Entomophaga

, Volume 35, Issue 3, pp 393–401 | Cite as

Efficacy of spider and ant predators on the cotton fleahopper [Hemiptera: Miridae]

  • R. G. Breene
  • W. L. Sterling
  • M. Nyffeler
Article

Abstract

The efficacy of predators of immature cotton fleahoppers,Pseudatomoscelis seriatus (Reuter), was calculated using field and laboratory cage confinement tests for consumption rate. The predators tested were the striped lynx spider,Oxyopes salticus Hentz; the black and white jumping spider,Phidippus audax (Hentz); the celer crab spider,Misumenops celer Hentz; and the red imported fire ant,Solenopsis invicta Buren. The spider predators were evaluated in a cotton field using predator-prey confinement cages on cotton plants. Average percent control (sensuAbbott 1925) of fleahoppers byO. salticus, P. audax, andM. celer were 42%, 66% and 32% respectively. The rate of fleahopper consumption by red imported fire ants was measured in the laboratory using various numbers of ants and fleahoppers. Daily percent control by ants ranged from 0.5% (single ant and fleahopper) to 100% (colony linked). The functional response of the 4 arthropod species to different prey numbers is illustrated and discussed as is the relative potential usefulness of natural enemies to suppress fleahoppers on cotton.

Key Words

Pseudatomoscelis seriatus Predation Miridae cotton natural control 

Résumé

Les efficacités de différents prédateurs de stades immatures du MiridePseudatomoscelis seriatus (Reuter) sont calculées, sur le terrain et au laboratoire, par des tests de taux de consommation en enceintes de confinement. Les prédateurs testé sont les Araignées Oxyopide:Oxyopes salticus Hentz, Salticidae:Phidippus audax (Hentz), et Thomiside:Misumenops celer Hentz, ainsi que la FourmiSolenopsis invicta Buren. Les estimations concernant la prédation par les Aranéides sont faites dans un champ au moyen d'enceintes confinant chacune, autour d'un plan de coton, le prédateur testé et sa proie. Les pourcentages moyens de contrôle du Miride (sensuAbbott, 1925) parO. salticus, P. audax etM. celer sont respectivement de 42%, 66% et 32%. Le taux de consommation par les Fourmis est mesuré au laboratoire en utilisant différentes densités de ce prédateur et de ses proies. Le pourcentage de contrôle journalier par les Fourmis varie de 0,5% (une seule Fourmi, un seul Miride) à 100% (colonies). La réponse fonctionnelle des 4 espèces d'Arthorodes aux différentes densités de proies est figurée, et discutée. Les utilités potentielles comparées dans la destruction de ce ravageur du coton par ces ennemis naturels sont également discutées.

Mots Clés

Pseudatomoscelis seriatus prédation Miridae coton lutte naturelle 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abbott, W. S. — 1925. A method of computing the effectiveness of an insecticide. —J. Econ. Entomol., 18, 265–267.Google Scholar
  2. Agnew, C. W. &Sterling, W. L. — 1982. Predation rates of the red imported fire ant on eggs of the tobacco budworm. —Prot Ecol., 4, 151–158.Google Scholar
  3. Beddington, J. R., Free, C. A. &Lawton, J. H. — 1978. Characteristics of successful enemies in models of biological control of insect pests. —Nature, 273, 513–519.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bhatkar, A. P. — 1987. Foraging strategies of fire ants. — In: Chemistry and Biology of Social Insects. (J. Eder &H. Rembold, eds.) —Verlag J. Peperny, Munchen, pp. 525–526.Google Scholar
  5. Breene, R. G., III — 1988. Predation Ecology and the Natural Control ofPseudatomoscelis seriatus, [Hemiptera: Miridae]. — Ph. D., dissertation, Texas A&M Univ., 107 pp.Google Scholar
  6. Breene, R. G. &Sterling, W. L. — 1988. Quantitative phosphorus-32 labelling method for analysis of predators of the cotton fleahopper,Pseudatomoscelis seriatus, [Hemiptera: Miridae]. —J. Econ. Entomol., 81, 1494–1498.Google Scholar
  7. Breene, R. G., Sterling, W. L. &Dean, D. A. — 1988. Spider and ant predators of the cotton fleahopper on woolly croton. —Southwest. Entomol., 13, 177–183.Google Scholar
  8. Breene, R. G., Sterling, W. L. &Dean, D. A. — 1989a. Predators of the cotton fleahopper on cotton [Hemiptera: Miridae]. —Southwest. Entomol., 14, 159–166.Google Scholar
  9. Breene, R. G., Hartstack, A. W., Sterling, W. L. &Nyffeler, M. — 1989b. Natural control of the cotton fleahopper,Pseudatomoscelis seriatus (Reuter) [Hemiptera: Miridae] in Texas. —J. Appl. Entomol., 108, 298–305.Google Scholar
  10. Dean, D. A. & Sterling, W. L. — 1987. Distribution and abundance patterns of spiders inhabiting cotton in Texas. —Texas Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull., 1566.Google Scholar
  11. Gaylor, M. J. &Sterling, W. L. — 1975. Effects of temprature on the development, egg production, and survival of the cotton fleahopper,Pseudatomoscelis seriatus. —Environ. Entomol., 4, 487–490.Google Scholar
  12. Hartstack, A. W. & Sterling, W. L. — 1988. The Texas cotton-insect model-TEXCIM. —Texas Agric. Exp. Stn. Misc. Publ., 1646.Google Scholar
  13. Haynes, D. L. &Sisojevic, P. — 1966. Predatory behavior ofPhilodromus rufus Walckenaer [Araneae: Thomisidae]. —Can. Entomol., 98, 113–133.Google Scholar
  14. Holling, C. S. — 1959. The components of predation as revealed by a study of small mammal predation by the European pine sawfly. —Entomol. Soc. Can., 91, 293–320.Google Scholar
  15. Holling, C. S. — 1965. The functional response of predators to prey density and its role in mimicry and population regulation. —Mem. Entomol. Soc. Can., 45, 1–60.Google Scholar
  16. King, E. G., Philipps, J. R. &Head, R. B. — 1988. 41st annual conference report on cotton insect research and control. In: Beltwide Cotton Proc. Res. Conf. (J. M. Brown, ed.). —Nat. Cotton Council of America, Memphis, TN, pp. 188–202.Google Scholar
  17. Lofgren, C. S., Banks, W. A. &Glancey, B. M. — 1975. Biology and control of imported fire ants. —Annu. Rev. Entomol., 20, 1–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Mansour, F., Rosen, D. &Shulov, A. — 1980. Functional response of the spiderChiracanthium middei [Arachnida: Clubionidae] to prey density. —Entomophaga, 25, 313–316.Google Scholar
  19. Murdock, W. W., Chesson, J. &Chesson, P. L. — 1985. Biological control in theory and practice. —Am. Nat., 125, 344–366.Google Scholar
  20. Nyffeler, M., Dean, D. A. &Sterling, W. L. — 1987. Evaluation of the importance of the striped lynx spider,Oxyopes salticus [Araneae: Oxyopidae], as a predator in Texas cotton. —Environ. Entomol., 16, 1114–1123.Google Scholar
  21. Riechert, S. E. &Lockley, T. — 1984. Spiders as biological control agents. —Annu. Rev. Entomol., 29, 299–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sterling, W. L. — 1984. Action and inaction levels in pest management. —Texas Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull., B-1480.Google Scholar
  23. Sterling, W. L. — 1987. Developing sampling technologies for IPM implementation in cotton. pp. 199–212. In: Integrated pest management on major agricultural systems. (R. E. Frisbie & P. L. Adkisson, eds.). —Texas Agric. Exp. Stn., MP-1616.Google Scholar
  24. Sterling, W. L. — 1989. Estimating the abundance and impact of predators and parasites onHeliothis populations, pp. 37–56. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Biological control ofHeliothis: Increasing the effectiveness of natural enemies (E. G. King &R. D. Jackson eds.) New Delhi, India, 11–15 november 1985 Far Eastern Regional Research Office U.S.D.A., New Delhi, India.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Lavoisier Abonnements 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. G. Breene
    • 1
  • W. L. Sterling
    • 1
  • M. Nyffeler
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EntomologyTexas A&M-UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations