Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T08:19:41.465Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Report on the life history traits of the generalist predator Forficula auricularia (Dermaptera: Forficulidae) in organic apple orchards in southeastern France

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2016

Hazem Dib ,
Benoît Sauphanor  and
Yvan Capowiez
Hazem Dib*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Protection/Biological Control Studies and Research Center, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Damascus, Damascus, Syria
Benoît Sauphanor
Affiliation:
Unité Plantes et Système de cultures Horticoles, Equipe Ecologie de la Production Intégrée, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Domaine St Paul, Site Agroparc, 84914 Avignon Cedex 9, France
Yvan Capowiez
Affiliation:
Unité Plantes et Système de cultures Horticoles, Equipe Ecologie de la Production Intégrée, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Domaine St Paul, Site Agroparc, 84914 Avignon Cedex 9, France
*
1 Corresponding author (e-mail: hazem802005@yahoo.com)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to provide detailed data on the reproduction of the European earwig Forficula auricularia Linnaeus (Dermaptera: Forficulidae) under natural conditions. We also describe its spring field population structure and dynamics in organic apple orchards in southeastern France using artificial and natural shelters. Two nymph cohorts could be distinguished in a laboratory reproduction study. The first brood, following the first egg-laying event in late November, had significantly higher pre-imaginal survival (1.74-fold) than the second brood in early April. The egg phase was the most vulnerable with a higher mortality rate in the first brood than the second. Independent of brood number, nymphal survival increased from second nymphal instars (N2) onwards with values higher than 96%. In orchards, N3 were generally observed in natural and artificial shelters from the end of April to mid-June. N4 was the most abundant life stage sampled and the only stage present at the majority of sampling dates, especially from early May onwards. Beginning in June, the abundance of new adults of a given year gradually increased especially in the artificial shelters. This descriptive study can now be used to develop phenological models aimed at limiting earwig mortality due to horticultural management practices and increasing their predation level in conservative or augmentative approaches.

Résumé

Le but de cette étude est de fournir des données détaillées sur la reproduction en conditions naturelles du forficule européen, Forficula auricularia Linnaeus (Dermaptera: Forficulidae) et sur la structure et la dynamique de ses populations printanières dans les vergers biologiques de pommier dans le sud-est de la France à l’aide d’abris artificiels et naturels. L'étude de la reproduction en laboratoire a distingué deux cohortes. La survie pré-imaginale de la première cohorte, après la 1ère ponte à la fin du mois de novembre, a été significativement plus élevée (1,74 fois) que la seconde qui est apparue à partir du début d’avril. La phase œuf a été la plus vulnérable avec un pourcentage de mortalité plus élevé pour la première cohorte par rapport à la seconde. La survie larvaire augmente à partir du stade L2 avec des valeurs supérieures à 96%. Dans les vergers, la présence de L3 a été généralement observée dans les deux types d’abris de la fin avril à mi-juin. Le stade L4 est le plus abondant et le seul présent à la majorité des dates d'échantillonnage, en particulier à partir de début mai. A partir du mois de juin, les nouveaux adultes de l’année voient leurs effectifs augmenter en particulier dans les abris artificiels. Cette étude descriptive est une base qui permettra le développement de modèles phénologiques visant à limiter la mortalité des forficules due aux pratiques horticoles et à augmenter le niveau de prédation par les forficules dans les programmes de lutte biologique augmentative ou par conservation.

Type
Behaviour & Ecology
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 149 , Issue 1 , February 2017 , pp. 56 - 72
Copyright
© Entomological Society of Canada 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Subject editor: Chris Bergh

References

Albouy, V. and Caussanel, C. 1990. Faune de France 75 – Dermaptères (Perce-Oreilles). Fédération Française des Sociétés de Sciences Naturelles, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Asgari, A. 1966. Untersuchungen über die im Raum Stuttgart-Hohenheim als wichtigsten Prädatoren der grünen Apfelblattlaus (Aphidula pomi Deg.) auftretenden Arthropoden. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Zoologie, 53: 35–93.Google Scholar
Behura, B.K. 1956. The biology of the European earwig, Forficula auricularia L. Annals of Zoology, 1: 117–142.Google Scholar
Birch, L.C. 1948. The intrinsic rate of natural increase of an insect population. Journal of Animal Ecology, 17: 15–26.Google Scholar
Boos, S., Meunier, J., Pichon, S., and Kölliker, M. 2014. Maternal care provides antifungal protection to eggs in the European earwig. Behavioral Ecology, 25: 754–761.Google Scholar
Brown, M.W. and Mathews, C.R. 2007. Conservation biological control of rosy apple aphid, Dysaphis plantaginea (Passerini), in eastern North America. Environmental Entomology, 36: 1131–1139.Google Scholar
Brown, M.W. and Miller, S.S. 1998. Coccinellidae (Coleoptera) in apple orchards of eastern West Virginia and impact of invasion by Harmonia axyridis . Entomological News, 109: 143–151.Google Scholar
Burnip, G.M., Daly, J.M., Hackett, J.K., and Suckling, D.M. 2002. European earwig phenology and effect of understorey management on population estimation. New Zealand Plant Protection, 55: 390–395.Google Scholar
Carroll, D.P. and Hoyt, S.C. 1984. Augmentation of European earwigs (Dermaptera: Forficulidae) for biological control of apple aphid (Homoptera: Aphididae) in apple orchard. Journal of Economic Entomology, 77: 738–740.Google Scholar
Debras, J.F., Dussaud, A., Rieux, R., and Dutoit, T. 2007. Recherche prospective sur le rôle «source» des haies en production fruitière intégrée. Le cas des perce-oreilles: Forficula auricularia L. et Forficula pubescens Gené. Comptes Rendus Biologies, 330: 664–673.Google Scholar
Dib, H., Jamont, M., Sauphanor, B., and Capowiez, Y. 2011. Predation potency and intraguild interactions between generalist (Forficula auricularia) and specialist (Episyrphus balteatus) predators of the rosy apple aphid (Dysaphis plantaginea). Biological Control, 59: 90–97.Google Scholar
Dib, H., Jamont, M., Sauphanor, B., and Capowiez, Y. 2016a. Individual and combined effects of the generalist Forficula auricularia and the specialist Episyrphus balteatus on Dysaphis plantaginea – are two predators better than one? Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, in press. DOI: 10.1111/eea.12484.Google Scholar
Dib, H., Jamont, M., Sauphanor, B., and Capowiez, Y. 2016b. The feasibility and efficacy of early-season releases of a generalist predator (Forficula auricularia L.) to control populations of the RAA (Dysaphis plantaginea Passerini) in southeastern France. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 106: 233–241.Google Scholar
Dib, H., Libourel, G., and Warlop, F. 2012. Entomological and functional role of floral strips in an organic apple orchard: hymenopteran parasitoids as a case study. Journal of Insect Conservation, 16: 315–318.Google Scholar
Dib, H., Sauphanor, B., and Capowiez, Y. 2010a. Effect of codling moth exclusion nets on the rosy apple aphid, Dysaphis plantaginea, and its control by natural enemies. Crop Protection, 29: 1502–1513.Google Scholar
Dib, H., Sauphanor, B., and Capowiez, Y. 2016c. Effect of management strategies on arthropod communities in the colonies of rosy apple aphid, Dysaphis plantaginea Passerini (Hemiptera: Aphididae) in south-eastern France. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 216: 203–206.Google Scholar
Dib, H., Simon, S., Sauphanor, B., and Capowiez, Y. 2010b. The role of natural enemies on the population dynamics of the rosy apple aphid, Dysaphis plantaginea Passerini (Hemiptera: Aphididae) in organic apple orchards in south-eastern France. Biological Control, 55: 97–109.Google Scholar
Forrest, J.M.S. and Dixon, A.F.G. 1975. The induction of leaf-roll galls by the apple aphids Dysaphis devecta and D. plantaginea . Annals of Applied Biology, 81: 281–288.Google Scholar
Guillet, S., Guiller, A., Deunff, J., and Vancassel, M. 2000. Analysis of a contact zone in the Forficula auricularia L. (Dermaptera: Forficulidae) species complex in the Pyrenean mountains. Heredity, 85: 444–449.Google Scholar
Helsen, H., Vaal, F., and Blommers, L. 1998. Phenology of the common earwig Forficula auricularia L. (Dermaptera: Forficulidae) in an apple orchard. International Journal of Pest Management, 44: 75–79.Google Scholar
Koch, L.K. and Meunier, J. 2014. Mother and offspring fitness in an insect with maternal care: phenotypic trade-offs between egg number, egg mass and egg care. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 14: 125.Google Scholar
Kölliker, M. 2007. Benefits and costs of earwig (Forficula auricularia) family life. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 61: 1489–1497.Google Scholar
Kölliker, M. and Vancassel, M. 2007. Maternal attendance and the maintenance of family groups in common earwigs (Forficula auricularia): a field experiment. Ecological Entomology, 32: 24–27.Google Scholar
Lamb, R.J. 1975. Effects of dispersion, travel, and environmental heterogeneity on populations of the earwig Forficula auricularia L. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 53: 1855–1867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamb, R.J. and Wellington, W.G. 1975. Life history and population characteristics of the European earwig Forficula auricularia (Dermaptera: Forficulidae), at Vancouver British Columbia. The Canadian Entomologist, 107: 819–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Logan, D.P., Maher, B.J., Connolly, P.G., and Pettigrew, M.J. 2007. Effect of cardboard shelter traps on predation of diaspidid scale insects by European earwig, Forficula auricularia, in kiwifruit. New Zealand Plant Protection, 60: 241–248.Google Scholar
Miñarro, M., Hemptinne, J.-L., and Dapena, E. 2005. Colonization of apple orchards by predators of Dysaphis plantaginea: sequential arrival, response to prey abundance and consequences for biological control. BioControl, 50: 403–414.Google Scholar
Moerkens, R., Gobin, B., Peusens, G., Helsen, H., Hilton, R., Dib, H., et al. 2011. Optimizing biocontrol using phenological day degree models: the European earwig in pipfruit orchards. Agricultural and Forest Entomology, 13: 301–312.Google Scholar
Moerkens, R., Leirs, H., Peusens, G., and Gobin, B. 2009. Are populations of European earwigs, Forficula auricularia, density dependent? Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 130: 198–206.Google Scholar
Mueller, T.F., Blommers, L.H.M., and Mols, P.J.M. 1988. Earwig (Forficula auricularia) predation on the woolly apple aphid, Eriosoma lanigerum . Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 47: 145–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholas, A.H., Spooner-Hart, R.N., and Vickers, R.A. 2005. Abundance and natural control of the woolly aphid Eriosoma lanigerum in an Australian apple orchard IPM program. BioControl, 50: 271–291.Google Scholar
Phillips, M.L. 1981. The ecology of the common earwig Forficula auricularia in apple orchards. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Piñol, J., Espadaler, X., Pérez, N., and Cañellas, N. 2009. Effects of the concurrent exclusion of ants and earwigs on aphid abundance in an organic citrus grove. BioControl, 54: 515–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rieux, R., Simon, S., and Defrance, H. 1999. Role of hedgerows and ground cover management on arthropod populations in pear orchards. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 73: 119–127.Google Scholar
Romeu-Dalmau, C., Piñol, J., and Agustí, N. 2012a. Detecting aphid predation by earwigs in organic citrus orchards using molecular markers. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 102: 566–572.Google Scholar
Romeu-Dalmau, C., Piñol, J., and Espadaler, X. 2012b. Friend or foe? The role of earwigs in a Mediterranean organic citrus orchard. Biological Control, 63: 143–149.Google Scholar
Sauphanor, B. 1992. Une phéromone d’agrégation chez Forficula auricularia . Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 62: 285–291.Google Scholar
Sauphanor, B., Blaisinger, P., and Sureau, F. 1992. Méthode de laboratoire pour evaluer l’effet des pesticides sur Forficula auricularia L. (Dermaptera: Forficulidae). International Organisation for Biological Control (IOBC) – West Palearctic Regional Section (WPRS) Bulletin, 15: 117–121.Google Scholar
Sauphanor, B., Chabrol, L., Faivre d’Arcier, F., Sureau, F., and Lenfant, C. 1993. Side effects of diflubenzuron on a pear psylla predator: Forficula auricularia . Entomophaga, 38: 163–174.Google Scholar
Sharley, D.J., Hoffmann, A.A., and Thomson, L.J. 2008. The effects of soil tillage on beneficial invertebrates within the vineyard. Agricultural and Forest Entomology, 10: 233–243.Google Scholar
Simberloff, D. and Stiling, P. 1996. How risky is biological control? Ecology, 77: 1965–1974.Google Scholar
Solomon, M.G., Cross, J.V., Fitzgerald, J.D., Campbell, C.A.M., Jolly, R.L., Olszak, R.W., et al. 2000. Biocontrol of pests of apples and pears in northern and central Europe – 3. Predators. Biocontrol Science and Technology, 10: 91–128.Google Scholar
Suckling, D.M., Burnip, G.M., Hackett, J., and Daly, J.C. 2006. Frass sampling and baiting indicate European earwig (Forficula auricularia) foraging in orchards. Journal of Applied Entomology, 130: 263–267.Google Scholar
Thomas, M.B. and Willis, A.J. 1998. Biocontrol – risky but necessary? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 13: 325–329.Google Scholar
Vancassel, M. 1984. Plasticity and adaptive radiation of Dermapteran parental behavior: results and perspectives. Advances in the Study of Behavior, 14: 51–80.Google Scholar
Vancassel, M. and Foraste, M. 1980. Parental behavior in Dermaptera. Reproduction Nutrition and Development, 20: 759–770.Google Scholar
Vancassel, M. and Quris, R. 1994. Differential release of diapause in the earwig Forficula auricularia as indicator of respective contribution of two cohorts to the reproductive generation. Acta Oecologica, 15: 63–70.Google Scholar
Walker, K.A., Jones, T.H., and Fell, R.D. 1993. Pheromonal basis of aggregation in European earwig, Forficula auricularia L. (Dermaptera, Forficulidae). Journal of Chemical Ecology, 19: 2029–2038.Google Scholar
Wirth, T., Le Guellec, R., Vancassel, M., and Veuille, M. 1998. Molecular and reproductive characterization of sibling species in the European earwig (Forficula auricularia). Evolution, 52: 260–265.Google Scholar
Worthington, E.B. 1926. The life-cycle of Forficula auricularia Linn. The Entomologist, 59: 138–142.Google Scholar
Zar, J.H. 1984. Biostatistical analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, United States of America.Google Scholar