Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T15:33:02.527Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Functional response in coccinellid beetles (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) is modified by prey-density experience

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2022

Desh Deepak Chaudhary ,
Bhupendra Kumar Open the ORCID record for Bhupendra Kumar [Opens in a new window] ,
Geetanjali Mishra  and
Omkar
Desh Deepak Chaudhary
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, Indira Gandhi National Tribal University, Amarkantak, Madhya Pradesh, 484887, India
Bhupendra Kumar
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, 221005, India
Geetanjali Mishra
Affiliation:
Ladybird Research Laboratory Department of Zoology, University of Lucknow, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, 226007, India
Omkar*
Affiliation:
Ladybird Research Laboratory Department of Zoology, University of Lucknow, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, 226007, India
*
*Corresponding author. Email: omkar.lkouniv@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the present study, we assessed functional response curves of two generalist coccinellid beetles (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), specifically Menochilus sexmaculatus and Propylea dissecta, using fluctuating densities of aphid prey as a stimulus. In what may be the first such study, we investigated how the prey density experienced during the early larval development of these two predatory beetle species shaped the functional response curves of the late instar–larval and adult stages. The predators were switched from their rearing prey-density environments of scarce, optimal, or abundant prey to five testing density environments of extremely scarce, scarce, suboptimal, optimal, or abundant prey. The individuals of M. sexmaculatus that were reared on either scarce- and optimal- or abundant-prey densities exhibited type II functional response curves as both larvae and adults. However, individuals of P. dissecta that were reared on scarce- and abundant-prey densities displayed modified type II functional response curves as larvae and type II functional response curves as adults. In contrast, individuals of P. dissecta reared on the optimal-prey density displayed type II functional response curves as larvae and modified type II functional response curves as adults. The fourth-instar larvae and adult females of M. sexmaculatus and P. dissecta also exhibited highest prey consumption (T/Th) and shortest prey-handling time (Th) on the scarce-prey rearing density. Thus, under fluctuating-prey conditions, M. sexmaculatus is a better biological control agent of aphids than P. dissecta is.

Type
Research Paper
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 154 , Issue 1 , 2022 , e11
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Entomological Society of Canada

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: Christie Bahlai

References

Bayoumy, M.H. 2011a. Foraging behaviour of the coccinellids Nephus includens (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) in response to Aphis gossypii (Hemiptera: Aphididae), with particular emphasis on larval parasitism. Environmental Entomology, 40: 835–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayoumy, M.H. 2011b. Functional response of the aphelinid parasitoid, Aphytis diaspidis: effect of host scale species, Diaspidiotus perniciosus and Hemiberlesia lataniae . Acta Phytopathological et Entomologica Hungarica, 46: 101–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayoumy, M.H. and Michaud, J.P. 2012. Parasitism interacts with mutual interference to limit foraging efficiency in larvae of Nephus includes (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Biological Control, 62: 120–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, W.J. 1990. Searching behavior patterns in insects. Annual Review of Entomology, 35: 447–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudhary, D.D., Kumar, B., Mishra, G., and Omkar, . 2015. Resource partitioning in a ladybird, Menochilus sexmaculatus: function of body size and prey density. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 105: 121–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudhary, D.D., Kumar, B., Mishra, G., and Omkar, . 2016. Effects of prey resource fluctuation on predation attributes of two sympatric ladybird beetles. The Canadian Entomologist, 148: 443–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dejean, A., Gibernau, M., Lauga, J., and Orivel, J. 2003. Coccinellid learning during capture of alternative prey. Journal of Insect Behaviour, 16: 859–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, A.F.G. 2000. Insect predator-prey dynamics: ladybird beetles and biological control. First edition. Cambridge University Press, London, United Kingdom. 257 pp.Google Scholar
Dukas, R. 2008. Evolutionary biology of insect learning. Annual Review of Entomology, 53: 145–160.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fathipour, Y., Hosseini, A., Taleb, A., and Moharramipour, S. 2006. Functional response and mutual interference of Diaeretiella rapae (Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae) on Brevicoryne brassicae (Homoptera: Aphididae). Entomologica Fennica, 17: 90–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giurfa, M. 2013. Cognition with few neurons: higher-order learning in insects. Trends in Neurosciences, 36: 285–294.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giurfa, M. 2015. Learning and cognition in insects. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 6: 383–395.Google ScholarPubMed
Grez, A.A., Viera, B., and Soares, A.O. 2012. Biotic interactions between Eriopis connexa and Hippodamia variegata, a native and an exotic coccinellids species associated with alfalfa fields in Chile. Entomologia Expermentalis et Applicata, 142: 36–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grez, A.A., Zaviezo, T., and Mancilla, A. 2011. Effect of prey density on intraguild interactions among foliar-and ground-foraging predators of aphids associated with alfalfa crops in Chile: a laboratory assessment. Entomologia Expermentalis et Applicata, 139: 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gupta, R.K., Pervez, A., Guroo, M.A., and Srivastava, K. 2012. Stage-specific functional response of an aphidophagous ladybird, Coccinella septempunctata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), to two aphid species. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science, 32: 136–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hassell, M.P. 1978. The dynamics of arthropod predator–prey systems. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, United States of America. 237 pp.Google ScholarPubMed
Hiltunen, T. and Laakso, J. 2013. The relative importance of competition and predation in environment characterized by resource pulses: an experimental test with a microbial community. BMC Ecology, 13: 1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hodek, I. and Honek, A. 1996. Ecology of coccinellidae. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. 464 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodek, I., Van Emden, H.F., and Honek, A. 2012. Ecology and behaviour of the ladybird beetles (Coccinellidae). John Wiley and Sons, West Sussex, United Kingdom. 600 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jalali, M., Tirry, L., and De Clercq, P. 2010. Effect of temperature on the functional response of Adalia bipunctata to Myzus persicae . BioControl, 55: 261–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jamour, T.K. and Shishehbor, P. 2012. Host plant effects on the functional response of Stethorus gilvifrons to strawberry spider mites. Biocontrol Science and Technology, 22: 101–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juliano, S.A. 2001. Nonlinear curve fitting: predation and functional response curves. Design and Analysis of Ecological Experiments, 2: 178–196.Google Scholar
Kumar, B., Bista, M., Mishra, G., and Omkar, . 2014a. Stage specific consumption and utilization of aphids conspecific and heterospecific eggs by two species of Coccinella (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). European Journal of Entomology, 111: 363–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, B., Mishra, G., and Omkar, . 2014b. Functional response and predatory interactions within conspecific and heterospecific guilds of two congeneric species (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). European Journal of Entomology, 111: 257–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mishra, G., Kumar, B., Shahid, M., Singh, D. and Omkar, . 2011. Evaluation of four co-occurring ladybirds for use as biocontrol agents of pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum (Homoptera: Aphididae). Biocontrol Science and Technology, 21: 991–997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mishra, G., Omkar, , Kumar, B., and Pandey, G. 2012. Stage- and age-specific predation in four aphidophagous ladybird beetles. Biocontrol Science and Technology, 22: 463–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondor, E.B. and Warren, J.L. 2000. Unconditioned and conditioned responses to colour in the predatory coccinellid, Harmonia axyridis (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). European Journal of Entomology, 97: 463–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreyra, S. and Lozada, M. 2021. How behavioral plasticity enables foraging under changing environmental conditions in the social wasp Vespula germanica (Hymenoptera: Vespidae). Insect Science, 28: 231–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ninkovic, V. and Pettersson, J. 2003. Searching behaviour of the seven-spotted ladybird, Coccinella septempunctata: effects of plant odour interaction. Oikos, 100: 65–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Omkar, and Pervez, A. 2000. Biodiversity of predaceous coccinellids (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) in India: a review. Journal of Aphidology, 14: 41–67.Google Scholar
Omkar, and Pervez, A. 2011. Functional response of two aphidophagous ladybirds searching in tandem. Biocontrol Science and Technology, 21: 101–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Omkar, , Mishra, G., Kumar, B., Singh, N., and Pandey, G. 2014. Risk associated with tandem release of large and small ladybird (Coleoptera: Coccinellides) in heterospecific aphidophagous guilds. The Canadian Entomologist, 146: 52–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Omkar, , Mishra, G., Srivastava, S., Gupta, A.K., and Singh, S.K. 2005. Reproductive performance of four aphidophagous ladybirds on cowpea aphid, Aphis craccivora Koch. Journal of Applied Entomology, 129: 217–220.Google Scholar
Osman, M.A. and Bayoumy, M.H. 2011. Effect of prey stages of the two-spotted mite Tetranychus urticae on functional response of the coccinellids predator Stethorus gilvifrons . Acta Phytopathologica et Entomologica Hungarica, 46: 277–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostfeld, R.S. and Keesing, F. 2000. Pulsed resources and community dynamics of consumers in terrestrial ecosystems. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 15: 232–237.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Papaj, D.R. and Lewis, A.C. 2012. Insect learning: ecology and evolutionary perspectives. Springer Science and Business Media, Berlin, Germany. 398 pp.Google Scholar
Patel, P., Kumar, B., and Kumar, D. 2017. Fluctuations in defended prey availability modulate the functional response curves of Menochilus sexmaculatus (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Acta Entomologica Sinica, 60: 1031–1040.Google Scholar
Remén, C. 2004. Associated learning of colour and odour in the seven-spotted ladybird Coccinella septempuncata (L.): an olfactometer experiment [online]. Institutionen för entomologi, Sveriges lantbruksuniv. Available from https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/12721/1/remen_c_171019.pdf (accessed 12 October 2020).Google Scholar
Roger, D. 1972. Random search and insect population models. The Journal of Animal Ecology, 41: 369–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santos-Cividanes, T.M., Dos Anjos, A.C.R., Cividanes, F.J., and Dias, P.C. 2011. Effects of food deprivation on the development of Coleomegilla maculata (De Geer) (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Neotropical Entomology, 40: 112–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, W.E. 2009. Coccinellids in diverse communities: which niche fits? Biological Control, 51: 323–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, W.E. and Ives, A.R. 2003. Interactions between specialist and generalist natural enemies: parasitoids, predators, and pea aphid biocontrol. Ecology, 84: 91–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanaclocha, P., Papacek, D., Monzo, C., Verdu, M.J., and Urbaneja, A. 2013. Intraguild interactions between the parasitoid Aphytis lingnanensis and the predator Chilocorus circumdatus: implications for the biological control of armoured scales. Biological Control, 65: 169–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vet, L.E. and Dicke, M. 1992. Ecology of infochemical use by natural enemies in a tritrophic context. Annual Review of Entomology, 37: 141–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar