, Volume 107, Issue 4, pp 498–503 | Cite as

Wax covers in larvae of two Scymnus species: do they enhance coccinellid larval survival?

  • Wolfgang Völkl
  • Katrin Vohland
Population Ecology


We tested the protective function of larval wax covers in the two ladybird beetle species, Scymnus nigrinus and S. interruptus, against cannibalism, predation and ant aggression, and its importance for the distribution of both species in the field. Cannibalism was generally very low and not influenced by the presence or absence of the wax cover, or by larval size. Fourth-instar larvae of three ladybird species, Adalia bipuncata, Exochomus quadripustulatus and Harmonia quadripunctata, consumed Scymnus larvae-which are much smaller-regularly, independent of the presence or absence of waxes. By contrast, first-instar larvae of the three species had generally little success when attacking Scymnus spp. larvae. Wax-covered S. interruptus larvae survived significantly more attacks by the predacious carabid beetle Platynus dorsalis than larvae without wax cover. Wax-covered S. interruptus larvae and S. nigrinus larvae survived attacks by workers of the ant species, Lasius niger and Formica polyctena, respectively, significantly more often than larvae without wax covers. We show that, in the field, Scymnus larvae have higher densites in ant-attended resources than in unattended ones and conclude that both Scymnus species benefit from the ability to feed in ant-attended aphid colonies by a reduced predation risk.

Key words

Coccinellidae Field distribution Protective waxes Cannibalism Ant predation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Addicott JH (1979) A multispecies aphid-ant association: density dependence and species-specific effects. Can J Zool 57: 558–569Google Scholar
  2. Agarwala BK, Dixon AFG (1992) Laboratory study of cannibalism and interspecific predation in ladybirds. Ecol Entomol 17: 303–309Google Scholar
  3. Banks CJ (1962) Effect of the ant Lasius niger, on insects preying on small populations of Aphis fabae Scop. on bean plants. Ann Appl Biol 50: 669–679Google Scholar
  4. Bartlett BR (1961) The influence of antus upon parasites, predators, and scale insects. Ann Entomol Soc Am 54: 543–551Google Scholar
  5. Bradley GA (1973) Effect of Formica obsuripes (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) on the predator-prey relationship between Hyperaspis congressis (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) and Toumeyella numismaticum (Homoptera: Coccidae). Can Entomol 105: 1113–1118Google Scholar
  6. Bristow C (1984) Differential benefits from ant-attendance to two species of Homoptera on New York ironweed. J Anim Ecol 53: 715–726Google Scholar
  7. Edwards CA, Sunderland KD, George KS (1979) Studies on polyphagous predators of cereal aphids. J Appl Ecol 16: 811–823Google Scholar
  8. Eisner T (1970) Chemical defense against predation in arthropods. In: Sondheimer E, Simeone JB (eds) Chemical ecology. Academic Press, New York, pp 157–217Google Scholar
  9. Eisner T (1994) Integumental slime and wax seretion: defensive adaptations of sawfly larvae. J Chem Ecol 20: 2743–2749Google Scholar
  10. Eisner T, Hicks K, Eisner M, Robson DS (1978) “Wolf-in-sheep's-clothing” strategy of a predacous insect larva. Science 199: 790–794Google Scholar
  11. Evans EW (1991) Intra versus interspecific interactions of ladybeetles (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) attacking aphids. Oecologia 87: 401–408Google Scholar
  12. Fossel A (1972) Die Populationsdichte einiger Honigtauerzeuger und ihre Abhängigkeit von der Betreuung durch Ameisen. Waldhygiene 9: 185–191Google Scholar
  13. Griffiths E, Wratten SD, Vickerman GP (1985) Foraging by the carabid Agonum dorsale in the field. Ecol Entomol 10: 181–189Google Scholar
  14. Hodek I (1973) Biology of Coccinellidae. Academia, PragueGoogle Scholar
  15. Holloway GJ, Jong PW de, Brakefield PM, Vos H de (1991) Chemical defence in ladybird beetles (Coccinellidae). I. Distribution of coccinelline and individual variation in defence in 7-spot ladybirds (Coccinella septempunctata). Chemoecology 2: 7–14Google Scholar
  16. Hübner G, Völkl W (1996) Behavioral strategies of aphid hyperparasitoids to escape aggression by honeydew-collecting ants. J Insect Behav 9: 143–157Google Scholar
  17. Jiggins C, Majerus MEN, Gough U (1993) Ant defendence of colonies of Aphis fabae Scopoli (Hemiptera: Aphididae), against predation by ladybirds. Br J Entomol Nat Hist 6: 129–137Google Scholar
  18. Jong PW de, Holloway GJ, Brakefield PM, Vos H de (1991) Chemical defence in ladybird beetles (Coccinellidae). II. Amount of reflex fluid, the alkaloid adaline and individual variation in defence in 2-spot ladybirds (Adalia bipunctata). Chemoecology 2: 15–19Google Scholar
  19. Klausnitzer B (1967) Zur Kenntnis der Beziehungen der Coccinellidae zu Kiefernwäldern (Pinus sylvestris. L.) Acta Entomol Bohemoslov 64: 62–68Google Scholar
  20. Klausnitzer B (1968) Zur Kenntnis der Entomofauna vonTanacetum vulgare L. und Artemisia vulgaris L.. Wiss Z Tech Univ Dresden 17: 19–21Google Scholar
  21. Klausnitzer B, Klausnitzer H (1986) Marienkäfer. Brehm, WittenbergGoogle Scholar
  22. Majerus MEN (1989) Coccinella magnifica (Redtenbacher): a myrmecophilous ladybird. Br J Entomol Nat Hist 2: 97–106Google Scholar
  23. Majerus M E N (1994) Ladybirds. Harper Collins, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Marples NM, Brakefield PM, Cowie RJ (1989) Differences between the 7-spot and 2-spot ladybird beetles (Coccinellidae) in their toxic effects on a bird predator. Ecol Entomol 14: 79–84Google Scholar
  25. Mason RT, Fales HM, Eisner M, Eisner T (1991) Wax of a whitefly and its utilization by a chrysopid larva. Naturwissenschaften 78: 28–30Google Scholar
  26. Milbrath LR, Tauber MJ, Tauber CA (1993) Prey specifity in Chrysopa: an interspecific comparison of larval feeding and defensive behaviour. Ecology 74: 1384–1393Google Scholar
  27. Mills NJ (1982) Voracity, cannibalism and coccinellid predation. Ann App Biol 101: 144–148Google Scholar
  28. Mols PJM (1993) Population dynamics of the wooly apple aphid. In: Boer PJ den, Mols PJM, Szyszko J (eds) Dynamics of populations. Proceedings of a meeting on population problems in Smolarnia, Poland, 9–15 September 1992, Agricultural University Press. Warsaw, pp 73–79Google Scholar
  29. Mueller RH, Thompson ME, Dipardo RM (1984) ‘Stereo’-and regioselective total synthesis of the hydropyro[2, 1, 6-de]quinolizine ladybug defensive alkaloids. J Org Chem 49: 2217–2231Google Scholar
  30. Osawa N (1989) Sibling and non-sibling cannibalism by larvae of a lady beetle Harmonia axyridis Pallas (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) in the field. Res Popul Ecol 31: 153–160Google Scholar
  31. Pasteels JM, Deroe C, Tursch B, Braekman JC, Daloze D, Hootele C (1973) Distribution et activités des alcaloides défensifs des coccinellidae. J Insect Physiol 19: 1771–1784Google Scholar
  32. Pope RD (1979) Wax production by cocinellid larvae (Coleoptera). Syst Entomol 4: 171–196Google Scholar
  33. Pope RD, Hinton HE (1977) A preliminary survey of ultraviolet reflectance in beetles. Biol J Linn Soc 9: 331–348Google Scholar
  34. Richards AM (1985) Biology and defensive adaptations in Rodatus major (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) and its prey, Monophlebulus pilosior (Hemiptera: Margarodidae). J Zool Lond 205:287–295Google Scholar
  35. Scheurer S (1971a) Biologische und ökologische Beobachtungen an auf Pinus lebenden Cinarinen im Bereich der Dübener Heide (DDR) während der Jahre 1965–1967. Hercynia 8: 108–144Google Scholar
  36. Scheurer S (1971b) Der Einfuß der Ameisen und der natürlichen Feinde auf einige an Pinus sylvestris lebende Cinarinen in der Dübener Heiden. Pol Pies Entomol 41: 197–229Google Scholar
  37. Sunderland KD (1975) The diet of some predatory arthopods in cereal crops. J App Ecol 12: 507–515Google Scholar
  38. Takabayashi J, Takahashi S (1993) Role of the scale wax of Ceroplastes ceriferus Anderson (Hemiptera: Coccidae) as a defense against the parasiic wasp Anicetus ceroplastis Ishii (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae). J Insect Behav 6: 107–115Google Scholar
  39. Völkl W (1990) Fortpflanzungsstrategien von Blattlausparasitoiden (Hymenoptera, Aphidiidae): Konsequenzen ihrer Interaktionen mit Wirten und Ameisen. Dissertation, University of BayreuthGoogle Scholar
  40. Völkl W (1995) The exploitation of ant-attendend resources by the coccinellid Platynaspis luteorubra: patterns and benefits. J Insect Behav 8: 653–670Google Scholar
  41. Völkl W, Mackauer M (1993) Interactions between ants and parasitoid wasps foraging for Aphis fabae ssp. cirsiiacanthoidis on thistles. J Insect Behav 6: 301–312Google Scholar
  42. Way MJ (1963) Mutualism between ants and honeydew-producing homoptera. Annu Rev Entomol 8: 307–344Google Scholar
  43. Welling M (1990) Förderung von Nutzinsekten, insbesondere Carabiden, durch Feldraine und herbizidfreie Ackerränder und Auswirkungen auf den Blattlausbefall im Winterweizen. Ph.D. thesis, University of MainzGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wolfgang Völkl
    • 1
  • Katrin Vohland
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Animal Ecology IUniversity of BayreuthBayreuthGermany

Personalised recommendations