Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Impacts of spinosad and λ-cyhalothrin on spider communities in cabbage fields in south Texas

  • Published:
Ecotoxicology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Spiders are a principal arthropod group that preys on numerous pests of vegetables and other crops. In this study, we determined the effects of the two most commonly used insecticides, spinosad and λ-cyhalothrin, on diversity of spiders on cabbage in south Texas. In two seasons (fall 2008 and spring 2009), we collected a total of 588 spiders belonging to 53 species in 11 families from spinosad and λ-cyhalothrin-treated cabbages and the untreated control plants. A great majority of spiders were collected from the pitfall traps (554) where only a few (34) were collected from the blower/vacuum sampling. In the insecticide-treated plots, there were significantly fewer spider individuals, species and families than in untreated fields. Spinosad had significantly less effect on spiders in total individuals, number of species and families than λ-cyhalothrin. The effects of the two insecticides were further demonstrated by the Shannon–Weiner index (H′) and the hierarchical richness index (HRI). Spider diversity in the spinosad-treated plots were not significantly different from that in the untreated fields but were greater than those in λ-cyhalothrin-treated plots in both seasons when measured by H′ values. In contrast, the H′ values of spider’s diversity in the λ-cyhalothrin-treated plots were significantly lower than spinosad-treated and untreated plots. High values of HRI for spider richness in the spinosad-treated plots suggested that spinosad had less effect on spiders than λ-cyhalothrin. We concluded that spinosad was more compatible with spiders on cabbage compared to λ-cyhalothrin and that this information should be used when developing insecticide resistance management strategies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amalin DM, Pena JE, McSorley R, Browning HW, Crane JH (2001) Comparison of different sampling methods and effect of pesticide application on spider populations in lime orchards in south Florida. Environ Entomol 30:1021–1027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balfour R, Rypstra A (1998) The influence of habitat structure on spider density in a no-till soybean agro-ecosystem. J Arachnol 26:221–226

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop LS, Riechert S (1990) Spider colonization of agro-ecosystems: mode and source. Environ Entomol 19:1738–1745

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackledge TA, Wenzel JW (2001) Silk mediated defense by an orb web spider against predatory mud-dauber wasps. Behaviour 138:155–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costello MJ, Daane KM (1997) Comparison of sampling methods used to estimate spider (Araneae) species abundance and composition in grape vineyards. Environ Entomol 26:142–149

    Google Scholar 

  • De Clercq R, Casteels H, Janssen J (1991). Influence of pesticides on epigeal arthropod fauna in laboratory tests. State Nematology and Entomology Research Station (CL O-Gent), Merelbeke

  • Dinter A, Poehling HM (1995) Side effects of insecticides on two erigonid spider species. Entomol Exp Appl 74:151–163

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • French D (1994) Hierarchical richness index (HRI): a simple procedure for scoring ‘richness’, for use with grouped data. Biol Conserv 69:207–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galvan TL, Koch RH, Hutchison WD (2005) Effects of spinosad and indoxacarb on survival, development and reproduction of the multicolored Asian lady beetle (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Biol Control 34:108–114

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Green J (1999) Sampling method and time determines composition of spider collections. J Arachnol 27:176–182

    Google Scholar 

  • Hof A, Heimann D, Rombke J (1995) Further development for testing the effects of pesticides on wolf spiders. Ecotoxicol Environ Safety 31:264–270

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hooks CRR, Pandey RR, Johnson MW (2003) Impact of avian and arthropod predation on lepidopteran caterpillar densities and plant productivity in an ephemeral agroecosystem. Ecol Entomol 28:522–532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooks CRR, Pandey RR, Johnson MW (2007). Evaluating spiders for their potential to control cabbage white butterflies (Pieris rapae). Cooperative Extension Service, University of Hawaii, Manoa, IP-25, pp 4

  • Jackman JA (1997) A field guide to spiders and scorpions of Texas., Texas Monthly Field Guide SeriesGulf Publ Com, Houston

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaston B (1981) Spiders of Connecticut Bulletin 70, Connecticut Geological and National History Survey, Hartford

  • Kotiaho JS, Alatalo RV, Mappes J, Parri S (2000) Microhabitat selection and audible sexual signalling in the wolf spider Hygrolycosa rubrofasciata (Araneae, Lycosidae). Acta Ethol 2:123–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeSar C, Unzicker J (1978) Soybean spiders: species composition, population densities, and vertical distribution. Ill Nat Hist Surv Biol Notes 107:1–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu T-X, Sparks AN Jr, Hendrix WH, Yue B (1999) Effects of SpinTor (spinosad) on cabbage looper (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae): toxicity and persistence of leaf residue on cabbage under field and laboratory conditions. J Econ Entomol 92:1266–1273

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu T-X, Hutchison WD, Chen W, Burkness EC (2003) Comparative susceptibilities of diamondback moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) and cabbage looper (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) from Minnesota to south Texas to λ-cyhalothrin and indoxacarb. J Econ Entomol 96:1230–1236

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Luczak J (1979) Spiders in agrocoenoses. Polish Ecol Stud 5:151–200

    Google Scholar 

  • Ludwig S, Oetting ED (2001) Effect of spinosad on Orius insidiosus (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae) when used for Frankliniella occidentalis (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) control on greenhouse pot chrysanthemums. Fla Entomol 84:311–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mittal V, Ujagir R (2005) Toxicity of spinosad 45SC to natural enemies associated with insect pests of pigeon pea at Pantnagar. J Biol Control 19:73–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Nyffeler M, Benz G (1987) Spiders in natural pest control: a review. J Appl Entomol 103:321–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pekar S, Haddad CR (2005) Can agrobiont spiders (Aranae) avoid a surface with pesticide residues? Pest Manag Sci 61:1179–1185

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pekar S, Kocourek F (2004) Spiders (Aranae) in the biological and integrated pest management of apple in the Czech Republic. J Appl Entomol 128:561–566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riechert SE, Lockley T (1984) Spiders as biological control agents. Ann Rev 29:299–320

    Google Scholar 

  • Rypstra A, Carter P, Balfour R, Marshall S (1999) Architectural features of agricultural habitats and their impact on the spider inhabitants. J Arachnol 27:371–377

    Google Scholar 

  • SAS Institute (2010). The SAS system for Windows, release 10.1. Cary

  • Shannon CE (1948) The mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Tech J 27:379–423, 623–656

  • Smith B, Wilson JB (1996) A consumer’s guide to evenness indices. Oikos 76:70–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sparks TC, Thompson GD, Kirst HA, Hertlein MB, Larson LL, Worden TV, Thibault ST (1998) Biological activity of the spinosyns, new fermentation derived insect control agents, on tobacco budworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) larvae. J Econ Entomol 91:1277–1283

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Spiller DA, Schoener TW (1998) Lizards reduce spider species richness by excluding rare species. Ecology 79:503–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stratton GE, Lowrie DC (1984) Courtship behavior and life cycle of the wolf spider Schizocosa mccooki (Araneae, Lycosidae). J Arachnol 12:223–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas CFG, Jepson JC (1997) Field-scale effects of farming practices on linyphiid spider populations in grass and cereals. Entomol Exp Appl 84:59–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas DB, Mangan RL (2005) Nontarget impact of spinosad GF-120 bait sprays for control of the Mexican fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Texas citrus. J Econ Entomol 98:1950–1956

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tillman PG, Mulrooney JL (2000) Effect of selected insecticides on the natural enemies Coleomegilla maculata and Hippodamia convergens (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), Geocoris punctipes (Hemiptera: lygaeidae), Bracon mellitor, Cardiochiles nigriceps, and Cotesia marginiventris (Hymenoptera: braconidae) in cotton. J Econ Entomol 93:1638–1643

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Toba HH, Kishaba AN, Pangaldan R, Vail PV (1973) Temperature and the development of the cabbage looper. Ann Entomol Soc Am 66:965–974

    Google Scholar 

  • Topping CJ, Sunderland KD (1992) Limitations to the use of pitfall traps in ecological studies exemplified by a study of spiders in a field of winter wheat. J Appl Ecol 29:485–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ubick D, Pierre Paquin P, Cushing PE, Roth V (eds) (2005). Spiders of North America: an identification manual. American Arachnological Society, pp 377

  • Vanderkerkhove B, De Clercq P (2004) Effects of an encapsulated formulation of lambda-cyhalothrin on Nezera viridula and its predator Podisus maculiventris (Heteroptera: pentatomidae). Fla Entomol 87:112–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wise DH (1993) Spiders in ecological webs. Cambridge University Press, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Work TT, Buddle CM, Korinus LM, Spence JR (2002) Pitfall trap size and capture of three taxa of litter-dwelling arthropods: implications for biodiversity studies. Community Ecosyst Ecol 31:438–448

    Google Scholar 

  • Young O, Edwards G (1990) Spiders in United States field crops and their potential effect on crop pests. J Arachnol 18:1–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Zmudzki S, Laskowski R (2012) Biodiversity and structure of spider communities along a metal pollution gradient. Ecotoxicology 21:1523–1532

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the crew at the Vegetable IPM Laboratory, Texas AgriLife Research at Weslaco for their valuable help. We also thank the following organizations for financial supports during the period of research, data analysis and writing: the State Key Fundamental Research and Development Plan (2012CB017359), National Natural Science Foundation of China (31272089), China Agricultural Research System (CARS-25), and Northwest A&F University.

Conflict of interest

All benefits in any form from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this manuscript for any of the authors have been acknowledged. For each source of funds, both the research funder and the grant number have been given. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. State Key Laboratory of Crop Stress Biology on the Arid Areas, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, Shaanxi, 712100, China

    T.-X. Liu

  2. Key Laboratory of Northwest Loess Plateau Crop Pest Management of Ministry of Agriculture, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, Shaanxi, 712100, China

    T.-X. Liu

  3. Texas AgriLife Research, Weslaco, TX, 78596, USA

    T.-X. Liu & R. W. Irungu

  4. Department of Entomology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

    R. W. Irungu, D. A. Dean & M. K. Harris

Authors
  1. T.-X. Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. W. Irungu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. D. A. Dean
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. K. Harris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T.-X. Liu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Liu, TX., Irungu, R.W., Dean, D.A. et al. Impacts of spinosad and λ-cyhalothrin on spider communities in cabbage fields in south Texas. Ecotoxicology 22, 528–537 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-013-1045-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-013-1045-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation