Advertisement

Different preys affecting biology and life table parameters of Exochomus nigripennis (Erichson) (Col.: Coccinellidae): prospects for augmentative biological control of sucking pests

  • Hamed Rounagh-ArdakaniEmail author
  • Mohammad Amin Samih
  • Soltan Ravan
  • Azizollah Mokhtari
Original Research Article
  • 7 Downloads

Abstract

The development and reproductive capacities of the ladybird, Exochomus nigripennis (Erichson) (Col.: Coccinellidae), were conducted in the laboratory conditions on three preys. The differences in immature developmental periods on various preys tested were significant, being longest on A. pistaciae and shortest on Ephestia kuehniella eggs. Male and female adults fed on Agonoscena pistaciae lived longer than the predators fed other preys. Also, the oviposition period was at the longest level for females reared on E. kuehniella eggs and at the shortest level for A. pistaciae. Significantly, more eggs were oviposited on A. pistaciae than on E. kuehniella eggs and Gossyparia spuria. The highest and lowest net reproductive rate (R0) values were for the predators fed on A. pistaciae and E. kuehniella eggs, respectively. The E. nigripennis fed on E. kuehniella eggs had the highest value of the intrinsic rate of increase (rm). In contrast, the lowest rm value was obtained when predators fed on A. pistaciae. Similarly, the finite rate of increase (λ) was highest on E. kuehniella eggs and lowest on A. pistaciae. The mean population generation time ranged from 42.5 days on E. kuehniella eggs to 59.6 days on A. pistaciae. Our findings suggest that E. nigripennis can be highly efficient for controlling A. pistaciae. Also, E. kuehniella eggs could be more useful for mass rearing of E. nigripennis to use in integrated pest management program of sucking pests.

Keywords

The ladybird Reproduction Gossyparia spuria Agonoscena pistaciae Ephestia kuehniella 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Zabol University (Zabol, Iran), for cooperation by support for the experiment.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Akköprü EP, Atlihan R, Okut H, Chi H (2015) Demographic assessment of plant cultivar resistance to insect pests: a case study of the dusky–veined walnut aphid (Hemiptera: Callaphididae) on five walnut cultivars. J Econ Entomol 108:378–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Biondi A, Zappalà L, Di Mauro A, Tropea Garzia G, Russo A, Desneux N, Siscaro G (2016) Can alternative host plant and prey affect phytophagy and biological control by the zoophytophagous mirid. Nesidiocoris tenuis? BioControl 61:79–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borzoui E, Naseri B (2016) Wheat cultivars affecting life history and digestive amylolytic activity of Sitotroga cerealella Olivier (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). Bull Entomol Res 106:464–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borzoui, E., Naseri, B. and Mohammadzadeh-bidarani, M. (2016) Adaptation of Habrobracon hebetor (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) to rearing on Ephestia kuehniella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) and Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Journal of Insect Science16(1), 12; 1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carey JR (1993) Applied demography for biologists with special emphasis on insects. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Chandler D, Bailey AS, Tatchell GM, Davidson G, Greaves J, Grant WP (2011) The development, regulation and use of biopesticides for integrated pest management. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 366:1987–1998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chi H (1988) Life table analysis incorporating both sexes and variable developmental rates among individuals. Environ Entomol 17:26–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chi H, Liu H (1985) Two new methods for the study of insect population ecology. Bulletin of the Institute of Zoology, Academia Sinica 24:225–240Google Scholar
  9. Czaja K, Goralczyk K, Strucinski P, Hernik A, Korcz W, Minorczyk M, Lyczewska M, Ludwicki JK (2015) Biopesticides–towards increased consumer safety in the European Union. Pest Manag Sci 71:3–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dadd RH (1985) Nutrition organisms. in: Kerkut, G.A. and L.I. Gilbert, (eds.), Comprehensive İnsect Physiology, Biochemistry and Pharmacology, pp, 313–90. Pergamon–PressGoogle Scholar
  11. Dixon AFG (2000) Insect predatory–prey dynamics. Ladybird Beetles & Biological Control. Cambridge University press. P, 248Google Scholar
  12. Dmitriew C, Rowe L (2011) The effects of larval nutrition on reproductive performance in a food–limited adult environment. PLoS One 6:e17399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Efron B, Tibshirani RJ (1993) An introduction to the bootstrap. Number 57, monographs on statistics and applied probability. Chapman and hall, New York, NYCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Farooq-ahmad K (2012) Development and growth of Exochomus quadripustulatus (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae): a predator of mussel scale Lepidosaphes ulmi (Homoptera: Diaspididae) on apple. Pakistan Journal of Zoology 44:1021–1028Google Scholar
  15. Glare T, Caradus J, Gelernter W, Jackson T, Keyhani N, Kohl J, Marrone P, Morin L, Stewart A (2012) Have biopesticides come of age? Trends Biotechnol 30:250–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grenier S (2012) Artificial rearing of entomophagous insects, with emphasis on nutrition and parasitoids–general outlines from personal experience. Karaelmas Science and Engineering Journal 2:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kanika-kiamfu J, Iperti G, Brun J (1993) Study of food consumption of Exochomus flaviventris (Col. Coccinellidae), predator of Phenacoccus manihoti (Hom.: Pseudococcidae). Entomophaga 38:291–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Le Ru BR, Mitsipa L (2002) Comparative life table statistics of Exochomus flaviventris reared on the cassava mealybug, Phenacoccus manihoti, fed on four host plants. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science 22:175–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lotfalizadeh H, Hatami B, Khalaghani I (2000) Biology of Exochomus quadripustulatus (L.) (Col.: Coccinellidae) on cypress tree Mealybug, Planococcus vovae (Nasanov) (Hom.: Pseudococcidae) in shiraz. Journal of Entomological Society of Iran 20:61–76Google Scholar
  20. Majd-marani S, Naseri B, Nouri-ganbalani G, Borzoui E (2017) The effect of maize hybrid on biology and life table parameters of the Trogoderma granarium (Coleoptera: Dermestidae). J Stored Prod Res 110:1916–1922Google Scholar
  21. Mehrnejad MR, Jalali MA, Mirzaei R (2011) Abundance and biological parameters of psyllophagous coccinellids in pistachio orchards. J Appl Entomol 135:673–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mehrnejad MR, Mirzaei Malekabadi R, Rajabi A, Haj Abdollahi MA (2000) Study of biology of Exochomus nigripennis as a biological agent for major pistachio pests. 14th congress of plant protection of Iran, Esfahan, p, 103Google Scholar
  23. Mirhosseini MA, Hosseini MR, Jalali MA (2015) Effects of diet on development and reproductive fitness of two predatory coccinellids (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). European Journal of Entomology 112, 446–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mohammadzadeh M, Izadi H (2018) Different diets affecting biology, physiology and cold tolerance of Trogoderma granarium Everts (Coleoptera: Dermestidae). J Stored Prod Res 76:58–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Momen FM (2001) Effects of diet on the biology and life tables of the predacious mite Agistemus exsertus (Acari: Stigmaeidae). Acta Phytopathologica et Entomologica Hungarica 36:173–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nouri-Ganbalani G, Borzoui E, Shahnavazi M, Nouri A (2018) Induction of resistance against Plutella xylostella (L.) (Lep.: Plutellidae) by jasmonic acid and mealy cabbage aphid feeding in Brassica napus L. Frontiers in Physiology9:859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Oerke EC (2006) Crop losses to pests. J Agric Sci 144:31–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pimentel D (2005) Environmental and economic costs of the application of pesticides primarily in the United States. Environ Dev Sustain 7:229–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ragusa E, Tsolakis H, Palomero RJ (2009) Effect of pollens and preys on various biological parameters of the generalist mite Cydnodromus californicus. Bulletin of Insectology 62, 153–158Google Scholar
  30. SAS (2011) SAS® software version 9.3, user’s manual. SAS Institute, Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  31. Southwood TRE, Henderson PA (2000) Ecological Methods. Third Edition, Blackwell Science, USA, pp 575Google Scholar
  32. Thompson SN (1999) Nutrition and culture of entomophagous insects. Annu Rev Entomol 44:561–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wang ZL, Wang XP, Li CR, Xia ZZ, Li SX (2018) Effect of dietary protein and carbohydrates on survival and growth in larvae of the Henosepilachna vigintioctopunctata (F.) (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). J Insect Sci 18:1–7Google Scholar
  34. Whitehorn PR, O’Connor S, Wackers FL, Goulson D (2012) Neonicotinoid pesticide reduces bumble bee colony growth and queen production. Science 336:351–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zhang SZ, Li JJ, Shan HW, Zhang F, Liu TX (2012) Influence of five aphid species on development and reproduction of Propylea japonica (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Biological control62:135–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zhou W, Wang R (1989) Rearing of Orius sauteri (hem: Anthocoridae) with natural and artificial diets. Chinese Journal of Biological Control 5:9–12Google Scholar
  37. Zografou EN, Tsiropoulos GJ, Margaritis LH (1998) Survival, fecundity and fertility of Bactrocera oleae, as affected by amino acid analogues. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 87, 125–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© African Association of Insect Scientists 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hamed Rounagh-Ardakani
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mohammad Amin Samih
    • 2
  • Soltan Ravan
    • 1
  • Azizollah Mokhtari
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Plant Protection, Faculty of AgricultureZabol UniversityZabolIran
  2. 2.Department of Plant Protection, Faculty of AgricultureVali-e-Asr University of RafsanjanRafsanjanIran

Personalised recommendations