Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5c569c448b-4wdfl Total loading time: 0.295 Render date: 2022-07-05T07:00:15.632Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

OVIPOSITION AND NICHE PARTITIONING IN APHIDOPHAGOUS INSECTS ON MAIZE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Daniel Coderre
Affiliation:
Département des Sciences Biologiques, Université du Québec à Montréal, C.P. 8888 Succ. “A”, Montréal, Québec, Canada H3C 3P8
Louis Provencher
Affiliation:
Département des Sciences Biologiques, Université du Québec à Montréal, C.P. 8888 Succ. “A”, Montréal, Québec, Canada H3C 3P8
Jean-Claude Tourneur
Affiliation:
Département des Sciences Biologiques, Université du Québec à Montréal, C.P. 8888 Succ. “A”, Montréal, Québec, Canada H3C 3P8

Abstract

Principal components analysis was used to assess niche partitioning between four aphid predators on the basis of oviposition strategies. The study was conducted by sampling abundance and position of the eggs of these predators in corn monocultures in two locations of southern Quebec. The results indicated that the chrysopid Chrysopa occulata Say laid its eggs on corn leaves usually without aphid colonies, and late in the season. All other predators reacted to aphid concentrations. The syrphid Sphaerophoria philanthus (Mg.) oviposited close to the ground, early in the season, and among colonies of the aphid Rhopalosiphum padi (L.). The two coccinellids laid their eggs during July and August with a maximum during tasseling for Coleomegilla maculata lengi (Timberlake) and after pollination for Hippodamia tredecimpunctata tibialis Say. Of these two species, the latter one selected sites at higher levels on the plant, and was more abundant at the edges of the field. It is suggested that the observed niche partitioning cannot be the result of interspecific competition in variable environments such as maize monocultures.

Résumé

L’analyse en composantes principales est utilisée afin de mettre en évidence la répartition de niches de quatre aphidiphages en utilisant leur stratégie de ponte. L’étude s’est réalisée sur deux monocultures de maïs du sud du Québec où étaient évaluées l’abondance et la position des pontes des prédateurs. Les résultats indiquent que le chrysope Chrysopa occulata Say pond sur des feuilles sans colonies de pucerons, tard en saison. Tous les autres prédateurs réagissent positivement à la présence des pucerons. Le syrphe Sphaerophoria philanthus (Mg.) pond sur des feuilles près du sol, tôt en saison et parmi les colonies importantes du puceron Rhopalosiphum padi (L.). Les deux coccinelles pondent en juillet et août, avec un maximum à la sortie de la panicule pour Coleomegilla maculata lengi (Timberlake) et peu après l’anthèse pour Hippodamia tredecimpunctata tibialis Say. De ces deux espèces, cette dernière choisit des sites plus haut sur le plant, et est plus abondante en bordure des parcelles. Finalement, il est suggéré que la répartition de niche observée ne peut être le résultat d’une compétition interspécifique dans un environnement aussi instable que la monoculture de maïs.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abdulkhairova, S. 1979. The injuriousness of cereal aphid. Zashchita Rastenii 10: 44.Google Scholar
Afzal, M., and Khan, M.R.. 1978. Life story and feeding behaviour of green lacewing Chrysopa carnea Stephens. Pakistan J. Zool. 1: 8390.Google Scholar
Armstrong, R.A., and McGehee, R.. 1980. Competitive exclusion. Am. Nat. 115: 151170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barness, B.N. 1975. The life history of Chrysopa zastrowi Esb-bet. J. ent. Soc. S. Afr. 38: 4754.Google Scholar
Canard, M. 1970. L'oophagie des larves du premier stade de chrysope. Ent. exp. appl. 13: 2136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coderre, D. 1984. Ecologie des espèces aphidiennes et aphidiphages inféodées au maïs de la région sud du Québec. Ph. D. thesis, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke.Google Scholar
Connell, J.H. 1975. Some mechanisms producing structure in natural communities: a model and evidence from field experiments. pp. 460–490 in Cody, M.H., and Diamond, J. (Eds.), Ecology and Evolution of Communities. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Ewert, M.A., and Chiang, H.C.. 1966. Dispersal of three species of coccinellids in cornfields. Can. Ent. 98: 9991003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foott, W.H. 1973. Observations on Coccinellidae in corn fields in Essex county, Ontario. Proc. ent. Soc. Ont. 104: 1621.Google Scholar
Hodek, I. 1973. Biology of Coccinellidae. Academia, Praha.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iperti, G. 1965. Contribution à l'étude de la spécificité chez les principales coccinelles aphidiphages des Alpes Maritimes et des basses Alpes. Entomophaga 10: 159178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legendre, L., and Legendre, P.. 1979. Ecologie numérique. Masson and PUQ, Paris and Montréal.Google Scholar
May, R.M. 1973. Stability and complexity in model ecosystems. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google ScholarPubMed
Menge, B.A. 1976. Organisation of the New England rocky intertidal community: role of predation, competition, and environmental heterogeneity. Ecol. Monog. 46: 355393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miermont, U., and Canard, M.. 1975. Biologie du prédateur aphidiphage Eumicromus angulatus: étude au laboratoire et observations dans le sud-ouest de la France. Entomophaga 20: 179191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
New, T.R. 1975. The biology of Chrysopidae and Hemerobiidae with reference to their usage as biocontrol agents: a review. Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 127: 115140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenzweig, M.L. 1981. A theory of habitat selection. Ecology 62: 327335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheider, F. 1969. Bionomics and physiology of aphidophagous Syrphidae. Annu. Rev. Ent. 14: 103124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoener, T.W. 1974. Resource partitioning in ecological communities. Science 185: 2739.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schoener, T.W. 1983. Field experiments on interspecific competition. Am. Nat. 122: 240285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, B.C. 1965. Growth and development of coccinellid larvae on dry foods. Can. Ent. 97: 760768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vance, R.R. 1984. Interference competition and the coexistence of two competitors on a single limiting resource. Ecology 65: 13491357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, J.E., and Laing, J.E.. 1980. Numerical response of coccinellids to aphids in corn in southern Ontario. Can. Ent. 112: 977988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

OVIPOSITION AND NICHE PARTITIONING IN APHIDOPHAGOUS INSECTS ON MAIZE
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

OVIPOSITION AND NICHE PARTITIONING IN APHIDOPHAGOUS INSECTS ON MAIZE
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

OVIPOSITION AND NICHE PARTITIONING IN APHIDOPHAGOUS INSECTS ON MAIZE
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *