Diachasmimorpha longicaudata (Ashmead, 1905)

Taxonomic History / Nomenclature
In publications prior to about 1988, the species of Diachasmimorpha, including D. longicaudata, were placed either in the genus Opius (e.g. Fullaway 1951) or in the genus Biosteres. The following synonymy is taken from Wharton and Gilstrap (1983), who discuss the problem of previously used names in some detail.

Biosteres longicaudatus Ashmead, 1905. Proc. US National Mus. 28: 290. Original description.
Diachasmimorpha comperei Viereck, 1913. Proc. US National Mus. 44: 641; synonymized by Wharton and Gilstrap (1983). Type species of Diachasmimorpha.
Biosteres compensans Silvestri, 1916. Boll. Lab. Zool. Gen. Agr. Portici 11: 168-169; treated as a subspecies of longicaudatus by Fischer (1963) and as a synonym by Wharton and Gilstrap (1983).
Biosteres formosanus Fullaway, 1926. Proc. Hawaii. Ent. Soc. 6: 283-284; treated as a variety of longicaudata by Fischer (1971) and as a synonym by Wharton and Gilstrap (1983).
Opius longicaudatus v. chocki Fullaway, 1953. Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash. 55: 310-311; proposed as a variety of longicaudata by Fullaway, treated as a synonym by Wharton and Gilstrap (1983).
Opius longicaudatus v. novocaledonicus Fullaway, 1953. Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash. 55: 311-312; proposed as a variety of longicaudata by Fullaway, treated as a synonym by Wharton and Gilstrap (1983).
Opius longicaudatus v. malaiaensis Fullaway, 1953. Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash. 55: 312-313; proposed as a variety of longicaudata by Fullaway, treated as a synonym by Wharton and Gilstrap (1983).
Opius longicaudatus v. taiensis Fullaway, 1953. Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash. 55: 313-314; proposed as a variety of longicaudata by Fullaway; treated as a subspecies of longicaudatus by Fischer (1963, 1987); treated as a synonym by Wharton and Gilstrap (1983).

Remarks
For additional information, see the Braconidae and Opiinae pages, and especially the Diachasmimorpha page.
Diagnosis and Relationships
Diachasmimorpha longicaudata and Diachasmimorpha dacusii are distinguished largely by apparent differences in hosts but this situation needs further investigation (see the dacusii page).
Description
Diachasmimorpha longicaudata has an apically sinuate ovipositor and deeply impressed notauli. Color varieties have been described (see synonymy in taxonomic history section) and even the genetic basis of a dark morph has been investigated (McInnis et a. 1986). Differences in chemical composition or viruses of the Hagen’s glands of males (e. g. Williams et al. 1988, Khoo and Lawrence 2002) may be useful for distinguishing cryptic species, and more recently genetic differentiation has been explored (Kitthawee et al. 1999). Much work remains to be done to sort out variation in this species complex.
2937_mximage
1. D. longicau...
2935_mximage
2. D. longicaudata abdomen: ...
2944_mximage
3. D. longicaudata face: anteri...
2951_mximage
4. D. longicaudata habitus: latera...
2955_mximage
5. D. longicaudata tho...
2954_mximage
6. D. longicaudata t...
2933_mximage
7.D. longicaudata hind wing
2932_mximage
8. D. longicaudata fore wing...
 
Distribution
Native to the Indo-Australian region.
Distribution
Native
Cape Verde Islands (Fry, J. M. 1989.)
Uttar Pradesh (Clancy, D. W. 1951.)
Bismark Archipelago (Fischer, M. 1971.; Papp, J. 1985.)
Introduced
Hawaii (Bess, H. A. and Haramoto, F. H. 1958.; Carter, W. 1952.; Fullaway, D. T. 1953.; Tamashiro, M. and Sherman, M. 1955.; van den Bosch, R.; Bess, H. A.; Haramoto, F. H. 1951.; Purcell, M. F. 1998.; Anonymous. 1949.; Anonymous. 1950.; Haramoto, F. H. 1953.; Kaya, H. K. and Nishida, T. 1968.; Papp, J. 1985.; Harris, E. J. and Bautista, R. C. 1994.; Ramadan, M. M.; Wong, T. T. Y.; Herr, J. C. 1994.; Vargas, R. I.; Stark, J. D.; Uchida, G. K.; Purcell, M. 1993.; Gilstrap, F. E. and Hart, W. G. 1987.; Bess, H. A.; van den Bosch, R.; Haramoto, F. H. 1961.; Wharton, R. A. 1987.; Duan, J. J., Purcell, M. F.; Messing, R. H. 1997.; Duan, J. J.; Ahmad, M.; Joshi, K.; Messing, R. H. 1997.; Duan, J. J.; Purcell, M. F.; Messing, H. 1996.; Purcell, M. F.; Herr, J. C.; Messing, R. H.; Wong, T. T. Y. 1998.; Vargas, R. I.; Walsh, W. A.; Nishida, T. 1995.; Wong, T. T. Y.; Mochizuki, N.; Nishimoto, J. I. 1984.; McInnis, D. O.; Wong, T. T. Y.; Nishimoto, J. 1986.; Ramadan, M. M.; Wong, T. T. Y.; Messing, R. H. 1995.; Wong, T. T. Y. and Ramadan, M. M. 1987.; Leyva-Vasquez, J. L.; Browning, H. W.; Gilstrap, F. E. 1991.; Wong, T. T. Y.; Ramadan, M. M.; McInnis, D. O.; Mochizuki, N.; Nishimoto, J. I.; Herr, J. C. 1991.; Wong, T. T. Y.; Ramadan, M. M.; Herr, J. C.; McInnis, D. O. 1992.; Bennett, F. D.; Rosen, D.; Cochereau, P.; Wood, B. J. 1976.; Haramoto, F. H. and Bess, H. A. 1970.; Nishida, T. and Napompeth, B. 1974.; Wilson, F. 1960.; Stark, J. D.; Vargas, R. I.; Thalman, R. K. 1991.; Bautista, R. C. and Harris, E. J. 1997.; Purcell, M. F.; Jackson, C. G.; Long, J. P.; Batchelor, M. A. 1994.; Stark, J. D.; Vargas, R. I.; Walsh, W. A. 1994.; Liquido, N. J. 1991.; Bautista, R. C. and Harris, E. J. 1997.; Purcell, M. F.; Daniels, K. M.; Whitehand, L. C.; Messing, R. H. 1994.; Harris, E. J.; Okamoto, R. Y.; Lee, C. Y. L.; Nishida, T. 1991.; Mainland , G. B. 1950.; van den Bosch, R. 1952.; Bess, H. A.; van den Bosch, R.; Haramoto, F. 1950.; Montoya, P.; Leido, P.; Benrey, B.; Cancino, J.; Barrera, J. F.; Sivinski, J.; Aluja, M. 2000.; . 0.; Marsh, P. M. 1979.; Huffaker, C. B.; F. J. Simmonds; and Laing, J. E. 1976.; Laing, J. E. and Hamai, J. 1976.; Clausen, C. P. 1978.; Snowball, G. J. and Lukins, R. G. 1964.; Eitam, A. 1998.; Jimenez-Jimenez, E. 1956.; Wang, S. G. and Messing R. H. 2002.; Vargas, R. I.; Peck, S. L.; McQuate, G. T.; Jackson, C. G.; Stark, J. D.; Armstrong, J. W. 2001.; Duan, J. J.; Messing, R. H.; Dukas, R. 2000.; Kitthawee, S.; Julsilikul, D.; Sharpe, R. G.; Baimai, V. 1999.; Liquido, N. J.; Harris, E. J.; Dekker, L. A. 1994.; Vargas, R. I. and Ramadan, M. M. 2000.; Purcell, M. F.; Duan, J. J.; Messing, R. H. 1997.; Duan, J. J. and Messing, R. H. 1997.; Fry, J. M. 1989.; Clancy, D. W. 1951.; van den Bosch, R. 1951.; Anonymous (Joint legislative committe on agriculture and livestock problems). 1953.; Wang, X. G. and Messing, R. H. 2004.; Wang, X. G. and Messing, R. H. 2004.; Wang, X. G.; Messing, R. H.; Bautista, R. C. 2003.; Wang, X. G.; Bokonon-Ganta, A. H.; Ramadan, M. M.; Messing R. H. 2004.; Ramadan, M. M. 2004.; Duan, J. J. and Messing, R. H. 2000.)
Biology and Behavior
The influence of various fitness parameters on male mating success was examined by Ramadan et al. (1991) for this and other species that are routinely reared in Hawaii for tephritid biological control.

Superparasitism was examined in detail by Lawrence (1988a, 1988b, 1988c) using Anastrepha suspensa as host, and under mass rearing conditions by Gonzalez et al. (2007) using Anastrepha ludens (Loew) as host.

Relationships between ovipositor length, fruit morphology, and host location: Sivinski (1991); Sivinski et al. (2001); Sivinski and Aluja (2001).

Spatial and temporal distribution (New World): Sivinski et al. (1997); Sivinski et al. (1998); Sivinski et al. (1999); Sivinski et al. (2000).

Viruses in combating host immune system: (Lawrence 2002; Khoo and Lawrence 2002; Lawrence 2005; Hashimoto and Lawrence 2005; Lawrence and Matos 2005) and associated host/parasitoid developmental interactions (Lawrence 1982; Lawrence 1986; Lawrence 1990; Lawrence and Lanzrein 1993).

Diachasmimorpha longicaudata is one of the most intensively studied species used in the biological control of Tephritidae. Some of the additional publications on this species are: Nishida and Haramoto (1953) (encapsulation by Bactrocera cucurbitae); Greany et al. (1976) (life history); Lawrence et al. 1976) (effect of host age); Greany et al. (1977) (chemically mediated host finding); Greany et al. (1977) (ovipositor sense organs); Liaropoulos et al. (1977) (experimental development on olive fly); Nasca and Rodriguez (1978) (multiple parasitism in lab reared cultures with chalcidoids); Lawrence (1981) (host vibration cues); Leyva-Vasquez et al. (1988) (more host location cues); Rodrogues-Valverde et al. (1989) (still more host location cues); Linares-Portillo et al. (1989) (lab production); Sivinski and Webb (1989) (acoustic signals during courtship); Sivinski et al. (1998) (phenology, Florida); Aluja et al. (1998) (diapause); Chinajariyawong et al. (2000) (long list of native hosts in SE Asia); Eben et al. (2000) (host effects on performance); Duan and Messing (2000) (more substrate and vibration cues); Monotya et al. (2000) (functional response and superparasitism); Sivinski et al. (2001) and Sivinski and Aluja (2001) (ovipositor length relative to host finding); Vargas et al. (2002) (comparative demography); Freire (2005) (mathematical models in citrus); Carrasco et al. (2005) (response to mango volatiles); Viscarrett et al. (2006) (reared on a genetic sexing strain of medfly); Stuhl et al. (2011) (oviposition stimulus);

Biology - Host Range Testing
Diachasmimorpha longicaudata has been reared from gall-making tephritids in the field, though very uncommonly (Duan and Messing, 1996). In an experiment to address the issue of nontarget host impacts of introduced fruit fly parasitoids, Duan et al. found that D. tryoni and D. longicaudata (Ashmead) were able to successfully recognize the host plant of the gall-forming tephritid Eutreta xanthochaeta Aldrich and parasitize the fly larvae within in an experimental setting (Duan et al. 1997). Eutreta xanthochaeta, a nontarget host of the opiine parasitoids, was introduced to Hawaii to control lantana weeds in 1902. The success rate for locating the infested lantana in a natural field setting for these parasitoids is not known, but based on the work of Duan and Messing, it is likely to be very low.
Biological Control
Diachasmimorpha longicaudata has been one of the most important species used in tephritid biocontrol to date. It has been introduced to Hawaii, Florida, Latin America, and elsewhere, where it attacks fruit-infesting tephritids in other genera such as Anastrepha Schiner and Ceratitis MacLeay. For example, it was introduced in Bolivia in 1969 to control Ceratitis capitata and Anastrepha spp. (Bennett and Squire 1972), and has been used in Mexico since the 1950s. In interspecific competition experiments with Fopius arisanus (Sonan), another introduced tephritid parasitoid in Hawaii, Wang and Messing (2003) report that F. arisanus is the dominant species. As an egg parasitoid, F. arisanus arrives on the host (Ceratitis capitata and Bactrocera dorsalis in these experiments) prior to D. longicaudata, a larval parasite, and suppresses development of D. longicaudata, primarily at the egg stage. These studies confirm the earlier findings of van den Bosch and Haramoto (1953).

In Hawaii, D. longicaudata continues to play an important role in suppression of populations of Bactrocera dorsalis, the Oriental fruit fly, as well as Ceratitis capitata, the medfly (Wong et al. 1984, Wong and Ramadan 1987).

Methods for mass rearing this species for augmentative biological control have been published (Wong and Ramadan 1992), and production figures of over a million wasps per week have been achieved.

A listing of D. longicaudata introductions in the New World for biological control is provided below summarized from Ovruski et al. (2000):

Mexico—introduced in 1954-55 against Anastrepha ludens, A. obliqua; specimens recovered, established (Jimenez-Jimenez 1956); subsequent successful suppression using augmentative releases in Chiapas (Montoya et al. 2000).
Costa Rica—introduced in 1955 against Ceratitis capitata; specimens recovered, established (Wharton and Gilstrap 1983, Wharton et al. 1981).
Nicaragua—introduced in 1958 against Anastrepha spp., C. capitata; specimens recovered, established (Vaughan 1992).
Argentina—introduced in 1961, 1977, 1986 against C. capitata, A. fraterculus; specimens recovered, established (Ovruski 1995, Turica 1968, Vaughan 1992, Ovruski et al. 2003), Schliserman et al. 2003.
Bolivia—introduced in 1969 against C. capitata, Anastrepha spp. (Bascope 1994, Hentze et al. 1993, Pruett 1996).
Panama—introduced in 1971 against Anastrepha spp., C. capitata (Wharton et al. 1981).
El Salvador—introduced in 1971 against Anastrepha spp., C. capitata; specimens recovered, established (Ovruski et al. 1996, Rivera 1977, Wharton et al. 1981).
Florida, USA—introduced in 1972 against A. suspensa; specimens recovered, established (Baranowski et al. 1993); augmentatively released to suppress populations in the 1990s (Sivinski et al. 1996, Burns et al. 1996).
Trinidad—introduced in 1974 against Anastrepha spp.; specimens recovered, established (Bennett et al. 1977).
Guatemala—introduced in 1984 against C. capitata; specimens recovered, established (Eskafi 1990).
Brazil—introduced in 1994 against A. fraterculus; specimens recovered, established (Carvalho et al. 1995, Carvalho 1997). Later introduced to Minas Gerais (Alvarenga et al. 2005).
Spain—Jimenez and Castillo (1992).
Thailand—small scale field trials (Petcharat 1997, Petcharat 1997).
Taiwan—small scale field releases (Yao 1989).

Map

There are no specimens currently determined for this OTU, or those specimens determined for this OTU are not yet mappable.