nos. 1–3, pp. 23–25.Google Scholar
  63. Koltunov, E.V. and Khamidullina, M.I., Influence of defoliation on concentration of phenol-containing compounds in the leaves of silver birch (Betula pendula Roth.) affected by anthropogenic factors, Sovrem. Probl. Nauki Obraz., 2012, no. 6. http://www.science-education.ru/106-7436 Google Scholar
  64. Koltunov, E.V., Ponomarev, V.I., and Fedorenko, S.I., Ekologiya neparnogo shelkopryada v usloviyakh antropogennogo vozdeistviya (Ecology of Gypsy Moth Affected by Anthropogenic Factors), Yekaterinburg: Inst. Lesa, 1998.Google Scholar
  65. Kondakov, Yu.P., Mass reproduction of Siberian silk moth in the forests of Krasnoyarsk krai, Entomol. Issled. Sibiri, 2002, no. 2, pp. 25–74.Google Scholar
  66. Konikov, A.S., On biocoenotic and population levels of insect’s adaptation to habitat conditions, Ekologiya, 1971, no. 1, pp. 80–86.Google Scholar
  67. Konikov, A.S., Regulyatory chislennosti lesnykh nasekomykh (Regulating Factors of Forest Insect Population Number), Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1978.Google Scholar
  68. Le Mellec, A., Gerold, G., and Michalzik, B., Insect herbivory, organic matter deposition and effects on below-ground organic matter fluxes in a central European oak forest, Plant Soil, 2011, vol. 342, nos. 1–2, pp. 393–403.Google Scholar
  69. Liebhold, A.M. and Tobin, P.C., Population ecology of insect invasions and their management, Annu. Rev. Entomol., 2008, vol. 53, pp. 387–408.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Marques, E.S.D., Price, P.W., and Cobb, N.S., Resource abundance and insect herbivore diversity on woody Fabaceous desert plants, Environ. Entomol., 2000, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 696–703.Google Scholar
  71. Martem’yanov, V.V. and Bakhvalov, S.A., Environmental relationships in the system of triotrophic and their influence on development and population dynamics of forest phyllophages, Evroaziat. Entomol. Zh., 2007, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 205–221.Google Scholar
  72. Mattson, W.J., Haack, R.H., Lawrence, R.K., and Slocum, S.S., Considering the nutritional ecology of the spruce budworm in its management, For. Ecol. Manag., 1991, vol. 39, nos. 1–4, pp. 183–210.Google Scholar
  73. McMillin, J.D. and Wagner, M.R., Chronic defoliation impacts pine sawfly (Hymenoptera: Diprionidae) performance and host plant quality, Oikos, 1997, vol. 79, no. 2, pp. 357–362.Google Scholar
  74. Meade, T., Felton, G.W., and Young, S.Y., Interactions among plants, herbivores, and entomopathogens: implications for pest management, in XIII Int. Plant Protection Conf., The Hague, 1995, p. 435.Google Scholar
  75. Morales, M.A. and Beal, A.L.H., Effects of host plant quality and ant tending for treehopper Publilia concava, Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am., 2006, vol. 99, no. 3, pp. 545–552.Google Scholar
  76. Moran, P.J., Plant-mediated interactions between insects and a fungal plant pathogen and the role of plant chemical responses to infection, Oecologia, 1998, vol. 115, no. 4, pp. 523–530.Google Scholar
  77. Nadzor, uchet i prognoz massovykh razmnozhenii khvoe- i listogryzushchikh nasekomykh v lesakh SSSR (Control, Calculation, and Forecast of Mass Reproduction of the Needle- and Leaf Beetles in USSR Forest), Il’inskii, A.I. and Tropin, I.V., Eds., Moscow: Lesn. Prom-st., 1965.Google Scholar
  78. Nakamura, M., Miyamoto, Y., and Ohgushi, T., Gall initiation enhances the availability of food resources for herbivorous insects, Funct. Ecol., 2003, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 851–857.Google Scholar
  79. Navon, A., Hare, J.D., and Federici, B.A., Interactions among Heliothis virescens larvae, cotton condensed tannin and the cryia (c) delta—endotoxin of Bacillus thuringiensis, J. Chem. Ecol., 1993, vol. 19, no. 11, pp. 2485–2499.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Osier, T.L. and Lindroth, R.L., Long-term effects of defoliation on quaking aspen in relation to genotype and nutrient availability: plant growth, phytochemistry and insect performance, Oecologia, 2004, vol. 139, no. 1, pp. 55–65.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Parry, D., Herms, D.A., and Mattson, W.J., Responses of an insect folivore and its parasitoids to multiyear experimental defoliation of aspen, Ecology, 2003, vol. 84, no. 7, pp. 1768–1783.Google Scholar
  82. Pasqualone, A.A. and Davis, J.M., The use of conspecific phenotypic states as information during reproductive decisions, Anim. Behav., 2011, vol. 82, no. 2, pp. 281–284.Google Scholar
  83. Piubelli, G.C., Hoffmann-Campo, C.B., Moscardi, F., et al., Baculovirus-resistant Anticarsia gemmatalis responds differently to dietary rutin, Entomol. Exp. Appl., 2006, vol. 119, no. 1, pp. 53–60.Google Scholar
  84. Pokozii, I.T., Aleksenitser, M.L., Bereznitskaya, N.N., et al., Some physiological reactions of the Chinese oak silkworm (Antheraea pernyi G.M) feeding with conserve food, Izv. Khar. Entomol. O-va, 1994, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 108–115.Google Scholar
  85. Rafes, P.M., Biogeocenologic theory of population dynamics of herbivore forest insects, in Matematicheskoe modelirovanie v ekologii (Mathematical Modeling in Ecology), Moscow: Nauka, 1978, pp. 34–51.Google Scholar
  86. Rafes, P.M., Interaction of leaf-damaging forest insects and the trees, Entomologiya, 1981, vol. 5, pp. 140–202.Google Scholar
  87. Rafes, P.M., Mass reproduction of leaf beetles as the disease of forest biogeocenosises, Byull. Mosk. O-va. Ispyt. Prir., Otd. Biol., 1989, vol. 94, no. 4, pp. 3–14.Google Scholar
  88. Raymond, B., Hartley, S.E., Cory, J.S., and Hails, R.S., The role of food plant and pathogen-induced behavior in the persistence of a nucleopolyhedrovirus, J. Invertebr. Pathol., 2005, vol. 88, no. 1, pp. 49–57.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. Regniere, J. and Nealis, V.G., Ecological mechanisms of population change during outbreaks of the spruce budworm, Ecol. Entomol., 2007, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 461–477.Google Scholar
  90. Reilly, J.R. and Hajek, A.E., Density-dependent resistance of the gypsy moth Lymantria dispar to its nucleopolyhedrovirus, and the consequences for population dynamics, Oecologia, 2008, vol. 154, no. 4, pp. 691–701.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. Rudnev, D.F., Influence of physiological conditions of the plants in mass reproduction of forest insects-parasites, Zool. Zh., 1962, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 313–329.Google Scholar
  92. Schowalter, T.D., Hardrowe, W.W., and Crossley, D.A., Herbivory in forested ecosystems, Annu. Rev. Entomol., 1986, vol. 31, pp. 177–196.Google Scholar
  93. Schwerdtfeger, F., Is the density of animal populations regulated by mechanisms or by chance? Int. Congr. Entomol. Proc., 1958, vol. 4, pp. 115–152.Google Scholar
  94. Scriber, J.M., Integrating ancient patterns and current dynamics of insect-plant interactions: taxonomic and geographic variation in herbivore insect specialization, Science, 2010, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 471–507.Google Scholar
  95. Shapiro, M., Robertson, J.L., and Webb, R.E., Effect of nemm seed extract upon the gypsy moth (Lepidoptera, Lymantriidae) and its nuclear polyhedrosis virus, J. Econ. Entomol., 1994, vol. 87, no. 2, pp. 356–360.Google Scholar
  96. Stadnitskii, G.V., Introduction to the general theory of forest protection, in Ekologiya i zashchita lesa (Ecology and Forest Protection), Leningrad, 1988, pp. 87–91.Google Scholar
  97. Tonnang, H.E.Z., Nedorezov, L.V., Owino, J.O., and Ochanda Lohr, B., Host-parasitoid population density prediction using artificial neural networks: diamondback moth and its natural enemies, Agric. For. Entomol., 2010, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 233–242.Google Scholar
  98. Tooker, J.F. and Hanks, L.M., Tritrophic interactions and reproductive fitness of the prairie perennial Silphium laciniatum Gillette (Asteraceae), Environ. Entomol., 2006, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 537–545.Google Scholar
  99. Treutter, D., Biosynthesis of phenolic compounds and its regulation in apple, Plant Growth Regul., 2001, vol. 34, pp. 71–89.Google Scholar
  100. Turchin, P., Wood, S.N., Ellner, S.P., et al., Dynamical effects of plant quality and parasitism on population cycles of larch bud moth, Ecology, 2003, vol. 84, no. 5, pp. 1207–1214.Google Scholar
  101. Viktorov, G.A., Problema dinamiki chislennosti nasekomykh na primere vrednoi cherepashki (Problems of Mass Reproduction of the Insects by Example of the Sunn Pest), Moscow: Nauka, 1967.Google Scholar
  102. Watt, A.D., Leather, S.R., and Forrest, G.I., The effect of previous defoliation of pole—stage lodgepole pine on plant chemistry and on the growth and survival of pine beauly moth (Panolis flammea) larvae, Oecologia, 1991, vol. 86, no. 1, pp. 31–35.Google Scholar
  103. Willis, A.J., Thomas, M.B., and Lawton, J.H., Is the increased vigour of invasive weeds explained by a trade—off between growth and herbivore resistance? Oecologia, 1999, vol. 120, no. 4, pp. 632–640.Google Scholar
  104. Winkler, K., Wackers, F., Bukovinszkine-Kiss, G., and van Lenteren, J., Sugar resources are vital for Diadegma semiclausum fecundity under field conditions, Basic Appl. Ecol., 2006, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 133–140.Google Scholar
  105. Zaprometov, M.N., Fenol’nye soedineniya: rasprostranenie, metabolism, i funktsii v rasteniyakh (Plant Phenolic Compounds: Distribution, Metabolism, and Functions), Moscow: Nauka, 1993.Google Scholar
  106. Zvereva, E.L., Kozlov, M.V., Niemela, P., and Haukioja, E., Delayed induced resistance and increase in leaf fluctuating asymmetry as responses of Salix borealis to insect herbivory, Oecologia, 1997, vol. 109, no. 3, pp. 368–373.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. V. Koltunov
    • 1
  • S. A. Bakhvalov
    • 2
  • V. N. Bakhvalova
    • 2
  • V. N. Zhimerikin
    • 3
  1. 1.Botanical Garden, Ural BranchRussian Academy of SciencesYekaterinburgRussia
  2. 2.Institute of Animal Systematics and Ecology, Siberian BranchRussian Academy of SciencesNovosibirskRussia
  3. 3.All-Russia Centre for Plant QuarantineResearch Institute for Plant QuarantineBykovo, Moscow oblastRussia

Personalised recommendations