5 results
Predation efficiency of the green lacewings Chrysoperla agilis and C. mutata against aphids and mealybugs in sweet pepper
- Galini Koutsoula, Athanasia Stamkopoulou, Apostolos Pekas, Felix Wäckers, George Broufas, Maria L. Pappas
-
- Journal:
- Bulletin of Entomological Research / Volume 113 / Issue 2 / April 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 09 September 2022, pp. 162-168
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Chrysoperla species include well-known predators of aphids and other soft-bodied arthropods. As such, they are considered important biological control agents of herbivorous pests in agroecosystems where many of green lacewings species occur. Despite the high number of species of the genus Chrysoperla, only a few have been assessed for the predation efficiency of their larvae against pests infesting plants, and even fewer are currently marketed for use in biocontrol practice. Difficulties in species identification within the Chrysoperla carnea complex species in particular has been related to varying success of commercial C. carnea s.l. releases in the field. In this study, we assessed the ability of two Chrysoperla species, Chrysoperla agilis a member of the carnea cryptic species group, and Chrysoperla mutata of the pudica group to consume aphid and mealybug individuals and suppress their populations in sweet pepper plants. We found that third-instar larvae of both species were able to consume a high number of aphids (approximately 120 nymphs per larva) and mealybugs (approximately 105 nymphs per larva) within 24 h. Furthermore, the release of second-instar larvae of both C. agilis and C. mutata was shown to be remarkably efficient in suppressing the pest populations in long-term greenhouse experiments. Aphid populations were suppressed by approximately 98% and mealybugs by 78% as compared to control plants. Our results highlight the predation efficiency and the biocontrol potential of two widespread Chrysoperla species for their use in pest control.
2 - Suitability of (extra-)floral nectar, pollen, and honeydew as insect food sources
-
- By Felix L. Wäckers, Centre for Terrestrial Ecology Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW) The Netherlands
- Edited by F. L. Wäckers, Netherlands Institute of Ecology, P. C. J. van Rijn, Netherlands Institute of Ecology, J. Bruin, Universiteit van Amsterdam
-
- Book:
- Plant-Provided Food for Carnivorous Insects
- Published online:
- 15 December 2009
- Print publication:
- 10 June 2005, pp 17-74
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
Although arthropod predators and parasitoids are usually associated with their carnivorous qualities, they often require plant-provided foods as well, at least during part of their life cycle. The level in which predators or parasitoids depend on these plant-provided foods varies (see Wäckers and van Rijn, Chapter 1). Temporal omnivores and permanent omnivores are facultative consumers of plant-derived food, using it as complement to their prey. This category includes mites (Bakker and Klein 1992b), spiders (Ruhren and Handel 1999), hemipterans (Bugg et al. 1991), beetles (Larochelle 1990; Pemberton and Vandenberg 1993; Pfannenstiel and Yeargan 2002), lacewings (Limburg and Rosenheim 2001), wasps (Beggs 2001), and ants (Porter 1989). Life-history omnivores, on the other hand, are obligatory consumers of plant-provided foods during certain stages (usually the adult stage). This means that they are entirely dependent on non-prey food for their survival and metabolic upkeep. Examples are syrphid flies (Lunau and Wacht 1994), some lacewings (Canard 2001), and many parasitoids (Jervis et al. 1996) and ants (Porter 1989; Tobin 1994).
Ants play a key role in the evolution of a range of food-mediated mutualisms, including extrafloral nectar, food bodies, elaiosomes, Lycaenid dorsal gland secretions and certain honeydews (see also Koptur, Chapter 3). The degree in which ants depend on these foods varies widely. The dietary requirements of ants range from species that are primarily predaceous, to species that rely almost entirely on honeydew and extrafloral nectar.
1 - Food for protection: an introduction
-
- By Felix L. Wäckers, Centre for Terrestrial Ecology Netherlands Institute of Ecology The Netherlands, Paul C. J. van Rijn, Netherlands Institute of Ecology The Netherlands
- Edited by F. L. Wäckers, Netherlands Institute of Ecology, P. C. J. van Rijn, Netherlands Institute of Ecology, J. Bruin, Universiteit van Amsterdam
-
- Book:
- Plant-Provided Food for Carnivorous Insects
- Published online:
- 15 December 2009
- Print publication:
- 10 June 2005, pp 1-14
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
It has long been recognized that plants provide floral nectar and pollen to attract pollinators. In addition, plants also provide specific foods as part of a protection strategy. By producing extrafloral nectar or food bodies, plants attract predators that can act as bodyguards, clearing the plant of its antagonists. A wide range of arthropods with a primarily carnivorous lifestyle require plant-provided food as an indispensable part of their diet (Table 1.1). In some arthropod groups, the adult stages depend on nectar or pollen for survival and reproduction, whereas in other groups all stages feed on plant-provided food in addition to prey. Only recently have we started to appreciate the implications of non-prey food for plant-herbivore-carnivore interactions. Insight into these food-mediated interactions not only helps in understanding the functioning of multitrophic interactions in natural ecosystems, it also has direct implications for the use of food supplements in biological control programs. In this introductory chapter we first sketch a historical perspective on the topic of plant-provided foods. Subsequently, we present an outline of the book and briefly introduce the different chapters.
The scientific discovery of plant-provided foods
Humans have always shared the sweet tooth of many arthropods. However, for long we lacked the ability to obtain sugars directly from plants, and thus were entirely dependent on insects as intermediaries. Therefore, it is not surprising that nectar and honeydew in connection with insects attracted the attention of naturalists early on.
7 - Nectar- and pollen-feeding by adult herbivorous insects
-
- By Jörg Romeis, Swiss Federal Research Station Switzerland, Erich Städler, Swiss Federal Research Station Switzerland, Felix L. Wäckers, Netherlands Institute of Ecology The Netherlands
- Edited by F. L. Wäckers, Netherlands Institute of Ecology, P. C. J. van Rijn, Netherlands Institute of Ecology, J. Bruin, Universiteit van Amsterdam
-
- Book:
- Plant-Provided Food for Carnivorous Insects
- Published online:
- 15 December 2009
- Print publication:
- 10 June 2005, pp 178-220
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
Among herbivorous insects with a complete metamorphosis the larval and adult stages usually differ significantly in their biology, food requirements, and ecology (Schoonhoven et al. 1998). Often it is the larval stage that is strictly herbivorous, causing damage to a plant, whereas frequently the adult has a different diet, disperses, selects suitable environments (host plants), and reproduces. Studies on herbivore nutritional ecology generally focus on plant feeding by the damaging larval stages. However, the nutritional ecology and foraging behavior of adult stages can also be crucial to our understanding of plant–herbivore interactions. Both as pollinators and as parasites, adult herbivores can impose a strong selective force in the evolution of plant-provided food supplements (Brody 1997). Here we describe the use of plant-provided foods by adult herbivores to provide insight into this often neglected aspect of plant–herbivore interactions.
Adult insects carry over energy reserves and nutrients acquired during larval development. The level of these reserves can vary markedly among species and may be complemented with nutrients obtained through adult feeding (Boggs 1981, 1997a, b; Tsitsipis 1989; May 1992). Some species primarily depend on larval reserves throughout their adult life and require little or no additional feeding (Barbehenn et al. 1999). Such non-feeding adults are relatively common among Lepidoptera (Miller 1996) but have also been reported among Diptera (Drew and Yuval 2000). Females of some species receive nutrients during matings (Wheeler 1996).
2 - Recruitment of predators and parasitoids by herbivore-injured plants
-
- By Ted C. J. Turlings, Institute of Zoology, University of Neuchatel, Switzerland, Felix Wäckers, Netherlands Institute of Ecology, Heteren, the Netherlands
- Edited by Ring T. Cardé, University of California, Riverside, Jocelyn G. Millar, University of California, Riverside
-
- Book:
- Advances in Insect Chemical Ecology
- Published online:
- 07 August 2009
- Print publication:
- 21 June 2004, pp 21-75
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
In recent years, induced plant defenses have received widespread attention from biologists in a variety of disciplines. The mechanisms underlying these defenses and the interactions that mediate them appeal not only to plant physiologists, ecologists, and evolutionary biologists but also to those scientists that search for novel strategies in plant protection. Several recent books (Karban and Baldwin, 1997; Agrawal et al., 1999) and reviews (Baldwin, 1994; Karban et al., 1997; Agrawal and Rutter, 1998; Agrawal and Karban, 1999; Baldwin and Preston, 1999; Dicke et al., 2003) have been devoted entirely to the subject of induced plant defenses. Various forces, ranging from abiotic stresses to biotic factors such as pathogens, arthropods, or higher organisms, may trigger different plant defense responses. Yet, the biochemical pathways that are involved appear to show considerable similarities. This is also true for the so-called indirect defenses.
The term indirect defense refers to those adaptations that result in the recruitment and sustenance of organisms that protect the plants against herbivorous attackers. The early published examples of indirect defenses involved intimate plant–ant interactions, in which myrmecophilous plants were shown to have evolved a range of adaptations providing ants with shelter (domatia) and various food sources (Belt, 1874; Janzen, 1966). In return, these plants may obtain a range of benefits because ants can provide nutrition (Thomson, 1981) or more commonly, protection against herbivores, pathogens, and competing plants (e.g. Koptur, 1992; Oliveira, 1997).