, Volume 61, Issue 1, pp 57–67 | Cite as

Effects of ten naturally occurring sugars on the reproductive success of the green lacewing, Chrysoperla carnea

  • Darinka GonzalezEmail author
  • Anabela Nave
  • Fátima Gonçalves
  • Fernando M. Nunes
  • Mercedes Campos
  • Laura Torres


The longevity and reproduction of Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) when fed on ten naturally occurring sugars and on an artificial diet composed by honey and pollen (1:1) were evaluated. The effect of these diets differed between sexes. However insects of both sexes lived longer when fed on fructose than on sucrose, melezitose or raffinose. None of the females oviposited when offered raffinose, galactose or mannose. Moreover, lifetime fecundity of females fed on trehalose was not different from the artificial diet. The intrinsic rate of natural increase did not differ between trehalose, maltose, melibiose, fructose, glucose and artificial diet, being significantly lower for individuals fed on melezitose and sucrose. The importance of these results for the selection of natural sugar sources that enhance C. carnea effectiveness as a biological control agent against crop pests is discussed.


Conservation biological control Floral nectar Coccid honeydew Habitat manipulation Life table Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) 



This research is part of the PhD graduate studies of Anabela Nave which was partially funded by grant SFRH/BD/34394/2008, with partial funding by FEDER funds via Programa Operacional Factores de Competitividade COMPETE (FCOMP-01-0124-FEDER-008685) and national funds via FCT—Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, through project PTDC/AGR-AAM/100979/2008.


  1. Baker HG, Baker I (1982) Chemical constituents of nectar in relation to pollination mechanism and phylogeny. In: Nitecki MH (ed) Biochemical aspects of evolutionary biology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 131–171Google Scholar
  2. Baker HG, Baker I (1983) Floral nectar sugar constituents in relation to pollinator type. In: Jones CE, Little RJ (eds) Handbook of experimental pollination biology. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp 117–141Google Scholar
  3. Ben Saad AA, Bishop GW (1976) Effect of artificial honeydews on insect communities in potato fields. Environ Entomol 5:453–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Birch LC (1948) The intrinsic rate of natural increase of an insect population. J Anim Ecol 17:15–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bogo A, Mantle P (2000) Oligosaccharides in the honeydew of Coccoidea scale insects: Coccus hesperidum L. and a new Stigmacoccus sp. in Brazil. An Soc Entomol Bras 29:589–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bond AB (1980) Optimal foraging in a uniform habitat: the search mechanism of the green lacewing. Anim Behav 28:10–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carey JR (1993) Applied demography for biologist: with special emphasis on insects. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Duelli P (2001) Lacewings in field crops. In: McEwen P, New TR, Whittington AE (eds) Lacewings in the crop environment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 158–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eilenberg J, Hajek A, Lomer C (2001) Suggestions for unifying the terminology in biological control. BioControl 46:387–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fischer MK, Shingleton AW (2001) Host plant and ants influence the honeydew sugar composition of aphids. Funct Ecol 15:544–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gotelli NJ (1998) A primer of ecology. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  12. Gurr GM, Scarratt SL, Wratten SD, Berndt L, Irvin N (2004) Ecological engineering, habitat manipulation and pest management. In: Gurr GM, Wratten SD, Altieri MA (eds) Ecological engineering for pest management: advances in habitat manipulation for arthropods. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  13. Hagen KS (1986) Ecosystem analysis: plant cultivars (HPR), entomophagous species and food supplements. In: Boethel DJ, Eikenbary RD (eds) Interactions of plant resistance and parasitoids and predators of insects. Ellis Horwood Ltd, Chichester, pp 151–197Google Scholar
  14. Hagen KS, Greany P, Sawall EF, Tassan RL (1976) Tryptophan in artificial honeydew as a source of an attractant for adult Chrysoperla carnea. Environ Entomol 5:458–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harvey JA, Cloutier J, Visser B, Ellers J, Wäckers FL, Gols R (2012) The effect of different dietary sugars and honey on longevity and fecundity in two hyperparasitoid wasps. J Insect Physiol 58:816–823PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Henry CS, Brooks SJ, Thierry D, Duelli P, Johnson JB (2001) The common green lacewing (Chrysoperla carnea and the sibling species problem. In: McEwen PK, New TR, Whittington AE (eds) Lacewings in the crop environment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 29–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hogervorst PAM, Wäckers FL, Romeis J (2007) Detecting nutritional state and food source use in field-collected insects that synthesize honeydew oligosaccharides. Funct Ecol 21:936–946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Karley AJ, Ashford DA, Minto LM, Pritchard J, Douglas AE (2005) The significance of gut sucrose activity for osmoregulation in the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum. J Insect Physiol 51:1313–1319PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Katsoyannos P (1993) Olive pests and their control in the Near East. Bernan Assoc, LanhamGoogle Scholar
  20. Kennedy JS, van Impe G, Hence T, Lebrum P (1996) Demecology of the false spider mite, Brevipalpus phoenicis (Geijskes) (Acari, Tenuipalpidae). J Appl Ent 120:493–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Khuhro NH, Chen HY, Zhang Y, Zhang LS, Wang MQ (2012) Effect of different prey species on the life history parameters of Chrysoperla sinica (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). Eur J Entomol 109:175–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Landis DA, Wratten SD, Gurr GM (2000) Habitat management to conserve natural enemies of arthropod pests in agriculture. Ann Rev Entomol 45:175–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lauprasert P, Sitthicharoenchai D, Thirakhupt K, Pradatsudarasar A-O (2006) Food preference and feeding behavior of the German cockroach, Blattella germanica (Linnaeus). J Sci Res Chula Univ 31:121–126Google Scholar
  24. Li Y, Meissle M, Romeis J (2008) Consumption of Bt maize pollen expressing Cry1Ab or Cry3Bb1 does not harm adult green lacewings, Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). PLoS ONE 3:e2909PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Li Y, Michael M, Romeis J (2010) Use of maize pollen by adult Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) and fate of Cry proteins in Bt—transgenic varieties. J Insect Physiol 56:157–164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lundgren JG (2009) Relationships of natural enemies and non-prey foods. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. McEwen PK, Kidd NAC (1995) The effects of different components of an artificial food on adult green lacewing (Chrysoperla carnea) fecundity and longevity. Entomol Exp Appl 77:343–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McEwen PK, Jervis MA, Kidd NAC (1993) Influence of artificial honeydew on larval development and survival in Chrysoperla carnea (Neur., Chrysopidae). Entomophaga 38:241–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Meissle M, Álvarez-Alfageme F, Malone LA, Romeis J (2012) Establishing a database of bio-ecological information on non-target arthropod species to support the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified crops in the EU. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), ParmaGoogle Scholar
  30. Pappas ML, Broufas GD, Koveos DS (2011) Chrysopid predators and their role in biological control. J Entomol 8:301–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pekas A, Tena A, Aguilar A, Garcia-Mari F (2011) Spatio-temporal patterns and interactions with honeydew-producing Hemiptera of ants in a Mediterranean citrus orchard. Agric For Entomol 13(1):89–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Percival MS (1961) Types of nectar in angiosperms. New Phytol 60:235–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Petanidou T (2005) Sugars in Mediterranean floral nectars: an ecological and evolutionary approach. J Chem Ecol 31:1065–1088PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Petanidou T (2007) Ecological and evolutionary aspects of floral nectars in Mediterranean habitats. In: Nicolson S, Nepi M, Pacini E (eds) Nectaries and nectar. Springer, New York, pp 343–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Petanidou T, Ellis WN (1993) Pollinating fauna of a phryganic ecosystem: composition and diversity. Biodivers Lett 1:9–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Porcel M (2012) Bioecological study of the Chrysopidae family (Insecta: Neuroptera) in olive orchards from a population growth and conservation perspective. Universidad de Granada, GranadaGoogle Scholar
  37. Porcel M, Cotes B, Campos M (2011) Biological and behavioral effects of kaolin particle film on larvae and adults of Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). Biol Control 59:98–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Porcel M, Ruano F, Cotes B, Peña A, Campos M (2013) Agricultural management systems affect the Green Lacewing Community (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). Environ Entomol 42:97–106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Price PW (1997) Insect ecology. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Principi MM, Canard M (1984) Feeding habits. In: Canard M, Séméria Y, New TR (eds) Biology of chrysopidae. Dr. W. Junk Publishers, The Hague, pp 76–92Google Scholar
  41. Romeis J, Meissle M, Naranjo SE, Li Y, Bigler F (2014) The end of a myth—Bt (Cry1Ab) maize does not harm green lacewings. Front Plant Sci 5:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sarailoo MH, Lakzaei M (2014) Effect of different diets on some biological parameters of Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). J Crop Prot 3:479–486Google Scholar
  43. Schuster MF, Calderon M (1986) Interactions of host plant resistant genotypes and beneficial insects in cotton ecosystems. In: Boethel DJ, Eikenbary RD (eds) Interactions of plant resistance and parasitoids and predators of insects. Halsted Press, New York, pp 84–97Google Scholar
  44. Senior LJ, McEwen PK (2001) The use of lacewings in biological control. In: McEwen PK, New TR, Whittington AE (eds) Lacewings in the crop environment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 296–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sheldon JK, MacLeod EG (1971) Studies on the biology of Chrysopidae. II. The feeding behavior of the adult Chrysopa carnea (Neuroptera). Psyche 78:107–121Google Scholar
  46. Speight MR, Hunter MD, Watt AD (2008) Ecology of insects: concepts and applications. Wiley-Blackwell, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  47. Sunby RA (1966) A comparative study of the efficiency of three predatory insects Coccinella septempunctata L. [Coleoptera, Coccinellidae], Chrysopa carnea St. [Neuroptera, Chrysopidae] and Syrphus Ribesii L. [Diptera,; Syrphidae] at two different temperatures. Entomophaga 11:395–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tassan RL, Hagen KS, Sawall EFJ (1979) The influence of field food sprays on the egg production rate of Chrysopa carnea. Environ Entomol 8:81–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tauber MJ, Tauber CA, Daane KM, Hagen KS (2000) Commercialization of predators: recent lessons from green lacewings (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae: Chrysoperla). Am Entomol 46:26–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. van Rijn PCJ (2012) The suitability of field margin flowers as food source for Chrysoperla lacewings. IOBC/WPRS Bull 75:213–216Google Scholar
  51. Villenave J, Deutsch B, Lodé T, Rat-Morris E (2006) Pollen preference of the Chrysoperla species (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) occurring in the crop environment in western France. Eur J Entomol 103:771–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wäckers FL (2001) A comparison of nectar- and honeydew sugars with respect to their utilization by the hymenopteran parasitoid Cotesia glomerata. J Insect Physiol 47:1077–1084PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wäckers FL (2005) Suitability of (extra-) floral nectar, pollen and honeydew as insect food sources. In: Wäckers FL, van Rijn PCJ, Bruin J (eds) Plant-provided food for carnivorous insects: a protective mutualism and its application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 17–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wäckers FL, van Rijn PCJ (2012) Pick and mix: selecting flowering plants to meet the requirements of target biological control insects. In: Gurr GM, Wratten SD, Snyder WE, Read DMY (eds) Biodiversity and insect pests: key issues for sustainable management. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, pp 139–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wool D, Hendrix D, Shukry O (2006) Seasonal variation in honeydew sugar content of galling aphids (Aphidoidea: Pemphigidae: Fordinae) feeding on Pistacia: Host ecology and aphid physiology. Basic Appl Ecol 7:141–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Organization for Biological Control (IOBC) 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Darinka Gonzalez
    • 1
    Email author
  • Anabela Nave
    • 1
  • Fátima Gonçalves
    • 1
  • Fernando M. Nunes
    • 2
  • Mercedes Campos
    • 3
  • Laura Torres
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for the Research and Technology of Agro-Environmental and Biological Sciences, CITABUniversity of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro, UTADVila RealPortugal
  2. 2.CQVR, Chemistry Research Centre, Chemistry DepartmentUniversity of Trás-os-Montes and Alto DouroVila RealPortugal
  3. 3.Department of Environmental ProtectionEstación Experimental de ZaidínGranadaSpain

Personalised recommendations