Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T23:37:38.983Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Effects of plant feeding on the performance of omnivorous “predators”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 December 2009

Micky D. Eubanks
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology Auburn University USA
John D. Styrsky
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology Auburn University USA
F. L. Wäckers
Affiliation:
Netherlands Institute of Ecology
P. C. J. van Rijn
Affiliation:
Netherlands Institute of Ecology
J. Bruin
Affiliation:
Universiteit van Amsterdam
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Thousands of arthropod species consume both prey and plant food (Whitman et al. 1994; Alomar and Wiedenmann 1996; Coll and Guershon 2002). Omnivorous arthropods include species that are usually thought of as being exclusively herbivorous (e.g., grasshoppers and thrips), exclusively predaceous (e.g., ants and spiders), and species whose catholic tastes are better known (e.g., true bugs and carabid beetles). These omnivorous taxa all share the ability to utilize both prey and plant food, but differ widely in the timing and extent to which they utilize these resources, and in their morphologies, physiologies, and behaviors. Some omnivorous arthropods have been referred to as life-history omnivores (Wäckers and Van Rijn, Chapter 1). Life-history omnivores utilize prey and plant food at different stages or periods of their life (Coll and Guershon 2002; Wäckers and Van Rijn, Chapter 1). Other omnivores, however, include both prey and plant food in their diet throughout their life, although the relative importance of the two may vary with age. These species could be referred to as lifelong omnivores. Big-eyed bugs (Heteroptera: Geocoridae) are excellent examples of insects that consume prey and plant food in all life stages. We focus on the experimental studies of “predaceous” omnivores and attempt to draw conclusions regarding the effects of plant feeding on omnivorous predators and their interactions with other species.

Type
Chapter
Information
Plant-Provided Food for Carnivorous Insects
A Protective Mutualism and its Applications
, pp. 148 - 177
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2005

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.)

References

Abou-Setta, M. M., Fouly, A. H., and Childers, C. C.. 1997. Biology of Proprioseiopsis rotendus (Acari: Phytoseiidae) reared on Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae) or pollen. Florida Entomologist 80: 27–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abrams, P. A. 1987. The functional responses of adaptive consumers of two resources. Theoretical Population Biology 32: 262–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Addison, J. A., Hardman, J. M., and Walde, S. J.. 2000. Pollen availability for predaceous mites on apple: spatial and temporal heterogeneity. Experimental and Applied Acarology 24: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alomar, O. and Wiedenmann, R. N. (eds.). 1996. Zoophytophagous Heteroptera: Implications for Life History and Integrated Pest Management. Lanham, MD: Entomological Society of America.Google Scholar
Bush, L., Kring, T. J., and Ruberson, J. R.. 1993. Suitability of greenbugs, cotton aphids, and Heliothis virescens eggs for development and reproduction of Orius insidiosus. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 67: 217–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruce-Oliver, S. J., Hoy, M. A., and Yaninek, J. S.. 1996. Effect of some food sources associated with cassava in Africa on the development, fecundity and longevity of Eusius fustis (Pritchard and Baker) (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Experimental and Applied Acarology 20: 73–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chinajariyawong, A. and Harris, V. E.. 1987. Inability of Deraeocoris signatus (Distant) (Hemiptera: Miridae) to survive and reproduce on cotton without prey. Journal of the Australian Entomological Society 26: 37–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cocuzza, G. E., Clercq, P., Veire, M., et al. 1997. Reproduction of Orius laevigatus and Orius albidipennis on pollen and Ephestia kuehniella eggs. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 82: 101–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, A. C. and Debolt, J. W.. 1983. Rearing Geocoris punctipes on insect eggs. Southwestern Entomologist 8: 61–64.Google Scholar
Coll, M. 1996. Feeding and ovipositing on plants by an omnivorous insect predator. Oecologia 105: 214–220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coll, M. and Bottrell, D. G.. 1991. Microhabitat and resource selection of the European corn borer (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) and its natural enemies in Maryland field corn. Environmental Entomology 20: 526–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coll, M. and Bottrell, D. G.. 1992. Mortality of European corn borer larvae by enemies in different corn microhabitats. Biological Control 2: 95–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coll, M. and Guershon, M.. 2002. Omnivory in terrestrial arthropods: mixing plant and prey diets. Annual Review of Entomology 47: 267–297.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cottrell, T. E. and Yeargan, K. V.. 1998. Effect of pollen on Coleomegilla maculata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) population density, predation, and cannibalism in sweet corn. Environmental Entomology 27: 1402–1410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowgill, S. E., Wratten, S. D., and Sotherton, N. W.. 1993. The effect of weeds on the numbers of hoverfly (Diptera: Syrphidae) adults and the distribution and composition of their eggs in winter wheat. Annals of Applied Biology 123: 499–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawley, M. J. 1975. The numerical response of insect predators to changes in prey density. Journal of Animal Ecology 44: 877–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crum, D. A., Weiser, L. A., and Stamp, N. E.. 1998. Effects of prey scarcity and plant material as a dietary supplement on an insect predator. Oikos 81: 549–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dayton, P. 1984. Properties structuring some marine communities: are they general? In Strong, D., Simberloff, D., Abele, L., and Thistle, A. (eds.) Ecological Communities: Conceptual Issues and the Evidence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 181–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunbar, D. M. and Bacon, O. G.. 1972. Feeding, development, and reproduction of Geocoris punctipes (Heteroptera: Lygaeidae) on eight diets. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 65: 892–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eubanks, M. D. and Denno, R. F.. 1999. The ecological consequences of variation in plants and prey for an omnivorous insect. Ecology 80: 1253–1266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eubanks, M. D. and Denno, R. F.. 2000. Host plants mediate omnivore–herbivore interactions and influence prey suppression. Ecology 81: 936–947.Google Scholar
Evans, E. W. 2000. Egg production in response to combined alternative foods by the predator Coccinella transversalis. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 94: 141–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, E. W. and Swallow, J. G.. 1993. Numerical responses of natural enemies to artificial honeydew in Utah alfalfa. Environmental Entomology 22: 1392–1401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fauvel, G. 1974. Sur l'alimentation pollinique d'un anthocoride prédateur, Orius (Heterorius) vicinus Rib (Hémiptère). Annales de Zoologie-Ecologie Animale 6: 245–258.Google Scholar
Fouly, A. H., Abou-Setta, M. M., and Childers, C. C.. 1995. Effects of diet on the biology and life tables of Typhlodromalus peregrinus (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Environmental Entomology 24: 870–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillespie, D. R. and McGregor, R. R.. 2000. The functions of plant feeding in the omnivorous predator Dicyphus hesperus: water places limits on predation. Ecological Entomology 25: 380–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harmon, J. P., Ives, A. R., Losey, J. E., Olson, A. C., and Rauwald, K. S.. 2000. Coleomegilla maculata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) predation on pea aphids promoted by proximity to dandelions. Oecologia 125: 543–548.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hickman, J. M. and Wratten, S. D.. 1994. Use of Phacelia tanacetifolia (Hydrophyllaceae) as a pollen resource to enhance hoverfly (Diptera: Syrphidae) populations in sweetcorn fields. Bulletin OILB/SROP 17: 156–167.Google Scholar
Hickman, J. M. and Wratten, S. D.. 1996. Use of Phacelia tanacetifolia strips to enhance biological control of aphids by hoverfly larvae in cereal fields. Journal of Economic Entomology 89: 832–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hickman, J. M., Lovei, G. L., and Wratten, S. D.. 1995. Phenology and ecology of hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae) in New Zealand. Environmental Entomology 24: 595–600.Google Scholar
Hickman, J. M., Wratten, S. D., Jepson, P. C., and Frampton, C. M.. 2001. Effect of hunger on yellow water trap catches of hoverfly (Diptera: Syrphidae) adults. Agricultural and Forest Entomology 3: 35–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, R. D. 1984. The ecological consequences of shared natural enemies. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 25: 495–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, R. D. and Lawton, J. H.. 1994. Apparent competition and enemy-free space in insect host–parasitoid communities. American Naturalist 142: 623–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, R. D. and Polis, G. A.. 1997. A theoretical framework for intraguild predation. American Naturalist 149: 745–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennett, C. E, Flaherty, D. L., and Hoffmann, R. W.. 1979. Effect of wind-borne pollens in the population dynamics of Amblyseius hibisci (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Entomophaga 24: 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiman, Z. B. and Yeargan, K. V.. 1985. Development and reproduction of the predator Orius insidiosus (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae) reared on diets of selected plant material and arthropod prey. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 78: 464–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Limburg, D. D. and Rosenheim, J. A.. 2001. Extrafloral nectar consumption and its influence on survival and development on an omnivorous predator, larval Chrysoperla plorabunda (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). Environmental Entomology 30: 595–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCaffrey, J. P. and Horsburgh, R. L.. 1986. Biology of Orius insidiosus (Heteroptera: Anthocoridae): a predator in Virginia apple orchards. Environmental Entomology 15: 984–988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMurtry, J. A. and Croft, B. A.. 1997. Life-styles of phytoseiid mites and their roles in biological control. Annual Review of Entomology 42: 291–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McMurtry, J. A. and Scriven, G. T.. 1964. Studies on the feeding, reproduction, and development of Amblyseius hibisci (Acarina: Phytoseiidae) on various food substances. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 57: 649–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMurtry, J. A. and Scriven, G. T.. 1966a. The influence of pollen and prey density on the numbers of prey consumed by Amblyseius hibisci (Acarina: Phytoseiidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 59: 149–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMurtry, J. A. and Scriven, G. T.. 1966b. Studies on predator–prey interactions between Amblyseius hibisci and Oligonychus punicae (Arcarina: Phytoseiidae, Tetranychidae) under greenhouse conditions. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 59: 793–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Momen, F. M. and El-Saway, S. A.. 1993. Biology and feeding behaviour of the predatory mite, Amblyseius swirskii (Acari, Phytoseiidae). Acarologia 34: 199–204.Google Scholar
Moreira, L. A., Zanuncio, J. C., Picanço, M. C., and Guedes, R. N. C.. 1997. Effect of Eucalyptus feeding on the development, survival and reproduction of Tynacantha marginata (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae). Revista de Biologia Tropical 45: 253–257.Google Scholar
Murdoch, W. W. 1969. Switching in general predators: experiments on predator and stability of prey populations. Ecological Monographs 39: 335–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naranjo, S. E. and Stimac, J. L.. 1985. Development, survival, and reproduction of Geocoris punctipes (Hemiptera: Lygaeidae): effects of plant feeding on soybean and associated weeds. Environmental Entomology 14: 523–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nomikou, M., Janssen, A., Schraag, R., and Sabelis, M. W.. 2001. Phytoseiid predators as potential biological control agents for Bemisia tabaci. Experimental and Applied Acarology 25: 271–291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peña, J. E. 1992. Predator–prey interactions between Typhlodromalus peregrinus and Polyphagotarsonemus latus: effects of alternative prey and other food resources. Florida Entomologist 75: 241–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pimm, S. L. and Lawton, J. H.. 1977. The number of trophic levels in ecological communities. Nature 268: 329–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pimm, S. L. and Lawton, J. H.. 1978. On feeding on more than one trophic level. Nature 275: 542–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polis, G. A. 1991. Complex trophic interactions in deserts: an empirical critique of food web theory. American Naturalist 138: 123–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polis, G. A. and McCormick, S. J.. 1986. Scorpions, spiders and solpugids: predation and competition among distantly related taxa. Oecologia 71: 111–116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Polis, G. A. and Strong, D. R.. 1996. Food web complexity and community dynamics. American Naturalist 147: 813–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polis, G. A., Myers, C. A., and Holt, R. D.. 1989. The ecology and evolution of intraguild predation: potential competitors that eat each other. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 20: 297–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ragusa, S. and Swirski, E.. 1977. Feeding habits, post-embryonic and adult survival, mating virility, and fecundity of the predaceous mite Amblyseius swirskii (Acarina: Phytoseiidae) on some coccids and mealybugs. Entomophaga 22: 383–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Read, C. D. and Lampman, R. L.. 1989. Olfactory responses of Orius insidiosus (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae) to volatiles of corn silks. Journal of Chemical Ecology 15: 1109–1115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenheim, J. A., Wilhoit, L. R., and Armer, C. A.. 1993. Influence of intraguild predation among generalist insect predators on the suppression of an herbivore population. Oecologia 96: 439–449.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenheim, J. A., Kaya, H. K., Ehler, L. E., Marois, J. J., and Jaffee, B. A.. 1995. Intraguild predation among biological-control agents: theory and evidence. Biological Control 5: 303–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruberson, J. R., Tauber, M. J., and Tauber, C. A.. 1986. Plant feeding by Podisus maculiventris (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae): effect on survival, development, and preoviposition period. Environmental Entomology 15: 894–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salas-Aguilar, J. and Ehler, L. E.. 1977. Feeding habits of Orius tristicolor. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 70: 60–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt-Tiedemann, A. and Sell, P.. 1997. The suitability of different kinds of pollen for feeding the predaceous anthocorid Orius minutus (L.) (Heteroptera: Anthocoridae). Mededelingen van de Faculteit Landbouwwetenschappen, Universiteit van Gent 62(2b): 473–482.Google Scholar
Sutherland, J. P., Sullivan, M. S., and Poppy, G. M. 1999. The influence of floral character on the foraging behavior of the hoverfly, Episyrphus balteatus. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 93: 157–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tamaki, G. and Weeks, R. E.. 1972. Biology and ecology of two predators, Geocoris pallens Stal and G. bullatus (Say). US Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin 1446.Google Scholar
Vacante, V., Cocuzza, G. E., Clercq, P., Meire, M., and Tirry, L.. 1997. Development and survival of Orius albidipennis and O. laevigatus (Het.: Anthocoridae) on various diets. Entomophaga 42: 493–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valicente, F. H. and O'Neil, R. J.. 1995. Effects of host plants and feeding regimes on selected life history characteristics of Podisus maculiventris (Say) (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae). Biological Control 5: 449–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rijn, P. C. J. and Tanigoshi, L. K.. 1999a. Pollen as food for the predatory mites Iphiseius degenerans and Neosiulus cucumeris (Acari: Phytoseiidae): dietary range and life history. Experimental and Applied Acarology 23: 785–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rijn, P. C. J. and Tanigoshi, L. K.. 1999b. The contribution of extrafloral nectar to survival and reproduction of the predatory mites Iphiseius degenerans and Ricinus communis. Experimental and Applied Acarology 23: 281–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walde, S. J. 1994. Immigration and the dynamics of a predator–prey interaction in biological control. Journal of Animal Ecology 63: 337–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wei, Q. and Walde, S. J.. 1997. The functional response of Typhlodromus pyri to its prey, Panonychus ulmi: the effect of pollen. Experimental and Applied Acarology 21: 677–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiser, L. A. and Stamp, N. A.. 1998. Combined effects of allelochemicals, prey availability, and supplemental plant material on growth of a generalist insect predator. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 87: 181–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitman, D. W., M. S. Blum, and F. Slansky Jr. 1994. Carnivory in phytophagous insects. In Ananthakrishnan, T. N. (ed.) Functional Dynamics of Phytophagous Insects. Lebanon, NH: Science Publishers, pp. 161–205.Google Scholar
Wiedenmann, R. N., J. C. Legaspi, and R. J. O'Neil. 1996. Impact of prey density and facultative plant feeding on the life history of the predator Podisus maculiventris (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae). In Alomar, O. and Wiedenmann, R. N. (eds.) Zoophytophagous Heteroptera: Implications for Life History and Integrated Pest Management. Lanham, MD: Entomological Society of America, pp. 57–93.Google Scholar
Zhimo, Z. and McMurtry, J. A.. 1990. Development and reproduction of three Euseius (Acari: Phytoseiidae) species in the presence and absence of supplementary foods. Experimental and Applied Acarology 8: 233–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×