Can the factitious host, Corcyra cephalonica (Stainton, 1863) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), replace the natural host for Telenomus remus Nixon, 1937 (Hymenoptera: Scelionidae) rearing, egg parasitoid of Spodoptera complex (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in laboratory conditions?

Can the factitious host, Corcyra cephalonica (Stainton, 1863) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), replace the natural host for Telenomus remus Nixon, 1937 (Hymenoptera: Scelionidae) rearing, egg parasitoid of Spodoptera complex (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in laboratory conditions? | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Can the factitious host, Corcyra cephalonica (Stainton, 1863) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), replace the natural host for Telenomus remus Nixon, 1937 (Hymenoptera: Scelionidae) rearing, egg parasitoid of Spodoptera complex (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in laboratory conditions? Tiago Tavares Ferreira, Wilian Xavier Fazolin, Aloisio Coelho Junior, and 1 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7032653/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract The Spodoptera complex (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) includes eight species in Brazil, some of which are major pests of maize, soybean, and cotton, particularly Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith, 1797). Control methods rely on agrochemicals and genetically modified plants, but these approaches are only partially effective and sometimes, if wrongly used, fail to meet sustainability standards. A viable alternative is biological control using the egg parasitoid Telenomus remus Nixon, 1937 (Hymenoptera: Scelionidae), studied in Brazil since the 1980s. Large-scale implementation requires mass production of insects, but using S. frugiperda as a natural host requires isolation of individuals to prevent cannibalism. To resolve this problem, factitious hosts such as Corcyra cephalonica (Stainton, 1863) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) have been evaluated for mass rearing of T. remus . This study determined the efficiency of C. cephalonica as a host for two T. remus populations, one with genetic variability and one without (isoline), and assessed their parasitism on S. frugiperda , S. eridania (Stöll, 1782), and S. cosmioides (Walker, 1858), using fertility life tables. The results indicated that the factitious host C. cephalonica can replace the natural host for rearing both populations of T. remus . Parasitism behavior varied: isoline wasps primarily parasitized S. eridania , with lower parasitism on S. frugiperda and S. cosmioides ; whereas wasps from the genetically variable population preferred S. frugiperda , followed by S. eridania , with the lowest parasitism on S. cosmioides . Spodoptera complex Biological control Tropical agriculture Mass rearing Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Highlights Factitious host, C. cephalonia , can replace natural hosts for T. remus rearing across generations. Genetic variability in T. remus affects parasitism preferences among Spodoptera species. Isoline T. remus populations favor S. eridania over other Spodoptera species. T. remus with genetic variability parasitizes S. frugiperda most effectively. Introduction Members of the Spodoptera complex (family Noctuidae) are among the most significant insect pests, causing damage to major crops in Brazil and globally, including corn, soybean, and cotton (Parra et al. 2021 ). This study focused on three species: Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith, 1797), S. eridania (Stöll, 1782), and S. cosmioides (Walker, 1858). These species are polyphagous, geographically widespread, and highly fecundity, thriving in crop rotation systems that provide continuous food, shelter, and breeding opportunities (Montezano et al. 2018 ). Control methods rely heavily on chemical pesticides and Bt -transgenic crops (Diez-Rodrigues et al. 2001; Cruz et al. 2010 ). However, misuse of pesticides leads to environmental contamination, human health risks, natural-enemy elimination, and pest resistance. In response to social and environmental pressures, sustainable alternatives such as biological control, a core component of Integrated Pest Management (IPM), are gaining traction. Biological control avoids environmental contamination and enhances natural pest control. One promising agent is Telenomus remus Nixon (Hymenoptera: Scelionidae), an egg parasitoid effective against the Spodoptera complex. It has been successfully used in IPM programs, particularly in Venezuela, targeting S. frugiperda (Ferrer 2001 ). Telenomus remus can parasitize all egg layers of Spodoptera species, even those with scales, eliminating the pest at its earliest stage and preventing crop damage. However, large-scale production of T. remus requires alternatives to its natural host, S. frugiperda , due to the cannibalistic behavior of Spodoptera larvae. Factitious hosts such as Corcyra cephalonica (Stainton, 1863) and Ephestia kuehniella (Zeller, 1879) (both Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) offer cost-effective and scalable solutions for laboratory rearing. C. cephalonica is easier to rear and has been reported as a suitable host for T. remus . Similarly, E. kuehniella is a widely used host for producing Trichogrammatidae egg parasitoids (Parra 1997 ). There is knowledge that the physical and chemical properties of host eggs can influence parasitoid acceptance and biological performance. This study aimed to evaluate the development, fecundity, and survival of T. remus reared on C. cephalonica , comparing their performance to those reared on the natural host, S. frugiperda . Additionally, the parasitism capacity of T. remus from the factitious host was tested on Spodoptera species to optimize mass production strategies for biological control programs. Material and methods All biological material used in the bioassays of this study was obtained from colonies maintained at the Insect Biology Laboratory of the Department of Entomology and Acarology at the University of São Paulo (USP), in the Luiz de Queiroz College of Agriculture (ESALQ), located in Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil. Rearing of insect species in the laboratory Spodoptera spp. : Spodoptera cosmioides , S. eridania , and S. frugiperda were reared in two separate rooms, one designated for larval development and the other for rearing adults. Both rooms were maintained at 25 ± 2°C, relative humidity (RH) of 60 ± 10%, and a photoperiod of 14L:10D. During the development phase, larvae were fed an artificial diet formulated by Greene et al. ( 1976 ). Plastic cups with a 100 mL capacity were filled with 50 mL of the diet, and newly hatched larvae were transferred into these cups using a soft sable-hair brush. Upon reaching the third instar, larvae were placed individually in 25 mL disposable cups containing 5 mL of the same diet, sealed with acrylic lids to prevent larval escape. Larvae were kept in the development room until pupation after approximately 20 days. Adults were maintained in cylindrical cages made of polyvinyl chloride (PVC), measuring 200 mm in height and 100 mm in diameter. The inner walls of the cages were lined with white sulfite paper, and a fan-shaped strip made from a half-sheet of sulfite paper was placed in the center as an oviposition substrate. At the bottom of the cage, a plastic base (6 cm in diameter) held a cotton disk of the same size soaked in a 10% honey solution, to provide nourishment for the adults. Pupae were removed from the artificial diet and sexed following Butt and Cantu ( 1962 ). They were then placed in the cages in a ratio of 15 females to 10 males. On average, the moths emerged three days later, mating occurred, and oviposition began after a two-day pre-oviposition period. Eggs were collected daily, with the oviposition substrate replaced at each collection. The substrates containing eggs were cut into sections to isolate each egg mass and stored in Petri dishes sealed with plastic film. These dishes were then kept in a chamber (BOD type) set to − 5°C. Adult moths laid eggs for approximately five days before being frozen and discarded. Corcyra cephalonica : Corcyra cephalonica were reared on an artificial diet based on wheat germ (97%) and brewer’s yeast (3%) (Bernardi 2000). Approximately 0.15 grams of eggs (3,750 eggs), less than 24 h old, were introduced into the diet. To prevent larval escape and infestation by the larval parasitoid Habrobracon hebetor Say, 1836 (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), the ventilation openings in the lids of the trays were covered with double layers of voile fabric, and the gaps between the lid and tray were sealed with adhesive tape (Parra et al. 2014 ). The trays were maintained in a climate-controlled room set at 25°C. Around 60 days after egg inoculation, adult moths emerged and were transferred to a moth-collection room. The moths were collected directly from the oviposition cages by means of a PVC system attached to a standard vacuum device (Parra et al. 2014 ). The cages were made of PVC tubes, 200 mm in height and 150 mm in diameter, with nylon mesh folded inside to provide surfaces for landing and mating. The ends of the cages were sealed with mesh, secured by metal clamps. Eggs laid were collected daily and stored in a BOD-type climate chamber at − 5°C (Parra et al. 2014 ). Telenomus remus A population of Telenomus remus with unknown genetic variability, referred to as POOL, originating from Venezuela, was maintained in the Insect Biology Laboratory at ESALQ for approximately six years. Additionally, a nearly genetically homogeneous population (isoline) (< 14% variability) (Li 1955 ), called MIC, was established. This population originated from eggs of S. frugiperda collected in a maize field at the Areão experimental farm in Piracicaba, São Paulo, in 2019, and has passed through approximately 192 generations in the laboratory. The process of establishing the isoline began with the selection of individuals exhibiting desirable biological attributes for a biological control agent, such as strong flight capability and high parasitism potential. This selection was conducted among parasitoids collected from the field. A modified flight test unit, based on the method proposed by Prezotti et al. ( 2002 ), was used for selection. Instead of attaching a Petri dish with entomological glue to the upper lid, egg masses of S. frugiperda were affixed to encourage parasitism by flying individuals. This selection procedure was performed over six generations. Next, using the method described by Coelho Jr et al. ( 2016 ), females from the selected population were randomly chosen, and backcrossing was carried out for nine generations. This process resulted in individuals with less than 14% genetic variability (Li 1955 ). The parasitoids were maintained in 500 mL glass tubes sealed with PVC plastic film. Every 14 days, egg cards were prepared using S. frugiperda eggs no older than 24 h. These egg masses were affixed to white cardboard (approximately 10 × 10 cm) using Henkel® adhesive. The egg cards were exposed to the parasitoids for 72 h, after which they were transferred to new glass containers containing droplets of pure honey to nourish the offspring. The rearing process was conducted in a BOD-type climate chamber set at 25 ± 1°C, with a relative humidity of 60 ± 10% and a photophase of 14 h. Bioassays for the construction of fertility life tables of T. remus POOL and MIC lines on factitious host C. cephalonica , across successive generations For the fertility life table of female T. remus , POOL and MIC lines aged 12–24 h, derived from the eggs of the factitious host C. cephalonica , were placed individually in glass tubes (12 x 75 mm) and fed with a droplet of pure honey. For each female (25 females in total), egg cards containing approximately 70 eggs (0–24 h old) from the respective host were provided. The cards were replaced every 24 h until the death of the female. Before being offered, the eggs from the factitious host were rendered non-viable by exposure to a germicidal lamp for 45 min. The bioassays were conducted in the 1st, 4th, 7th, 10th, and 13th generations under controlled conditions (25 ± 1°C, 70 ± 10% RH, and a 14-h photophase). The following parameters were determined: egg-to-adult development time, viability during the same period, sex ratio (♀/♀+♂), parasitism rate (daily and total), and female longevity. Based on these, fertility life tables for T. remus were constructed. The indices extracted were: net reproductive rate (R 0 ), intrinsic rate of increase (rm), finite rate of increase (λ), and the average duration of each generation (T). Parasitism in the laboratory of T. remus (with and without genetic variability) reared on C. cephalonica (factitious host) in the Spodoptera complex The Spodoptera complex was represented by S. cosmioides , S. eridania , and S. frugiperda . Twenty 24-h-old egg masses from each natural host, respectively, were selected. Each egg mass was considered a replication, and the egg masses were placed individually in test tubes (8.5 cm in height and 2.5 cm in diameter). A droplet of pure honey was applied to the wall of each tube for parasitoid feeding. Next, 20 T. remus females without prior parasitism experience (Venezuelan POOL population and MIC isoline, reared on C. cephalonica eggs for 11 generations) were selected. One female parasitoid was placed in each tube, and the egg mass was replaced every 24 h for 3 days. After 72 h of observation, the female was removed, and the parasitized egg masses were transferred to new test tubes, which were kept under the same conditions until parasitoid emergence. The parasitism of the natural hosts S. frugiperda , S. eridania , and S. cosmioides was analyzed by counting the number of emerged insects and the number of parasitized eggs containing non-viable parasitoid pupae. The parasitism viability was determined by calculating the ratio between the number of emerged insects and the number of parasitized eggs. The parameters evaluated for all hosts were: parasitism, parasitism viability, and sex ratio. This experiment was conducted under controlled temperature, relative humidity, and photoperiod conditions, specifically 25 ± 1°C, 70 ± 10% RH, and photophase of 14 h. For statistical analysis, the average of the three days of parasitism was used for each biological parameter evaluated. Generalized Linear Models (GLM) (Nelder and Wedderburn 1972 ) with a quasi-Poisson distribution were used to analyze parasitism data. GLM with a quasi-Binomial distribution was used for sex ratio and parasitism viability data. The goodness-of-fit for the distributions was assessed using a normal probability plot with a simulation envelope from the hnp package (Moral et al. 2017 ). Mean comparisons were performed using Tukey’s test (p = 0.05), specially designed for GLM in the Multcomp package (Hothorn et al. 2008 ). Theory and Calculation In item 2.2. the raw data from all individuals were analyzed according to the theoretical model proposed by Chi and Liu ( 1988 ), using the TWOSEX-MSChart software ( http://140.120.197.173/ecology/Download/TWOSEX-MSChart.rar ) (Chi 2014 ). Means and standard errors for each population parameter were estimated using the bootstrap method, following the procedure proposed by Huang and Chi ( 2012 ). R 0 = ∑mx.lx; rm = (lnR 0 )/T; T = lnR 0 / r m; λ = e rm . During the bootstrap procedure, the data for each population parameter were resampled 10,000 times. In item 3.2 for the statistical analyses, the mean of the three days of parasitism was used for each biological parameter. Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were employed, with a quasi-Poisson distribution for the parasitism data analysis and a quasi-Binomial distribution for data related to sex ratio and parasitism viability. The goodness-of-fit of the distributions was assessed using a half-normal probability plot with a simulation envelope from the hnp package (Moral et al. 2017 ). Mean comparisons were conducted using Tukey’s test (p = 0.05), specifically designed for GLMs, as implemented in the Multcomp package (Hothorn et al. 2008 ). Results Fertility life table of T. remus , with and without genetic variability, reared on the factitious host C. cephalonica over successive generations The factitious host C. cephalonica was used to conduct bioassays to analyze fertility parameters over successive generations. For the line with genetic variability (POOL), a fertility life table was generated comparing the 1st, 4th, 8th, and 11th generations (Table 1). The values of R₀ (net reproductive rate) showed an increasing pattern from the 1st to the 11th generation. In the 1st generation, R₀ was 5.2 ± 1.3 and did not differ significantly from the 4th generation, where R₀ was 17.04 ± 3.37. Starting from the 8th generation, the R₀ values increased, leading to a significant difference compared to the 1st and 4th generations, with R₀ reaching 33.24 ± 4.62 in the 8th generation and showing no statistical difference from the 11th generation (R₀ = 34.44 ± 5.84) (Table 1). The other parameters — rm (intrinsic rate of increase), λ (finite rate of increase), and T (mean generation time) — showed the same pattern, with the values being statistically lower only in the 1st generation (Table 1). Table 1 Fertility life table of Telenomus remus with genetic variability (POOL) reared in the factitious host Corcyra cephalonica . Temperature: 25 ± 1°C; RH: 70 ± 10%; Photophase: 14 h R 0 rm λ T (days) Sex ratio (%) Generation 1 5.2 ± 1.27 a 0.0096 ± 0.002 a 1.1006 ± 0.0017 a 17.19 ± 0.18 a 46 a 4 17.04 ± 3.37 a 0.1849 ± 0.013 b 1.2030 ± 0.0016 b 15.34 ± 0.07 b 82 b 8 33.24 ± 4.62 b 0.2229 ± 0.001 b 1.2497 ± 0.0012 c 15.72 ± 0.21 b 87 b 11 34.44 ± 5.84 b 0.1946 ± 0.016 b 1.2148 ± 0.0012 b 18.18 ± 0.28 c 86 b Means followed by the same letter do not differ statistically from each other, capital letters in the column and lower-case letters in the row, using the Tukey test (p ≥ 0.05). R 0 = net reproduction rate; rm = intrinsic growth rate; λ = finite increase ratio; T = average duration of each generation The sex ratio of T. remus with genetic variability (POOL) reared on C. cephalonica was significantly lower in the first generation, with more than 46% females. In the subsequent generations (4th, 8th, and 11th), there was no significant difference, with an average of over 80% females. Parasitism viability did not show significant differences between generations (Fig. 1 D). For the fertility life table of T. remus without genetic variability (MIC), the bioassays were carried out up to the 15th generation. The R₀ showed a lower value only in the 4th generation, with R₀ = 5.72 ± 2.49, which was much lower than in the other generations (1st, 8th, 11th, and 15th), which did not differ statistically in any parameter analyzed. The maximum R₀ value was observed in the 15th generation (R₀ = 19.84 ± 4), and the minimum in the 8th generation (R₀ = 15.2 ± 3.34) (Table 2). Table 2 Fertility life table of Telenomus remus without genetic variability (isoline) (MIC) reared in the factitious host Corcyra cephalonica . Temp: 25 ± 1°C; RH: 70 ± 10%; Photophase: 14 h R 0 rm λ T (days) Sex ratio (%) Viability (%) Generation 1 19.12 ± 4.96 a 0.18 ± 1.79 a 1.20 ± 0.0021 a 16.06 ± 0.28 a 85 a 58 a 4 5.72 ± 2.49 b 0.010 ± 3.27 b 1.10 ± 0.0035 b 17.47 ± 0.68 ab 68 a 48 a 8 15.2 ± 3.34 a 0.16 ± 1.384 a 1.18 ± 0.0016 a 16.79 ± 0.17 b 72 a 39 b 11 19.08 ± 3.05 a 0.17 ± 1.00 a 1.19 ± 0.0012 a 16.98 ± 0.11 b 79 a 59 a 15 19.84 ± 3.99 a 0.17 ± 1.17 a 1.19 ± 0.0014 a 17.51 ± 0.37 b 75 a 44 b Means followed by the same letter do not differ statistically from each other, capital letters in the column and lower-case letters in the row, using the Tukey test (p ≥ 0.05). R 0 = net reproduction rate; rm = intrinsic growth rate; λ = finite increase ratio; T = average duration of each generation The sex ratio for T. remus without genetic variability (MIC) reared on C. cephalonica did not differ between generations, with over 70% females. Parasitism viability fluctuated between generations, with the highest values in the 1st, 4th, and 11th generations (58%, 48%, and 59%, respectively), and lower values in the 8th and 15th generations (39% and 44%, respectively) (Fig. 1 B and 1 D). Table 3 Fertility life table of Telenomus remus with genetic variability (POOL) and without genetic variability (isoline) (MIC) reproduced in eggs of the factitious host Corcyra cephalonica for successive generations. Temp: 25 ± 1ºC; RH: 70 ± 10%; Photophase: 14 h without genetic variability (isoline) (MIC) R 0 rm λ T (days) Sex ratio (%) Viab* (%) Generation 1 19.12 ± 4.96 Aa 0.18 ± 1.79 Aa 1.20 ± 0.0021 Aa 16.06 ± 0.28 Aa 85 Aa 58 Aa 4 5.72 ± 2.49 Ab 0.010 ± 3.27 Ab 1.10 ± 0.0035 Ab 17.47 ± 0.68 Aab 68 Aa 48 Aa 8 15.2 ± 3.34 Aa 0.16 ± 1.384 Aa 1.18 ± 0.0016 Aa 16.79 ± 0.17 Ab 72 Aa 39 Aa 11 19.08 ± 3.05 Aa 0.17 ± 1.00 Aa 1.19 ± 0.0012 Aa 16.98 ± 0.11 Ab 79 Aa 59 Aa with genetic variability (POOL) 1 5.2 ± 1.27 Ba 0.0096 ± 0.002 Ba 1.101 ± 0.002 Ba 17.19 ± 0.18 Aa 46 Ba 56 Aa 4 17.04 ± 3.37 Ba 0.1849 ± 0.013 Bb 1.203 ± 0.002 Bb 15.34 ± 0.07 Ab 82 Ab 48 Aa 8 33.24 ± 4.62 Bb 0.2229 ± 0.001 Bb 1.250 ± 0.001 Bc 15.72 ± 0.21 Ab 87 Ab 62 Ba 11 34.44 ± 5.84 Bb 0.1946 ± 0.016 Ab 1.215 ± 0.001 Ab 18.18 ± 0.281 Bc 86 Ab 44 Aa Means followed by the same letter do not differ statistically from each other, upper-case in the treatment (POOL and MIC) and lower-case in the line, using the Tukey test (p > = 0.05). R 0 = net reproduction rate; rm = intrinsic growth rate; λ = finite increase ratio; T = average duration of each generation. *viability of parasitism Based on the fertility life table for female T. remus of the two lines, POOL and MIC, reared on eggs of the factitious host C. cephalonica , a table was created comparing each generation (1st, 4th, 8th, and 11th) between the two lines. In the 1st generation, all parameters were higher for the parasitoids without genetic variability (MIC), with R₀ being significantly higher (R₀ = 19.12 ± 4.96) compared to the parasitoids with genetic variability (POOL), which had R₀ = 5.2 ± 1.27. The sex ratio was also significantly higher for MIC (85% females) compared to POOL (46% females), while parasitism viability showed no statistical differences (above 55% for both lines) (Table 3). In the 4th generation, the trends inverted. R₀ decreased to 5.72 ± 2.49 in the MIC line, while POOL increased to 17.04 ± 3.37. Other indices such as rm, T, and λ, as well as sex ratio, were also significantly higher for the POOL line. Parasitism viability remained the same for both (48%). For the 8th and 11th generations, the POOL line had significantly higher R₀ values (33.24 ± 4.62 and 34.44 ± 5.84) than the MIC line (15.2 ± 3.34 and 19.08 ± 3.05). rm and λ were also statistically higher for POOL in the 8th generation. The sex ratio showed no significant differences between lines in either generation, remaining between 70% and 87% females. Table 4 Parasitism of Telenomus remus without genetic variability (isoline) (MIC) in eggs of species from the Spodoptera complex for 72 h. Temp: 25 ± 1°C; RH: 70 ± 10%; Photophase: 14 h without genetic variability (isoline) (MIC) S. eridania S. frugiperda S. cosmioides 24 h 79 ± 8 Aa 43 ± 7 Ba 41 ± 7 Ba 48 h 48 ± 18 Aa 14 ± 2 Bb 0.75 ± 0.61 Cb 72 h 0 ± 0 Ab 11 ± 2 Bb 0 ± 0 Ab Total* 127 A 68 B 42 B Means followed by the same letter do not differ statistically from each other, capital letters in the column and lower-case letters in the row, using the Tukey test (p ≥ 0.05). *average number of parasitized eggs Regarding host preference (Tables 4 and 5; Fig. 2 A and 2 B), for T. remus without genetic variability (MIC), S. eridania showed the highest parasitism rate: 79 ± 8 eggs (62%) in the first 24 h, totaling 127 eggs in 72 h. S. frugiperda and S. cosmioides had statistically similar averages (68 and 42 eggs, respectively), with over 60% of parasitism occurring in the first 24 h. For T. remus with genetic variability (POOL), S. frugiperda showed the highest parasitism (133 eggs in 72 h), followed by S. eridania (41 eggs) and S. cosmioides (3 eggs). More than 80% of parasitism occurred in the first 24 h for both S. frugiperda and S. eridania (Fig. 2 B). Table 5 Parasitism of Telenomus remus with genetic variability (POOL) in eggs of species from the Spodoptera complex for 72 h. Temp: 25 ± 1°C; RH: 70 ± 10%; Photophase: 14 h with genetic variability (POOL) S. eridania S. frugiperda S. cosmioides 24 h 34 ± 7 aA 100 ± 8 aB 1.7 ± 0.8 aC 48 h 7 ± 3 bA 15 ± 2 bA 0.5 ± 0.3 aB 72 h 0 ± 0 cA 18 ± 3 bB 0 ± 0 aB Total* 41 A 133 B 3 C Means followed by the same letter do not differ statistically from each other, capital letters in the column and lower-case letters in the row, using the Tukey test (p ≥ 0.05). *average number of parasitized eggs Parasitism viability was above 95% in all cases, regardless of the parasitoid line. Discussion In general, T. remus , both with and without genetic variability, adapted to C. cephalonica over successive generations, with the most significant reproductive growth observed in the POOL line. This line not only showed a higher net reproductive rate (R₀) but also higher values of rm and λ, indicating a greater capacity for female offspring to produce more females over time. The marked decline in the MIC line’s performance in the 4th generation suggests a possible loss of vigor and aggressiveness under continuous rearing, likely due to reduced genetic diversity. Even though the POOL line was also reared under laboratory conditions, its superior performance reinforces the importance of maintaining genetic variability for colony health and reproductive potential. Previous studies, such as those by Nagarkatti and Nagaraja ( 1978 ) and Baitha ( 2005 ), support these findings, highlighting enhanced fertility parameters in genetically diverse lines. Similarly, Oktaviani et al. (2022) reported R₀ values as high as 67.5 for T. remus reared on its natural host S. frugiperda — nearly double those obtained in this study using the factitious host — demonstrating the expected host-dependent variation in performance. Parasitism preference also differed: MIC showed a stronger tendency to parasitize S. eridania , while POOL exhibited higher parasitism on S. frugiperda , the natural host. This may reflect differences in host-recognition behavior or physiological compatibility, potentially influenced by genetic variability. The concentration of parasitism in the first 24 h, observed in both lines, aligns with previous findings for T. remus and other egg parasitoids like T. podisi (Morales et al. 2000 ; Bueno et al. 2010a ; Pacheco and Corrêa-Ferreira 1998 ). The decline in parasitism with female age is characteristic of pro-ovigenic species, where females emerge with a fixed number of mature eggs ready for immediate oviposition (Flanders 1937 ). Despite no significant differences in sex ratio or parasitism viability between lines from the 4th generation onward, the POOL line consistently showed superior fertility indices. This suggests that C. cephalonica is a suitable alternative host for long-term rearing of T. remus , especially when using lines with preserved genetic diversity. Abiotic factors are known to influence parasitoid reproduction (Pratissoli et al. 2000, 2004 ), but this study emphasizes the critical role of biotic factors — particularly host quality and genetic background — in biological control programs. Proper selection of host and maintenance of genetic diversity are essential for ensuring high reproductive performance in mass-reared parasitoids. Taken together, the results demonstrate that the factitious host Corcyra cephalonica can effectively replace the natural host for Telenomus remus across successive generations. This host supported reproductive success in both genetically diverse populations and inbred lines, although performance was consistently better in the genetically variable POOL line. Furthermore, host preference was affected by genetic background: MIC parasitoids more frequently parasitized Spodoptera eridania , while POOL parasitoids showed a clear preference for S. frugiperda . Parasitism of S. cosmioides remained low in both cases. Thus, for mass-rearing strategies, C. cephalonica is confirmed as a viable and efficient factitious host, with the added insight that maintaining genetic diversity in laboratory populations of T. remus can enhance biological control outcomes through increased reproductive potential and host adaptability. Declarations Acknowledgments We would like to thank Neide Graciane Zério for technical support and assistance and Janet W. Reid (JWR Associates) for the English revision. The authors also would like to thank the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) (Process 2018/02317-5) as part of the São Paulo Advanced Research Center for Biological Control (SPARCBio) and the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel – Brazil (CAPES). Author contributions: CRediT Tiago Tavares Ferreira: Writing – original draft, Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis. Wilian Xavier Fazolin: Methodology. Aloísio Coelho Junior: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization. José Roberto Postali Parra: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Resources, Project administration, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization. Funding sources This study was financially supported by São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) (Process 2018/02317-5) as part of the São Paulo Advanced Research Center for Biological Control (SPARCBio), hosted at the Luiz de Queiroz College of Agriculture (ESALQ) of the University of São Paulo (USP), sponsored by FAPESP, Koppert and USP. The National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) grants 164120/2021-1 to Tiago Tavares Ferreira. Tiago Tavares Ferreira was also supported by a master’s scholarship from Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES, Process: 88887.513368/2020-00), Brazil. Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Ethical Approval: “not applicable” References Baitha A (2005) Growth rate differences of wild vs. laboratory reared sugarcane adapted strains of Trichogramma chilonis Ishii (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae). Sugar Tech 7:53–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02942530 Bernardi EB, Haddad ML, Parra JRP (2000) Comparison of artificial diets for rearing Corcyra cephalonica (Stainton, 1865) (Lep., Pyralidae) for Trichogramma mass production. Rev Bras Biol 60:52–53. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-71082000000100007 Bernardi EB, Haddad ML, Parra JRP (2000) Comparison of artificial diets for rearing Corcyra cephalonica (Stainton, 1865) (Lep., Pyralidae) for Trichogramma mass production. Revis Brasil de Biol. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-71082000000100007 . (60)52 Bleicher E, Parra JRP (1990) Espécies de Trichogramma Parasitóides de Alabama argillacea . III. Determinação das exigências térmicas de três populações. Pesqui Agropecu Bras 2:2015–2019 Bueno COF, Bueno AF, Parra JRP et al (2010b) Biological characteristics and parasitism capacity of Trichogramma pretiosum Riley (Hymenoptera, Trichogrammatidae) on eggs of Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith) (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae). Rev Bras Entomol 54:322–327 Bueno COF, Carneiro TR, Bueno AFB et al (2010a) Parasitism capacity of Telenomus remus Nixon (Hymenoptera: Scelionidae) on Spodoptera frugiperda (Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) eggs. Braz Arch Biol Technol 153:133–139 Butt BA, Cantu E (1962) Sex determination of lepidopterous pupae. United States Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service 33–75 Chi H (2014) TWOSEX-MSChart: a computer program for the age-stage, two-sex life table analysis, 2012. Available from: http://www.140.120.197.173/Ecology/ . Downloaded on: 7 June 2014 Chi H, Liu H (1988) Two new methods for the study of insect population ecology. Bull Inst Zool Acad Sin 24:225–240 Coelho A Jr, Rugman-Jones PF, Reigada C et al (2016) Laboratory performance predicts the success of field releases in inbred lines of the egg parasitoid Trichogramma pretiosum (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae). PLoS ONE 11:146–153 Cruz JC, da Silva GH, Pereira IA et al (2010) Revis Brasil de Milho e Sorgo 9:177–188. https://doi.org/10.18512/19806477/rbms.v9n2p177-188 . Caracterização do cultivo de milho safrinha de alta produtividade em 2008 e 2009 Diez-Rodriguez GI, Omoto C (2001) Herança da resistencia de Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) a lambda-cialotrina. Neotrop EntomoL 30:311–316. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1519-566X2001000200016 Ferrer F (2001) Biological control of agricultural insect pest in Venezuela: advances, achievements, and future perspectives. Biocontrol News Inform 22:67–74 Flanders SE (1937) Notes on the life history and anatomy of Trichogramma . Ann Entomol Soc Am 30:304–308. https://doi.org/10.1093/aesa/30.2.304 Greene GL, Cox PD, Jacob TA (1976) Influence of temperature and humidity on the life cycle of Ephestia kuehniella Zeller (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). J Stored Prod Res 12:127–132 Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P (2008) Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biom J 50:346–363 Huang YB, Chi H (2012) Age-stage, two-sex life tables of Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillett) (Diptera: Tephritidae) with a discussion on the problem of applying female age-specific life tables to insect populations. Insect Sci 19:263–273. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7917.2011.01424.x Li CC (1955) Population genetics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Montezano DG, Specht A, Sosa-Gómez DR et al (2018) Host Plants of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in the Americas. Afr Entomol 26:286–300 Moral RA, Hinde J, Demétrio CGB (2017) Half-normal plots and overdispersed models in R: The hnp package. J Stat Softw 81:1–23. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v081.i11 Morales J, Santos Gallardo J, Vásquez C, Ríos Y (2000) Patrón de emergencia, longevidad, parasitismo y proporción sexual de Telenomus remus (Hymenoptera: Scelionidae) con relación al cogollero del maíz. Bioagro 12:47–54 Nagarkatti S, Nagaraja H (1978) Experimental comparison of laboratory reared vs. wild-type Trichogramma confusum [Hym.: Trichogrammatidae]. I. Fertility, fecundity and longevity. Entomophaga 23:129–136 Nelder JA, Wedderburn RWM (1972) Generalized linear models. J R Stat Soc A:Gen 135:370–384. https://doi.org/10.2307/2983890 Oktaviani MN, Pudjianto (2022) Telenomus remus (Nixon) (Hymenoptera: Scelionidae) Biology and Life Table on Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) eggs. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 950:12–24. HTTPS://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/950/1/012024 Oliveira RC, Carneiro TR, Fernandes AO (2006) Criação de Telenomus remus Nixon (Hymenoptera: Scelionidae) para o controle da lagarta-do-cartucho, Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). In: DE BORTOLI SA, OLIVEIRA BOIÇA Jr., J.E.M. (eds) Agentes de controle biológico: metodologias de criação, multiplicação e uso. Funep, Jaboticabal, pp 151–166 Pacheco DJP, Corrêa-Ferreira BS (1998) Potencial reprodutivo e longevidade do parasitóide Telenomus podisi Ashmead, em ovos de diferentes espécies de percevejos. Soc Entomol Bras 27:585–591. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0301-80591998000400011 Parra (1997) Técnicas de criação de Ephestia kuehniella , hospedeiro alternativo para produção de Trichogramma . In: Parra JRP, Zucchi RA (eds) Trichogramma e o controle biológico aplicado. FEALQ, Piracicaba, São Paulo, pp 121–150 Parra JRP, Coelho A, Cuervo-Rugno JB et al (2021) Important pest species of the Spodoptera complex: Biology, thermal requirements and ecological zoning. J Pest Sci 95:169–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-021-01365-4 Parra JRP, Coelho Junior A, Geremias LD et al (2014) Criação de Anagasta kuehniella , em pequena escala, para produção de Trichogramma . Occasio 1:32 Pratissoli D, Parra JRP (2000) Desenvolvimento e exigências térmicas de Trichogramma pretiosum Riley, criados em duas traças do tomateiro. Pesq Agrope Brasil 35:1281–1288. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-3921.pab2000.v35.5907 Pratissoli D, Pereira FF, Barros R, Parra JRP, Pereira CLT (2004) Parasitismo de Trichogramma pretiosum em ovos de traça-das-crucíferas sob diferentes temperaturas. Hortic Bras 22:754–757 Prezotti L, Parra JRP, Vencovsky R et al (2002) Teste de vôo como critério de avaliação da qualidade de Trichogramma pretiosum Riley (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae): Adaptação de metodologia. Neotrop Entomol 31:411–418 Prezotti L, Parra JRP et al (2002) Teste de vôo como critério de avaliação da qualidade de Trichogramma pretiosum Riley (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae): Adaptação de metodologia. Neotrop Entomol 31:411–418 Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7032653","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":492350191,"identity":"2548287c-1b5c-4b22-8a9e-4ace2a6f81ae","order_by":0,"name":"Tiago Tavares Ferreira","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3951-0556","institution":"USP: Universidade de Sao Paulo","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Tiago","middleName":"Tavares","lastName":"Ferreira","suffix":""},{"id":492350192,"identity":"e3635ce4-3ff9-4dae-8e5b-c310f5179da0","order_by":1,"name":"Wilian Xavier Fazolin","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"USP: Universidade de Sao Paulo","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Wilian","middleName":"Xavier","lastName":"Fazolin","suffix":""},{"id":492350193,"identity":"a999f267-630b-402b-a312-bf548cb4836b","order_by":2,"name":"Aloisio Coelho Junior","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"USP: Universidade de Sao Paulo","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Aloisio","middleName":"Coelho","lastName":"Junior","suffix":""},{"id":492350194,"identity":"ecbb9d75-8ae2-4449-97fa-43d95a7f162e","order_by":3,"name":"José Roberto Postali Parra","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"USP: Universidade de Sao Paulo","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"José","middleName":"Roberto Postali","lastName":"Parra","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-07-02 21:39:13","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7032653/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7032653/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":87905029,"identity":"c9d9fe7a-bc96-46ea-84a6-c1cc4ce23a8b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-30 08:42:46","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":78701,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eComparison of biological parameters between two \u003cem\u003eTelenomus remus\u003c/em\u003e strains, with and without genetic variability, identified by POOL and MIC, respectively, for successive generations. A. R\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e = (net reproduction rate. B. Viability of parasitism (%). C. T = average duration of each generation (days). D. sex ratio (%). Temp: 25 ± 1 °C; RH: 70 ± 10%; Photophase: 14 h\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7032653/v1/f49e96e939c963f12b6b6a9f.png"},{"id":87906453,"identity":"cbd9db38-3847-4575-9392-6a024d84d2f7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-30 08:58:46","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":81154,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eDaily parasitism of \u003cem\u003eTelenomus remus\u003c/em\u003e with and without genetic variability in natural hosts of the genus \u003cem\u003eSpodoptera\u003c/em\u003e (\u003cem\u003eS. eridania, S. frugiperda\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eS. cosmioides\u003c/em\u003e) for 72 h. A. line without genetic variability – isoline (MIC). B. line with genetic variability (POOL). Temp: 25 ± 1 °C; RH: 70 ± 10%; Photophase: 14 h\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7032653/v1/3a6520806275c17749b40d5f.png"},{"id":92675198,"identity":"41a91719-43aa-4c38-a2f4-402c8e38084c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-02 21:10:06","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1241481,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7032653/v1/0f2fd5e1-4861-44b6-ba38-af76f035ac29.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eCan the factitious host, \u003cem\u003eCorcyra cephalonica\u003c/em\u003e (Stainton, 1863) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), replace the natural host for \u003cem\u003eTelenomus remus\u003c/em\u003e Nixon, 1937 (Hymenoptera: Scelionidae) rearing, egg parasitoid of \u003cem\u003eSpodoptera \u003c/em\u003ecomplex (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in laboratory conditions?\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Highlights","content":"\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFactitious host, \u003cem\u003eC. cephalonia\u003c/em\u003e, can replace natural hosts for \u003cem\u003eT. remus\u003c/em\u003e rearing across generations.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGenetic variability in \u003cem\u003eT. remus\u003c/em\u003e affects parasitism preferences among \u003cem\u003eSpodoptera\u003c/em\u003e species.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIsoline \u003cem\u003eT. remus\u003c/em\u003e populations favor \u003cem\u003eS. eridania\u003c/em\u003e over other \u003cem\u003eSpodoptera\u003c/em\u003e species.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eT. remus\u003c/em\u003e with genetic variability parasitizes \u003cem\u003eS. frugiperda\u003c/em\u003e most effectively.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e"},{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eMembers of the \u003cem\u003eSpodoptera\u003c/em\u003e complex (family Noctuidae) are among the most significant insect pests, causing damage to major crops in Brazil and globally, including corn, soybean, and cotton (Parra et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). This study focused on three species: \u003cem\u003eSpodoptera frugiperda\u003c/em\u003e (J.E. Smith, 1797), \u003cem\u003eS. eridania\u003c/em\u003e (St\u0026ouml;ll, 1782), and \u003cem\u003eS. cosmioides\u003c/em\u003e (Walker, 1858). These species are polyphagous, geographically widespread, and highly fecundity, thriving in crop rotation systems that provide continuous food, shelter, and breeding opportunities (Montezano et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eControl methods rely heavily on chemical pesticides and \u003cem\u003eBt\u003c/em\u003e-transgenic crops (Diez-Rodrigues et al. 2001; Cruz et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). However, misuse of pesticides leads to environmental contamination, human health risks, natural-enemy elimination, and pest resistance. In response to social and environmental pressures, sustainable alternatives such as biological control, a core component of Integrated Pest Management (IPM), are gaining traction. Biological control avoids environmental contamination and enhances natural pest control.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne promising agent is \u003cem\u003eTelenomus remus\u003c/em\u003e Nixon (Hymenoptera: Scelionidae), an egg parasitoid effective against the \u003cem\u003eSpodoptera\u003c/em\u003e complex. It has been successfully used in IPM programs, particularly in Venezuela, targeting \u003cem\u003eS. frugiperda\u003c/em\u003e (Ferrer \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e). \u003cem\u003eTelenomus remus\u003c/em\u003e can parasitize all egg layers of \u003cem\u003eSpodoptera\u003c/em\u003e species, even those with scales, eliminating the pest at its earliest stage and preventing crop damage. However, large-scale production of \u003cem\u003eT. remus\u003c/em\u003e requires alternatives to its natural host, \u003cem\u003eS. frugiperda\u003c/em\u003e, due to the cannibalistic behavior of \u003cem\u003eSpodoptera\u003c/em\u003e larvae.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFactitious hosts such as \u003cem\u003eCorcyra cephalonica\u003c/em\u003e (Stainton, 1863) and \u003cem\u003eEphestia kuehniella\u003c/em\u003e (Zeller, 1879) (both Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) offer cost-effective and scalable solutions for laboratory rearing. \u003cem\u003eC. cephalonica\u003c/em\u003e is easier to rear and has been reported as a suitable host for \u003cem\u003eT. remus\u003c/em\u003e. Similarly, \u003cem\u003eE. kuehniella\u003c/em\u003e is a widely used host for producing Trichogrammatidae egg parasitoids (Parra \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e). There is knowledge that the physical and chemical properties of host eggs can influence parasitoid acceptance and biological performance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study aimed to evaluate the development, fecundity, and survival of \u003cem\u003eT. remus\u003c/em\u003e reared on \u003cem\u003eC. cephalonica\u003c/em\u003e, comparing their performance to those reared on the natural host, \u003cem\u003eS. frugiperda\u003c/em\u003e. Additionally, the parasitism capacity of \u003cem\u003eT. remus\u003c/em\u003e from the factitious host was tested on \u003cem\u003eSpodoptera\u003c/em\u003e species to optimize mass production strategies for biological control programs.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Material and methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eAll biological material used in the bioassays of this study was obtained from colonies maintained at the Insect Biology Laboratory of the Department of Entomology and Acarology at the University of S\u0026atilde;o Paulo (USP), in the Luiz de Queiroz College of Agriculture (ESALQ), located in Piracicaba, S\u0026atilde;o Paulo, Brazil.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRearing of insect species in the laboratory\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSpodoptera\u003c/b\u003e \u003cb\u003espp.\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cem\u003eSpodoptera cosmioides\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eS. eridania\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eS. frugiperda\u003c/em\u003e were reared in two separate rooms, one designated for larval development and the other for rearing adults. Both rooms were maintained at 25\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2\u0026deg;C, relative humidity (RH) of 60\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;10%, and a photoperiod of 14L:10D.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDuring the development phase, larvae were fed an artificial diet formulated by Greene et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1976\u003c/span\u003e). Plastic cups with a 100 mL capacity were filled with 50 mL of the diet, and newly hatched larvae were transferred into these cups using a soft sable-hair brush. Upon reaching the third instar, larvae were placed individually in 25 mL disposable cups containing 5 mL of the same diet, sealed with acrylic lids to prevent larval escape. Larvae were kept in the development room until pupation after approximately 20 days.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdults were maintained in cylindrical cages made of polyvinyl chloride (PVC), measuring 200 mm in height and 100 mm in diameter. The inner walls of the cages were lined with white sulfite paper, and a fan-shaped strip made from a half-sheet of sulfite paper was placed in the center as an oviposition substrate. At the bottom of the cage, a plastic base (6 cm in diameter) held a cotton disk of the same size soaked in a 10% honey solution, to provide nourishment for the adults.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePupae were removed from the artificial diet and sexed following Butt and Cantu (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1962\u003c/span\u003e). They were then placed in the cages in a ratio of 15 females to 10 males. On average, the moths emerged three days later, mating occurred, and oviposition began after a two-day pre-oviposition period. Eggs were collected daily, with the oviposition substrate replaced at each collection.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe substrates containing eggs were cut into sections to isolate each egg mass and stored in Petri dishes sealed with plastic film. These dishes were then kept in a chamber (BOD type) set to \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;5\u0026deg;C. Adult moths laid eggs for approximately five days before being frozen and discarded.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCorcyra cephalonica\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cem\u003eCorcyra cephalonica\u003c/em\u003e were reared on an artificial diet based on wheat germ (97%) and brewer\u0026rsquo;s yeast (3%) (Bernardi 2000). Approximately 0.15 grams of eggs (3,750 eggs), less than 24 h old, were introduced into the diet. To prevent larval escape and infestation by the larval parasitoid \u003cem\u003eHabrobracon hebetor\u003c/em\u003e Say, 1836 (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), the ventilation openings in the lids of the trays were covered with double layers of voile fabric, and the gaps between the lid and tray were sealed with adhesive tape (Parra et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe trays were maintained in a climate-controlled room set at 25\u0026deg;C. Around 60 days after egg inoculation, adult moths emerged and were transferred to a moth-collection room. The moths were collected directly from the oviposition cages by means of a PVC system attached to a standard vacuum device (Parra et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe cages were made of PVC tubes, 200 mm in height and 150 mm in diameter, with nylon mesh folded inside to provide surfaces for landing and mating. The ends of the cages were sealed with mesh, secured by metal clamps. Eggs laid were collected daily and stored in a BOD-type climate chamber at \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;5\u0026deg;C (Parra et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTelenomus remus\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eA population of \u003cem\u003eTelenomus remus\u003c/em\u003e with unknown genetic variability, referred to as POOL, originating from Venezuela, was maintained in the Insect Biology Laboratory at ESALQ for approximately six years. Additionally, a nearly genetically homogeneous population (isoline) (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;14% variability) (Li \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1955\u003c/span\u003e), called MIC, was established. This population originated from eggs of \u003cem\u003eS. frugiperda\u003c/em\u003e collected in a maize field at the Are\u0026atilde;o experimental farm in Piracicaba, S\u0026atilde;o Paulo, in 2019, and has passed through approximately 192 generations in the laboratory.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe process of establishing the isoline began with the selection of individuals exhibiting desirable biological attributes for a biological control agent, such as strong flight capability and high parasitism potential. This selection was conducted among parasitoids collected from the field. A modified flight test unit, based on the method proposed by Prezotti et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e), was used for selection. Instead of attaching a Petri dish with entomological glue to the upper lid, egg masses of \u003cem\u003eS. frugiperda\u003c/em\u003e were affixed to encourage parasitism by flying individuals. This selection procedure was performed over six generations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNext, using the method described by Coelho Jr et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), females from the selected population were randomly chosen, and backcrossing was carried out for nine generations. This process resulted in individuals with less than 14% genetic variability (Li \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1955\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe parasitoids were maintained in 500 mL glass tubes sealed with PVC plastic film. Every 14 days, egg cards were prepared using \u003cem\u003eS. frugiperda\u003c/em\u003e eggs no older than 24 h. These egg masses were affixed to white cardboard (approximately 10 \u0026times; 10 cm) using Henkel\u0026reg; adhesive. The egg cards were exposed to the parasitoids for 72 h, after which they were transferred to new glass containers containing droplets of pure honey to nourish the offspring.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe rearing process was conducted in a BOD-type climate chamber set at 25\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1\u0026deg;C, with a relative humidity of 60\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;10% and a photophase of 14 h.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eBioassays for the construction of fertility life tables of\u003c/b\u003e \u003cb\u003eT. remus\u003c/b\u003e \u003cb\u003ePOOL and MIC lines on factitious host\u003c/b\u003e \u003cb\u003eC. cephalonica\u003c/b\u003e, \u003cb\u003eacross successive generations\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor the fertility life table of female \u003cem\u003eT. remus\u003c/em\u003e, POOL and MIC lines aged 12\u0026ndash;24 h, derived from the eggs of the factitious host \u003cem\u003eC. cephalonica\u003c/em\u003e, were placed individually in glass tubes (12 x 75 mm) and fed with a droplet of pure honey. For each female (25 females in total), egg cards containing approximately 70 eggs (0\u0026ndash;24 h old) from the respective host were provided. The cards were replaced every 24 h until the death of the female. Before being offered, the eggs from the factitious host were rendered non-viable by exposure to a germicidal lamp for 45 min.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe bioassays were conducted in the 1st, 4th, 7th, 10th, and 13th generations under controlled conditions (25\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1\u0026deg;C, 70\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;10% RH, and a 14-h photophase). The following parameters were determined: egg-to-adult development time, viability during the same period, sex ratio (♀/♀+♂), parasitism rate (daily and total), and female longevity. Based on these, fertility life tables for \u003cem\u003eT. remus\u003c/em\u003e were constructed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe indices extracted were: net reproductive rate (R\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e), intrinsic rate of increase (rm), finite rate of increase (λ), and the average duration of each generation (T).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eParasitism in the laboratory of\u003c/b\u003e \u003cb\u003eT. remus\u003c/b\u003e \u003cb\u003e(with and without genetic variability) reared on\u003c/b\u003e \u003cb\u003eC. cephalonica\u003c/b\u003e \u003cb\u003e(factitious host) in the\u003c/b\u003e \u003cb\u003eSpodoptera\u003c/b\u003e \u003cb\u003ecomplex\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe \u003cem\u003eSpodoptera\u003c/em\u003e complex was represented by \u003cem\u003eS. cosmioides\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eS. eridania\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eS. frugiperda\u003c/em\u003e. Twenty 24-h-old egg masses from each natural host, respectively, were selected. Each egg mass was considered a replication, and the egg masses were placed individually in test tubes (8.5 cm in height and 2.5 cm in diameter). A droplet of pure honey was applied to the wall of each tube for parasitoid feeding. Next, 20 \u003cem\u003eT. remus\u003c/em\u003e females without prior parasitism experience (Venezuelan POOL population and MIC isoline, reared on \u003cem\u003eC. cephalonica\u003c/em\u003e eggs for 11 generations) were selected. One female parasitoid was placed in each tube, and the egg mass was replaced every 24 h for 3 days. After 72 h of observation, the female was removed, and the parasitized egg masses were transferred to new test tubes, which were kept under the same conditions until parasitoid emergence.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe parasitism of the natural hosts \u003cem\u003eS. frugiperda\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eS. eridania\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eS. cosmioides\u003c/em\u003e was analyzed by counting the number of emerged insects and the number of parasitized eggs containing non-viable parasitoid pupae. The parasitism viability was determined by calculating the ratio between the number of emerged insects and the number of parasitized eggs. The parameters evaluated for all hosts were: parasitism, parasitism viability, and sex ratio. This experiment was conducted under controlled temperature, relative humidity, and photoperiod conditions, specifically 25\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1\u0026deg;C, 70\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;10% RH, and photophase of 14 h.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor statistical analysis, the average of the three days of parasitism was used for each biological parameter evaluated. Generalized Linear Models (GLM) (Nelder and Wedderburn \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1972\u003c/span\u003e) with a quasi-Poisson distribution were used to analyze parasitism data. GLM with a quasi-Binomial distribution was used for sex ratio and parasitism viability data. The goodness-of-fit for the distributions was assessed using a normal probability plot with a simulation envelope from the \u003cem\u003ehnp\u003c/em\u003e package (Moral et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Mean comparisons were performed using Tukey\u0026rsquo;s test (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.05), specially designed for GLM in the Multcomp package (Hothorn et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTheory and Calculation\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn \u003cb\u003eitem 2.2.\u003c/b\u003e the raw data from all individuals were analyzed according to the theoretical model proposed by Chi and Liu (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e), using the TWOSEX-MSChart software (\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://140.120.197.173/ecology/Download/TWOSEX-MSChart.rar\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://140.120.197.173/ecology/Download/TWOSEX-MSChart.rar\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e) (Chi \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Means and standard errors for each population parameter were estimated using the bootstrap method, following the procedure proposed by Huang and Chi (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). R\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e = \u0026sum;mx.lx; rm = (lnR\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e)/T; T\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;lnR\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e/ \u003csup\u003er\u003c/sup\u003em; λ\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;e\u003csup\u003erm\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDuring the bootstrap procedure, the data for each population parameter were resampled 10,000 times.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn \u003cb\u003eitem 3.2\u003c/b\u003e for the statistical analyses, the mean of the three days of parasitism was used for each biological parameter. Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were employed, with a quasi-Poisson distribution for the parasitism data analysis and a quasi-Binomial distribution for data related to sex ratio and parasitism viability. The goodness-of-fit of the distributions was assessed using a half-normal probability plot with a simulation envelope from the \u003cem\u003ehnp\u003c/em\u003e package (Moral et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Mean comparisons were conducted using Tukey\u0026rsquo;s test (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.05), specifically designed for GLMs, as implemented in the \u003cem\u003eMultcomp\u003c/em\u003e package (Hothorn et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFertility life table of\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eT. remus\u003c/strong\u003e, \u003cstrong\u003ewith and without genetic variability, reared on the factitious host\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eC. cephalonica\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eover successive generations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe factitious host \u003cem\u003eC. cephalonica\u003c/em\u003e was used to conduct bioassays to analyze fertility parameters over successive generations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor the line with genetic variability (POOL), a fertility life table was generated comparing the 1st, 4th, 8th, and 11th generations (Table\u0026nbsp;1). The values of R₀ (net reproductive rate) showed an increasing pattern from the 1st to the 11th generation. In the 1st generation, R₀ was 5.2\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.3 and did not differ significantly from the 4th generation, where R₀ was 17.04\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3.37. Starting from the 8th generation, the R₀ values increased, leading to a significant difference compared to the 1st and 4th generations, with R₀ reaching 33.24\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4.62 in the 8th generation and showing no statistical difference from the 11th generation (R₀ = 34.44\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;5.84) (Table\u0026nbsp;1). The other parameters \u0026mdash; rm (intrinsic rate of increase), \u0026lambda; (finite rate of increase), and T (mean generation time) \u0026mdash; showed the same pattern, with the values being statistically lower only in the 1st generation (Table\u0026nbsp;1).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\"\u003eTable 1 Fertility life table of \u003cem\u003eTelenomus remus\u003c/em\u003e with genetic variability (POOL) reared in the factitious host \u003cem\u003eCorcyra cephalonica\u003c/em\u003e. Temperature: 25\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1\u0026deg;C; RH: 70\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;10%; Photophase: 14 h\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ctable id=\"Taba\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.0091%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 1.3354%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 7.041%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eR\u003c/strong\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 8.2549%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003erm\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 8.8619%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lambda;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 7.041%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eT (days)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 7.1017%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSex ratio (%)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"4\" style=\"width: 6.0091%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGeneration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 1.3354%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 7.041%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.2\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.27 a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 8.2549%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0096\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.002 a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 8.8619%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.1006\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.0017 a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 7.041%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.19\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.18 a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 7.1017%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e46 a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 1.3354%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 7.041%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.04\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3.37 a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 8.2549%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.1849\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.013 b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 8.8619%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.2030\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.0016 b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 7.041%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.34\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.07 b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 7.1017%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e82 b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 1.3354%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e8\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 7.041%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33.24\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4.62 b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 8.2549%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.2229\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.001 b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 8.8619%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.2497\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.0012 c\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 7.041%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.72\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.21 b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 7.1017%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e87 b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 1.3354%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e11\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 7.041%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34.44\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;5.84 b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 8.2549%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.1946\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.016 b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 8.8619%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.2148\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.0012 b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 7.041%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.18\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.28 c\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 7.1017%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e86 b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"7\" style=\"width: 53.1108%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMeans followed by the same letter do not differ statistically from each other, capital letters in the column and lower-case letters in the row, using the Tukey test (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;0.05). R\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;net reproduction rate; rm\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;intrinsic growth rate; \u0026lambda;\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;finite increase ratio; T\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;average duration of each generation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe sex ratio of \u003cem\u003eT. remus\u003c/em\u003e with genetic variability (POOL) reared on \u003cem\u003eC. cephalonica\u003c/em\u003e was significantly lower in the first generation, with more than 46% females. In the subsequent generations (4th, 8th, and 11th), there was no significant difference, with an average of over 80% females. Parasitism viability did not show significant differences between generations (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eD).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor the fertility life table of \u003cem\u003eT. remus\u003c/em\u003e without genetic variability (MIC), the bioassays were carried out up to the 15th generation. The R₀ showed a lower value only in the 4th generation, with R₀ = 5.72\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2.49, which was much lower than in the other generations (1st, 8th, 11th, and 15th), which did not differ statistically in any parameter analyzed. The maximum R₀ value was observed in the 15th generation (R₀ = 19.84\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4), and the minimum in the 8th generation (R₀ = 15.2\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3.34) (Table 2).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\"\u003eTable 2 Fertility life table of \u003cem\u003eTelenomus remus\u003c/em\u003e without genetic variability (isoline) (MIC) reared in the factitious host \u003cem\u003eCorcyra cephalonica\u003c/em\u003e. Temp: 25\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1\u0026deg;C; RH: 70\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;10%; Photophase: 14 h\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ctable id=\"Tabb\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 5.8828%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 1.3708%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.7967%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eR\u003c/strong\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.9109%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003erm\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 7.482%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lambda;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 7.4249%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eT (days)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.9109%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSex ratio (%)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 7.2536%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eViability (%)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"5\" style=\"width: 5.8828%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGeneration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 1.3708%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.7967%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.12\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4.96 a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.9109%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.18\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.79 a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 7.482%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.20\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.0021 a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 7.4249%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.06\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.28 a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.9109%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e85 a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 7.2536%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e58 a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 1.3708%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.7967%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.72\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2.49 b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.9109%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.010\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3.27 b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 7.482%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.10\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.0035 b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 7.4249%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.47\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.68 ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.9109%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e68 a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 7.2536%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e48 a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 1.3708%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e8\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.7967%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.2\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3.34 a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.9109%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.16\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.384 a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 7.482%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.18\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.0016 a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 7.4249%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.79\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.17 b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.9109%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e72 a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 7.2536%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e39 b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 1.3708%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e11\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.7967%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.08\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3.05 a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.9109%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.17\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.00 a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 7.482%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.19\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.0012 a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 7.4249%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.98\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.11 b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.9109%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e79 a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 7.2536%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e59 a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 1.3708%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e15\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.7967%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.84\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3.99 a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.9109%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.17\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.17 a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 7.482%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.19\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.0014 a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 7.4249%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.51\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.37 b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.9109%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e75 a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 7.2536%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e44 b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"8\" style=\"width: 49.9755%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMeans followed by the same letter do not differ statistically from each other, capital letters in the column and lower-case letters in the row, using the Tukey test (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;0.05). R\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;net reproduction rate; rm\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;intrinsic growth rate; \u0026lambda;\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;finite increase ratio; T\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;average duration of each generation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe sex ratio for \u003cem\u003eT. remus\u003c/em\u003e without genetic variability (MIC) reared on \u003cem\u003eC. cephalonica\u003c/em\u003e did not differ between generations, with over 70% females. Parasitism viability fluctuated between generations, with the highest values in the 1st, 4th, and 11th generations (58%, 48%, and 59%, respectively), and lower values in the 8th and 15th generations (39% and 44%, respectively) (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eB and \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eD).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\"\u003eTable 3 Fertility life table of \u003cem\u003eTelenomus remus\u003c/em\u003e with genetic variability (POOL) and without genetic variability (isoline) (MIC) reproduced in eggs of the factitious host Corcyra cephalonica for successive generations. Temp: 25\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1\u0026ordm;C; RH: 70\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;10%; Photophase: 14 h\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ctable id=\"Tabc\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"8\" style=\"width: 38.5682%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ewithout genetic variability (isoline) (MIC)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 5.6971%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 0.9495%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 5.5162%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eR\u003c/strong\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.3753%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003erm\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 5.9231%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lambda;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 5.8779%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eT (days)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 4.9736%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSex ratio (%)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 3.2555%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eViab* (%)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"9\" style=\"width: 5.6971%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGeneration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 0.9495%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 5.5162%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.12\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4.96 Aa\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.3753%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.18\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.79 Aa\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 5.9231%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.20\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.0021 Aa\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 5.8779%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.06\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.28 Aa\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 4.9736%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e85 Aa\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 3.2555%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e58 Aa\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 0.9495%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 5.5162%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.72\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2.49 Ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.3753%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.010\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3.27 Ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 5.9231%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.10\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.0035 Ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 5.8779%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.47\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.68 Aab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 4.9736%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e68 Aa\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 3.2555%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e48 Aa\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 0.9495%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e8\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 5.5162%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.2\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3.34 Aa\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.3753%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.16\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.384 Aa\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 5.9231%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.18\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.0016 Aa\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 5.8779%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.79\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.17 Ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 4.9736%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e72 Aa\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 3.2555%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e39 Aa\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 0.9495%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e11\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 5.5162%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.08\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3.05 Aa\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.3753%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.17\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.00 Aa\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 5.9231%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.19\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.0012 Aa\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 5.8779%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.98\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.11 Ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 4.9736%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e79 Aa\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 3.2555%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e59 Aa\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"7\" style=\"width: 32.8711%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ewith genetic variability (POOL)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 0.9495%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 5.5162%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.2\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.27 Ba\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.3753%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.0096\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.002 Ba\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 5.9231%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.101\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.002 Ba\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 5.8779%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.19\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.18 Aa\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 4.9736%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e46 Ba\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 3.2555%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e56 Aa\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 0.9495%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 5.5162%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.04\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3.37 Ba\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.3753%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.1849\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.013 Bb\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 5.9231%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.203\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.002 Bb\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 5.8779%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.34\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.07 Ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 4.9736%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e82 Ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 3.2555%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e48 Aa\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 0.9495%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e8\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 5.5162%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33.24\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4.62 Bb\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.3753%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.2229\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.001 Bb\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 5.9231%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.250\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.001 Bc\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 5.8779%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.72\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.21 Ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 4.9736%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e87 Ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 3.2555%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e62 Ba\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 0.9495%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e11\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 5.5162%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34.44\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;5.84 Bb\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 6.3753%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.1946\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.016 Ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 5.9231%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.215\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.001 Ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 5.8779%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.18\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.281 Bc\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 4.9736%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e86 Ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 3.2555%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e44 Aa\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"8\" style=\"width: 38.5682%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMeans followed by the same letter do not differ statistically from each other, upper-case in the treatment (POOL and MIC) and lower-case in the line, using the Tukey test (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.05). R\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;net reproduction rate; rm\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;intrinsic growth rate; \u0026lambda;\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;finite increase ratio; T\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;average duration of each generation. *viability of parasitism\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on the fertility life table for female \u003cem\u003eT. remus\u003c/em\u003e of the two lines, POOL and MIC, reared on eggs of the factitious host \u003cem\u003eC. cephalonica\u003c/em\u003e, a table was created comparing each generation (1st, 4th, 8th, and 11th) between the two lines. In the 1st generation, all parameters were higher for the parasitoids without genetic variability (MIC), with R₀ being significantly higher (R₀ = 19.12\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4.96) compared to the parasitoids with genetic variability (POOL), which had R₀ = 5.2\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.27. The sex ratio was also significantly higher for MIC (85% females) compared to POOL (46% females), while parasitism viability showed no statistical differences (above 55% for both lines) (Table\u0026nbsp;3).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the 4th generation, the trends inverted. R₀ decreased to 5.72\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2.49 in the MIC line, while POOL increased to 17.04\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3.37. Other indices such as rm, T, and \u0026lambda;, as well as sex ratio, were also significantly higher for the POOL line. Parasitism viability remained the same for both (48%).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor the 8th and 11th generations, the POOL line had significantly higher R₀ values (33.24\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4.62 and 34.44\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;5.84) than the MIC line (15.2\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3.34 and 19.08\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3.05). rm and \u0026lambda; were also statistically higher for POOL in the 8th generation. The sex ratio showed no significant differences between lines in either generation, remaining between 70% and 87% females.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\"\u003eTable 4 Parasitism of \u003cem\u003eTelenomus remus\u003c/em\u003e without genetic variability (isoline) (MIC) in eggs of species from the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSpodoptera\u003c/em\u003e complex for 72 h. Temp: 25\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1\u0026deg;C; RH: 70\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;10%; Photophase: 14 h\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ctable id=\"Tabd\" border=\"1\" style=\"margin-right: calc(0%); width: 100%;\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 8.5299%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 51.2478%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ewithout genetic variability (isoline) (MIC)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 8.5299%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 14.6715%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eS. eridania\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 18.0152%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eS. frugiperda\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 18.5611%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eS. cosmioides\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 8.5299%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24 h\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 14.6715%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e79\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;8 Aa\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 18.0152%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e43\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;7 Ba\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 18.5611%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e41\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;7 Ba\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 8.5299%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e48 h\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 14.6715%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e48\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;18 Aa\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 18.0152%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2 Bb\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 18.5611%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.75\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.61 Cb\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 8.5299%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e72 h\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 14.6715%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0 Ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 18.0152%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2 Bb\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 18.5611%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0 Ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 8.5299%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTotal*\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 14.6715%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e127 A\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 18.0152%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e68 B\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 18.5611%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e42 B\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" style=\"width: 59.7095%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMeans followed by the same letter do not differ statistically from each other, capital letters in the column and lower-case letters in the row, using the Tukey test (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;0.05). *average number of parasitized eggs\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegarding host preference (Tables 4 and 5; Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eA and \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eB), for \u003cem\u003eT. remus\u003c/em\u003e without genetic variability (MIC), \u003cem\u003eS. eridania\u003c/em\u003e showed the highest parasitism rate: 79\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;8 eggs (62%) in the first 24 h, totaling 127 eggs in 72 h. \u003cem\u003eS. frugiperda\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eS. cosmioides\u003c/em\u003e had statistically similar averages (68 and 42 eggs, respectively), with over 60% of parasitism occurring in the first 24 h.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor \u003cem\u003eT. remus\u003c/em\u003e with genetic variability (POOL), \u003cem\u003eS. frugiperda\u003c/em\u003e showed the highest parasitism (133 eggs in 72 h), followed by \u003cem\u003eS. eridania\u003c/em\u003e (41 eggs) and \u003cem\u003eS. cosmioides\u003c/em\u003e (3 eggs). More than 80% of parasitism occurred in the first 24 h for both \u003cem\u003eS. frugiperda\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eS. eridania\u003c/em\u003e (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eB).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\"\u003eTable 5 Parasitism of \u003cem\u003eTelenomus remus\u003c/em\u003e with genetic variability (POOL) in eggs of species from the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSpodoptera\u003c/em\u003e complex for 72 h. Temp: 25\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1\u0026deg;C; RH: 70\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;10%; Photophase: 14 h\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ctable id=\"Tabe\" border=\"1\" style=\"margin-right: calc(0%); width: 100%;\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 9.0927%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 50.7276%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ewith genetic variability (POOL)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 9.0927%;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 14.6987%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eS. eridania\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 18.0486%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eS. frugiperda\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 18.0486%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eS. cosmioides\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 9.0927%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e24 h\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 14.6987%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;7 aA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 18.0486%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;8 aB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 18.0486%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.7\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.8 aC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 9.0927%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e48 h\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 14.6987%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3 bA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 18.0486%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2 bA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 18.0486%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.5\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.3 aB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 9.0927%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e72 h\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 14.6987%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0 cA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 18.0486%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3 bB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 18.0486%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0 aB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 9.0927%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTotal*\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 14.6987%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e41 A\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 18.0486%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e133 B\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" style=\"width: 18.0486%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3 C\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" style=\"width: 59.8203%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMeans followed by the same letter do not differ statistically from each other, capital letters in the column and lower-case letters in the row, using the Tukey test (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;0.05). *average number of parasitized eggs\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParasitism viability was above 95% in all cases, regardless of the parasitoid line.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn general, \u003cem\u003eT. remus\u003c/em\u003e, both with and without genetic variability, adapted to \u003cem\u003eC. cephalonica\u003c/em\u003e over successive generations, with the most significant reproductive growth observed in the POOL line. This line not only showed a higher net reproductive rate (R₀) but also higher values of rm and λ, indicating a greater capacity for female offspring to produce more females over time.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe marked decline in the MIC line\u0026rsquo;s performance in the 4th generation suggests a possible loss of vigor and aggressiveness under continuous rearing, likely due to reduced genetic diversity. Even though the POOL line was also reared under laboratory conditions, its superior performance reinforces the importance of maintaining genetic variability for colony health and reproductive potential.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrevious studies, such as those by Nagarkatti and Nagaraja (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1978\u003c/span\u003e) and Baitha (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e), support these findings, highlighting enhanced fertility parameters in genetically diverse lines. Similarly, Oktaviani et al. (2022) reported R₀ values as high as 67.5 for \u003cem\u003eT. remus\u003c/em\u003e reared on its natural host \u003cem\u003eS. frugiperda\u003c/em\u003e \u0026mdash; nearly double those obtained in this study using the factitious host \u0026mdash; demonstrating the expected host-dependent variation in performance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eParasitism preference also differed: MIC showed a stronger tendency to parasitize \u003cem\u003eS. eridania\u003c/em\u003e, while POOL exhibited higher parasitism on \u003cem\u003eS. frugiperda\u003c/em\u003e, the natural host. This may reflect differences in host-recognition behavior or physiological compatibility, potentially influenced by genetic variability.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe concentration of parasitism in the first 24 h, observed in both lines, aligns with previous findings for \u003cem\u003eT. remus\u003c/em\u003e and other egg parasitoids like \u003cem\u003eT. podisi\u003c/em\u003e (Morales et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Bueno et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010a\u003c/span\u003e; Pacheco and Corr\u0026ecirc;a-Ferreira \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e). The decline in parasitism with female age is characteristic of pro-ovigenic species, where females emerge with a fixed number of mature eggs ready for immediate oviposition (Flanders \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1937\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDespite no significant differences in sex ratio or parasitism viability between lines from the 4th generation onward, the POOL line consistently showed superior fertility indices. This suggests that \u003cem\u003eC. cephalonica\u003c/em\u003e is a suitable alternative host for long-term rearing of \u003cem\u003eT. remus\u003c/em\u003e, especially when using lines with preserved genetic diversity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAbiotic factors are known to influence parasitoid reproduction (Pratissoli et al. 2000, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e), but this study emphasizes the critical role of biotic factors \u0026mdash; particularly host quality and genetic background \u0026mdash; in biological control programs. Proper selection of host and maintenance of genetic diversity are essential for ensuring high reproductive performance in mass-reared parasitoids.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTaken together, the results demonstrate that the factitious host \u003cem\u003eCorcyra cephalonica\u003c/em\u003e can effectively replace the natural host for \u003cem\u003eTelenomus remus\u003c/em\u003e across successive generations. This host supported reproductive success in both genetically diverse populations and inbred lines, although performance was consistently better in the genetically variable POOL line.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, host preference was affected by genetic background: MIC parasitoids more frequently parasitized \u003cem\u003eSpodoptera eridania\u003c/em\u003e, while POOL parasitoids showed a clear preference for \u003cem\u003eS. frugiperda\u003c/em\u003e. Parasitism of \u003cem\u003eS. cosmioides\u003c/em\u003e remained low in both cases.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThus, for mass-rearing strategies, \u003cem\u003eC. cephalonica\u003c/em\u003e is confirmed as a viable and efficient factitious host, with the added insight that maintaining genetic diversity in laboratory populations of \u003cem\u003eT. remus\u003c/em\u003e can enhance biological control outcomes through increased reproductive potential and host adaptability.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgments\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe would like to thank Neide Graciane Zério for technical support and assistance and Janet W. Reid (JWR Associates) for the English revision. The authors also would like to thank the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) (Process 2018/02317-5) as part of the São Paulo Advanced Research Center for Biological Control (SPARCBio)\u0026nbsp;and the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel – Brazil (CAPES).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor contributions: CRediT\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTiago Tavares Ferreira:\u003c/strong\u003e Writing – original draft, Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis. \u003cstrong\u003eWilian Xavier Fazolin:\u003c/strong\u003e Methodology. \u003cstrong\u003eAloísio Coelho Junior:\u003c/strong\u003e Writing – review \u0026amp; editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization. \u003cstrong\u003eJosé Roberto Postali Parra:\u003c/strong\u003e Writing – review \u0026amp; editing, Supervision, Resources, Project administration, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding sources\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was financially supported by São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) (Process 2018/02317-5) as part of the São Paulo Advanced Research Center for Biological Control (SPARCBio), hosted at the Luiz de Queiroz College of Agriculture (ESALQ) of the University of São Paulo (USP), sponsored by FAPESP, Koppert and USP. The National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq)\u0026nbsp;grants\u0026nbsp;164120/2021-1 to Tiago Tavares Ferreira. Tiago Tavares Ferreira was also supported by a master’s scholarship from\u0026nbsp;Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel\u0026nbsp;(CAPES, Process: 88887.513368/2020-00), Brazil.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDeclaration of competing interest\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eEthical Approval: “not applicable”\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBaitha A (2005) Growth rate differences of wild vs. laboratory reared sugarcane adapted strains of \u003cem\u003eTrichogramma chilonis\u003c/em\u003e Ishii (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae). Sugar Tech 7:53\u0026ndash;55. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/BF02942530\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/BF02942530\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBernardi EB, Haddad ML, Parra JRP (2000) Comparison of artificial diets for rearing \u003cem\u003eCorcyra cephalonica\u003c/em\u003e (Stainton, 1865) (Lep., Pyralidae) for \u003cem\u003eTrichogramma\u003c/em\u003e mass production. Rev Bras Biol 60:52\u0026ndash;53. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-71082000000100007\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1590/S0034-71082000000100007\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBernardi EB, Haddad ML, Parra JRP (2000) Comparison of artificial diets for rearing \u003cem\u003eCorcyra cephalonica\u003c/em\u003e (Stainton, 1865) (Lep., Pyralidae) for Trichogramma mass production. Revis Brasil de Biol. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-71082000000100007\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1590/S0034-71082000000100007\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. (60)52\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBleicher E, Parra JRP (1990) Esp\u0026eacute;cies de \u003cem\u003eTrichogramma\u003c/em\u003e Parasit\u0026oacute;ides de \u003cem\u003eAlabama argillacea\u003c/em\u003e. III. Determina\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o das exig\u0026ecirc;ncias t\u0026eacute;rmicas de tr\u0026ecirc;s popula\u0026ccedil;\u0026otilde;es. Pesqui Agropecu Bras 2:2015\u0026ndash;2019\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBueno COF, Bueno AF, Parra JRP et al (2010b) Biological characteristics and parasitism capacity of \u003cem\u003eTrichogramma pretiosum\u003c/em\u003e Riley (Hymenoptera, Trichogrammatidae) on eggs of \u003cem\u003eSpodoptera frugiperda\u003c/em\u003e (J. E. Smith) (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae). Rev Bras Entomol 54:322\u0026ndash;327\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBueno COF, Carneiro TR, Bueno AFB et al (2010a) Parasitism capacity of \u003cem\u003eTelenomus remus\u003c/em\u003e Nixon (Hymenoptera: Scelionidae) on \u003cem\u003eSpodoptera frugiperda\u003c/em\u003e (Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) eggs. Braz Arch Biol Technol 153:133\u0026ndash;139\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eButt BA, Cantu E (1962) Sex determination of lepidopterous pupae. United States Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service 33\u0026ndash;75\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChi H (2014) TWOSEX-MSChart: a computer program for the age-stage, two-sex life table analysis, 2012. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://www.140.120.197.173/Ecology/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.140.120.197.173/Ecology/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Downloaded on: 7 June 2014\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChi H, Liu H (1988) Two new methods for the study of insect population ecology. Bull Inst Zool Acad Sin 24:225\u0026ndash;240\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCoelho A Jr, Rugman-Jones PF, Reigada C et al (2016) Laboratory performance predicts the success of field releases in inbred lines of the egg parasitoid \u003cem\u003eTrichogramma pretiosum\u003c/em\u003e (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae). PLoS ONE 11:146\u0026ndash;153\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCruz JC, da Silva GH, Pereira IA et al (2010) Revis Brasil de Milho e Sorgo 9:177\u0026ndash;188. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.18512/19806477/rbms.v9n2p177-188\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.18512/19806477/rbms.v9n2p177-188\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Caracteriza\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o do cultivo de milho safrinha de alta produtividade em 2008 e 2009\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDiez-Rodriguez GI, Omoto C (2001) Heran\u0026ccedil;a da resistencia de Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) a lambda-cialotrina. Neotrop EntomoL 30:311\u0026ndash;316. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1590/S1519-566X2001000200016\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1590/S1519-566X2001000200016\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFerrer F (2001) Biological control of agricultural insect pest in Venezuela: advances, achievements, and future perspectives. Biocontrol News Inform 22:67\u0026ndash;74\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFlanders SE (1937) Notes on the life history and anatomy of \u003cem\u003eTrichogramma\u003c/em\u003e. Ann Entomol Soc Am 30:304\u0026ndash;308. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/aesa/30.2.304\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/aesa/30.2.304\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGreene GL, Cox PD, Jacob TA (1976) Influence of temperature and humidity on the life cycle of Ephestia kuehniella Zeller (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). J Stored Prod Res 12:127\u0026ndash;132\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P (2008) Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biom J 50:346\u0026ndash;363\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHuang YB, Chi H (2012) Age-stage, two-sex life tables of \u003cem\u003eBactrocera cucurbitae\u003c/em\u003e (Coquillett) (Diptera: Tephritidae) with a discussion on the problem of applying female age-specific life tables to insect populations. Insect Sci 19:263\u0026ndash;273. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7917.2011.01424.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/j.1744-7917.2011.01424.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi CC (1955) Population genetics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMontezano DG, Specht A, Sosa-G\u0026oacute;mez DR et al (2018) Host Plants of \u003cem\u003eSpodoptera frugiperda\u003c/em\u003e (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in the Americas. Afr Entomol 26:286\u0026ndash;300\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMoral RA, Hinde J, Dem\u0026eacute;trio CGB (2017) Half-normal plots and overdispersed models in R: The hnp package. J Stat Softw 81:1\u0026ndash;23. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v081.i11\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.18637/jss.v081.i11\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMorales J, Santos Gallardo J, V\u0026aacute;squez C, R\u0026iacute;os Y (2000) Patr\u0026oacute;n de emergencia, longevidad, parasitismo y proporci\u0026oacute;n sexual de \u003cem\u003eTelenomus remus\u003c/em\u003e (Hymenoptera: Scelionidae) con relaci\u0026oacute;n al cogollero del ma\u0026iacute;z. Bioagro 12:47\u0026ndash;54\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNagarkatti S, Nagaraja H (1978) Experimental comparison of laboratory reared vs. wild-type \u003cem\u003eTrichogramma confusum\u003c/em\u003e [Hym.: Trichogrammatidae]. I. Fertility, fecundity and longevity. Entomophaga 23:129\u0026ndash;136\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNelder JA, Wedderburn RWM (1972) Generalized linear models. J R Stat Soc A:Gen 135:370\u0026ndash;384. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2307/2983890\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2307/2983890\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOktaviani MN, Pudjianto (2022) \u003cem\u003eTelenomus remus\u003c/em\u003e (Nixon) (Hymenoptera: Scelionidae) Biology and Life Table on \u003cem\u003eSpodoptera frugiperda\u003c/em\u003e (J. E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) eggs. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 950:12\u0026ndash;24. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003eHTTPS://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/950/1/012024\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"HTTPS://10.1088/1755-1315/950/1/012024\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOliveira RC, Carneiro TR, Fernandes AO (2006) Cria\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o de \u003cem\u003eTelenomus remus\u003c/em\u003e Nixon (Hymenoptera: Scelionidae) para o controle da lagarta-do-cartucho, \u003cem\u003eSpodoptera frugiperda\u003c/em\u003e (J.E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). In: DE BORTOLI SA, OLIVEIRA BOI\u0026Ccedil;A Jr., J.E.M. (eds) Agentes de controle biol\u0026oacute;gico: metodologias de cria\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o, multiplica\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o e uso. Funep, Jaboticabal, pp 151\u0026ndash;166\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePacheco DJP, Corr\u0026ecirc;a-Ferreira BS (1998) Potencial reprodutivo e longevidade do parasit\u0026oacute;ide \u003cem\u003eTelenomus podisi\u003c/em\u003e Ashmead, em ovos de diferentes esp\u0026eacute;cies de percevejos. Soc Entomol Bras 27:585\u0026ndash;591. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1590/S0301-80591998000400011\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1590/S0301-80591998000400011\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eParra (1997) T\u0026eacute;cnicas de cria\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o de \u003cem\u003eEphestia kuehniella\u003c/em\u003e, hospedeiro alternativo para produ\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o de \u003cem\u003eTrichogramma\u003c/em\u003e. In: Parra JRP, Zucchi RA (eds) \u003cem\u003eTrichogramma\u003c/em\u003e e o controle biol\u0026oacute;gico aplicado. FEALQ, Piracicaba, S\u0026atilde;o Paulo, pp 121\u0026ndash;150\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eParra JRP, Coelho A, Cuervo-Rugno JB et al (2021) Important pest species of the \u003cem\u003eSpodoptera\u003c/em\u003e complex: Biology, thermal requirements and ecological zoning. J Pest Sci 95:169\u0026ndash;186. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-021-01365-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10340-021-01365-4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eParra JRP, Coelho Junior A, Geremias LD et al (2014) Cria\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o de \u003cem\u003eAnagasta kuehniella\u003c/em\u003e, em pequena escala, para produ\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o de \u003cem\u003eTrichogramma\u003c/em\u003e. Occasio 1:32\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePratissoli D, Parra JRP (2000) Desenvolvimento e exig\u0026ecirc;ncias t\u0026eacute;rmicas de \u003cem\u003eTrichogramma pretiosum\u003c/em\u003e Riley, criados em duas tra\u0026ccedil;as do tomateiro. Pesq Agrope Brasil 35:1281\u0026ndash;1288. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-3921.pab2000.v35.5907\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1590/S1678-3921.pab2000.v35.5907\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePratissoli D, Pereira FF, Barros R, Parra JRP, Pereira CLT (2004) Parasitismo de \u003cem\u003eTrichogramma pretiosum\u003c/em\u003e em ovos de tra\u0026ccedil;a-das-cruc\u0026iacute;feras sob diferentes temperaturas. Hortic Bras 22:754\u0026ndash;757\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePrezotti L, Parra JRP, Vencovsky R et al (2002) Teste de v\u0026ocirc;o como crit\u0026eacute;rio de avalia\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o da qualidade de \u003cem\u003eTrichogramma pretiosum\u003c/em\u003e Riley (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae): Adapta\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o de metodologia. Neotrop Entomol 31:411\u0026ndash;418\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePrezotti L, Parra JRP et al (2002) Teste de v\u0026ocirc;o como crit\u0026eacute;rio de avalia\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o da qualidade de Trichogramma pretiosum Riley (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae): Adapta\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o de metodologia. Neotrop Entomol 31:411\u0026ndash;418\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Spodoptera complex, Biological control, Tropical agriculture, Mass rearing","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7032653/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7032653/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThe \u003cem\u003eSpodoptera\u003c/em\u003e complex (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) includes eight species in Brazil, some of which are major pests of maize, soybean, and cotton, particularly \u003cem\u003eSpodoptera frugiperda\u003c/em\u003e (J.E. Smith, 1797). Control methods rely on agrochemicals and genetically modified plants, but these approaches are only partially effective and sometimes, if wrongly used, fail to meet sustainability standards. A viable alternative is biological control using the egg parasitoid \u003cem\u003eTelenomus remus\u003c/em\u003e Nixon, 1937 (Hymenoptera: Scelionidae), studied in Brazil since the 1980s. Large-scale implementation requires mass production of insects, but using \u003cem\u003eS. frugiperda\u003c/em\u003e as a natural host requires isolation of individuals to prevent cannibalism. To resolve this problem, factitious hosts such as \u003cem\u003eCorcyra cephalonica\u003c/em\u003e (Stainton, 1863) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) have been evaluated for mass rearing of \u003cem\u003eT. remus\u003c/em\u003e. This study determined the efficiency of \u003cem\u003eC. cephalonica\u003c/em\u003e as a host for two \u003cem\u003eT. remus\u003c/em\u003e populations, one with genetic variability and one without (isoline), and assessed their parasitism on \u003cem\u003eS. frugiperda\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eS. eridania\u003c/em\u003e (St\u0026ouml;ll, 1782), and \u003cem\u003eS. cosmioides\u003c/em\u003e (Walker, 1858), using fertility life tables. The results indicated that the factitious host \u003cem\u003eC. cephalonica\u003c/em\u003e can replace the natural host for rearing both populations of \u003cem\u003eT. remus\u003c/em\u003e. Parasitism behavior varied: isoline wasps primarily parasitized \u003cem\u003eS. eridania\u003c/em\u003e, with lower parasitism on \u003cem\u003eS. frugiperda\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eS. cosmioides\u003c/em\u003e; whereas wasps from the genetically variable population preferred \u003cem\u003eS. frugiperda\u003c/em\u003e, followed by \u003cem\u003eS. eridania\u003c/em\u003e, with the lowest parasitism on \u003cem\u003eS. cosmioides\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Can the factitious host, Corcyra cephalonica (Stainton, 1863) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), replace the natural host for Telenomus remus Nixon, 1937 (Hymenoptera: Scelionidae) rearing, egg parasitoid of Spodoptera complex (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in laboratory conditions?","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-07-30 08:42:41","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7032653/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"965d7a38-7c2d-417f-ab60-0287f5b07635","owner":[],"postedDate":"July 30th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-10-02T21:01:59+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-07-30 08:42:41","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7032653","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7032653","identity":"rs-7032653","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}