Advertisement

Journal of Insect Behavior

, Volume 28, Issue 5, pp 535–543 | Cite as

Patch Assessment for Oviposition by a Predator: the Effect of Prey Density and Prey Oviposition Period

  • P. G. Milonas
  • G. Partsinevelos
  • A. F. Martinou
Article

Abstract

Density dependent numerical response is considered advantageous for biocontrol agents. Although density dependent behaviors have been examined in aphidophagous ladybirds, they haven’t been studied for coccidophagous ladybirds. The relationship of prey density and prey oviposition stage on the aggregating behavior and oviposition of the coccidophagous predator Nephus includens (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) was empirically investigated. In a semi-field experiment potted citrus trees were artificially infested with Planococcus citri (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) prey in order to obtain two densities, one mealybug and ten mealybugs per tree. Released N. includens adults were found to aggregate at citrus trees with high prey density. In a subsequent laboratory experiment four prey densities of P. citri were used ranging from 1 to 8 adult mealybugs at 3 ovipositional stages, a) at the young gravid female stage, b) at mid oviposition (half of egg load oviposited) and c) at the end of the ovipositional period (full egg load oviposited). Nephus includens females increased their oviposition rate as prey density increased and as prey oviposition progressed. It is hypothesized that this behavior of the predator might be advantageous for offspring survival and the efficacy of N. includens as a biological control agent against mealybugs.

Keywords

Coleoptera coccinellidae pseudococcidae Nephus includens oviposition 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was conducted with the financial support from the General Secretariat of Research and Technology of the Greek Ministry of Research under a bilateral cooperation for research of Greece and France (GSRT 228 e). We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments that greatly improved the manuscript.

References

  1. Bernstein C, Kacelnik A, Krebs JR (1991) Individual decisions and the distribution of predators in a patchy environment. II. The influence of travel costs and structure of the environment. J Anim Ecol 60:205–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Borges I, Soares AO, Hemptinne JL (2006) Abundance and spatial distribution of aphids and scales select for different life histories in their ladybird beetle predators. J Appl Entomol 130:356–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borges I, Soares AO, Magro A, Hemptinne JL (2011) Prey availability in time and space is a driving force in life history evolution of predatory insects. Evol Ecol 25:1307–1319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown MW (2004) Role of aphid predator guild in controlling spirea aphid populations on apple in West Virginia, USA. Biol Control 29:189–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coderre D, Provencher L, Tourneur JC (1987) Oviposition and niche partitioning in aphidophagous insects on maize. Can Entomol 119:195–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dixon AFG (1959) An experimental study of the searching behaviour of the predatory coccinellid beetle Adalia decempunctata (L.). J Anim Ecol 28:259–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dixon AFG (2000) Insect predator–prey dynamics: ladybird beetles and biological control. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Doumbia M, Hemptinne JL, Dixon AFG (1998) Assessment of patch quality by ladybirds: role of larval tracks. Oecologia 113:197–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elliott N, Kieckhefer RW (2000) Response by coccinellids to spatial variation in cereal aphid density. Popul Ecol 42:81–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Evans EW, Toler TR (2007) Aggregation of polyphagous predators in response to multiple prey: ladybirds (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) foraging in alfalfa. Popul Ecol 49:29–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Evans EW, Youssef NN (1992) Numerical responses of aphid predators to varying prey density among Utah alfalfa fields. J Kansas Entomol Soc 65:30–38Google Scholar
  12. Franco JC, Suma P, Da Silva EB, Blumberg D, Mendel Z (2004) Management strategies of mealybug pests of citrus in mediterranean countries. Phytoparasitica 32:507–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Godfray HCJ, Pacala SW (1992) Aggregation and the population dynamics of parasitoids and predators. Am Nat 140:30–40CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hassell MP, May RM (1973) Stability in insect host parasite models. J Anim Ecol 42:693–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hemptinne JL, Dixon AFG, Coffin J (1992) Attack strategy of ladybird beetles (Coccinellidae): factors shaping their numerical response. Oecologia 90:238–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hodek I, Honěk A (2009) Scale insects, mealybugs, whiteflies and psyllids (Hemiptera, Sternorrhyncha) as prey of ladybirds. Biol Control 51:232–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ives AR, Kareiva P, Perry R (1993) Response of a predator to variation in prey density at three hierarchical scales: lady beetles feeding on aphids. Ecology 74:1929–1938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kareiva P (1990) The spatial dimension in pest-enemy interactions. In: Mackauer M, Ehler L, Roland J (eds) Critical issues in biological control. Hants, Andover, pp 213–217Google Scholar
  19. Katsoyannos P (1996) Integrated insect pest management for citrus in northern Mediterranean countries. Benaki Phytopathological Institute, AthensGoogle Scholar
  20. Kindlmann P, Dixon AFG (1993) Optimal foraging in ladybird beetles (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) and its consequences for their use in biological control. Eur J Entomol 90:443–450Google Scholar
  21. Kontodimas DC, Eliopoulos PA, Stathas GJ, Economou LP (2004) Comparative temperature-dependent development of Nephus includens (kirsch) and Nephus bisignatus (boheman) (coleoptera: coccinellidae) preying on Planococcus citri (risso) (homoptera: pseudococcidae): evaluation of a linear and various nonlinear models using specific criteria. Environ Entomol 33:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kontodimas DC, Milonas PG, Stathas GJ, Economou LP, Kavallieratos NG (2007) Life table parameters of the pseudococcid predators Nephus includens and Nephus bisignatus (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Eur J Entomol 104:407–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Magro A, Araujo J, Hemptinne JL (1999) Coccinellids (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) in citrus groves in Portugal: listing and analysis of geographical distribution. Bol San Veg Plagas 25:335–345Google Scholar
  24. Mangel M (1987) Oviposition site selection and clutch size in insects. J Math Biol 25:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mills NJ, Lacan I (2004) Ratio dependence in the functional response of insect parasitoids: evidence from Trichogramma minutum foraging for eggs in small host patches. Ecol Entomol 29:208–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Milonas PG, Kontodimas DC, Martinou AF (2011) A predator’s functional response: influence of prey species and size. Biol Control 59:141–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Murdoch WW, Briggs CJ (1996) Theory for biological control: recent developments. Ecology 77:2001–2013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Murdoch WW, Chesson J, Chesson PL (1985) Biological control in theory and practice. Am Nat 125:344–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Oliver TH, Timms JEL, Taylor A, Leather SR (2006) Oviposition responses to patch quality in the larch ladybird Aphidecta obliterata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae): effects of aphid density, and con- and heterospecific tracks. Bull Entomol Res 96:25–34CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Schellhorn NA, Andow DA (2005) Response of coccinellids to their aphid prey at different spatial scales. Popul Ecol 47:71–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Seagraves MP (2009) Lady beetle oviposition behavior in response to the trophic environment. Biol Control 51:313–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sloggett JJ, Majerus MEN (2000) Habitat preferences and diet in the predatory coccinellidae (Coleoptera): an evolutionary perspective. Biol J Linn Soc 70:63–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (2012) Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research, 4th edn. W. H. Freeman and Co., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Walton VM, Pringle KL (2005) Developmental biology of vine mealybug, Planococcus ficus (Signoret) (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae), and its parasitoid Coccidoxenoides perminutus (Timberlake) (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae). Afr Entomol 13:143–147Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. G. Milonas
    • 1
  • G. Partsinevelos
    • 1
  • A. F. Martinou
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of EntomologyBenaki Phytopathological InstituteKifisiaGreece
  2. 2.Joint Services Health Unit (Cyprus)RAF AkrotiriAkrotiriCyprus

Personalised recommendations