Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gq7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T14:02:24.738Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Optimising aphid biocontrol with the predator Propylea dissecta, based on experimental evolution of a predatory population

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2023

Arshi Siddiqui Open the ORCID record for Arshi Siddiqui [Opens in a new window] ,
Omkar Open the ORCID record for Omkar [Opens in a new window]  and
Geetanjali Mishra Open the ORCID record for Geetanjali Mishra [Opens in a new window]
Arshi Siddiqui
Affiliation:
Ladybird Research Laboratory, Department of Zoology, University of Lucknow, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, 226007, India Department of Bioscience, Integral University, Dasauli Kursi Road, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, 226026, India
Omkar
Affiliation:
Ladybird Research Laboratory, Department of Zoology, University of Lucknow, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, 226007, India
Geetanjali Mishra*
Affiliation:
Ladybird Research Laboratory, Department of Zoology, University of Lucknow, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, 226007, India
*
*Corresponding author. Email: geetanjalimishra@hotmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Intraspecific variation is the variation in morphology, physiology, behaviour, and social organisation of any species as it adapts to changing environmental circumstances by varying its feeding habits. In the present study, we investigated the disparities between the preselected (F1) and postselected (F15) populations of Propylea dissecta Mulsant (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) when fed on four different prey species, namely Aphis gossypii Glover from bottle gourd, Lagenaria vulgaris Seringe (Cucurbitaceae), Lipaphis erysimi (Kaltenbach) from mustard, Brassica campestris Linnaeus (Brassicaceae), Rhopalosiphum maidis (Fitch) from maize, Zea mays Linnaeus (Poaceae), and Uroleucon compositae (Theobald) from chrysanthemum, Chrysanthemum indicum Linnaeus (Asteraceae), under an experimental evolution study. A simple bimodal pattern of distribution was obtained for each prey species, which was warped with variations in prey species for both F1 and F15. This research might provide the basis for further studies on the differential pace of development of various other prey species, improve understanding of ecological evolution, and provide a spectrum of fast-growing bioagents for the introduction of biological control strategy in pest management techniques against agropests.

Type
Research Paper
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 155 , 2023 , e11
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. 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: Hervé Colinet

References

Afroze, S. 2000. Bioecology of the coccinellid Anegleis cardoni (Weise) (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), an important predator of aphids, coccids and pseudococcids. Journal of Entomological Research, 24: 55–62.Google Scholar
Agarwala, B.K., Das, S., and Bhaumik, A.K. 1987. Natural food range and feeding habits of aphidophagous insects in northeast India. Journal of Aphidology, 1: 18–22.Google Scholar
Aziz, S.A., Hyder, S.N., and Ali, M.H. 1970. Studies on the host preference of Coccinella septempunctata Linn. Indian Journal of Entomology, 2013: 350–353.Google Scholar
Bind, R.B. and Omkar, . 2004. Development and reproduction of Cheilomenes sexmaculata (Fabricius) (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) on three aphid species. Insect Environment, 9: 149–150.Google Scholar
Bueno, J. and Lopez-Urrutia, A. 2012. The offspring-development-time/offspring-number trade-off. American Nature, 179: 6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chau, A. and Mackauer, M. 1997. Dropping of pea aphids from feeding site: a consequence of parasitism by the wasp, Nonoctonus paulensis. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 43: 422–429.Google Scholar
Chen, F., Xie, X., and Li, Z. 2012. Partial survival and extinction of a delayed predator–prey model with stage structure. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 219: 4157–4162.Google Scholar
Colburn, R. and Asquith, D. 1970. A cage used to study the finding of a host by the ladybeetle, Stethorus punctum . Journal of Economic Entomology, 63: 1376–77.Google Scholar
Dixon, A.F.G. 2000. Insect predator–prey dynamics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 257 pp.Google Scholar
Gibson, R.L.N., Elliott, C., and Schaefer, P. 1992. Life history and development of Scymnus frontalis (Fabricius) (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) on four species of aphid. Journal of Kansas Entomological Society, 65: 410–415.Google Scholar
Gouws, E.J., Gaston, K.J., and Chown, S.L. 2011. Intraspecific body size frequency distributions of insects. PLOS One, 6: e16606.Google ScholarPubMed
Hodek, I. and Honek, A. 1996. Ecology of Coccinellidae. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. 464 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ishiguri, Y. and Toyoshima, S. 2006. Larval survival and development of the peach fruit moth, Carposina sasakii (Lepidoptera: Carposinidae), in picked and unpicked apple fruits. Applied Entomology and Zoology, 41: 685–690.Google Scholar
Kalaskar, A. and Evans, E.W. 2001. Larval responses of aphidophagous lady beetles (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) to weevil larvae versus aphids as prey. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 94: 76–81.Google Scholar
Kalushkov, P. and Hodek, I. 2004. The effect of thirteen species of aphids on some life history life parameters of the ladybird Coccinella septempunctata . Biocontrol, 49: 21–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuzawa, C.W. 2008. The developmental origins of adult health: intergenerational inertia in adaptation and disease. In Evolutionary Medicine and Health. Edited by W.R. Trevathan, E.O. Smith, and J.J. McKenna. Oxford University Press, New York, New York, United States of America. Pp. 325–349.Google Scholar
Lazarevic, J., Tucic, N., Jovanovic, D.S., Vecera, J., and Kodrik, D. 2012. The effects of selection for early and late reproduction on metabolite pools in Acanthoscelides obtectus Say. Insect Science, 19: 303–314.Google Scholar
Michaud, J.P. 2000. Development and reproduction of ladybeetles (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) on citrus aphids Aphis spiraecola Patch and Toxoptera citricida (Kirkaldy) (Homoptera: Aphididae). Biological Control, 18: 287–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaud, J.P. 2005. On the assessment of prey suitability in aphidophagous Coccinellidae. European Journal of Entomology, 102: 385.Google Scholar
Mishra, G. and Omkar, . 2012. Slow and fast development in ladybirds: occurrence, effects and significance. Web Ecology, 12: 19–26.Google Scholar
Morsy, T.A., Rahem, M.A., and Allam, K.A. 2001. Control of Musca domestica third-instar larvae by the latex of Calotropis procera (Family: Asclepiadaceae). Journal of the Egyptian Society of Parasitology, 31: 107–110.Google ScholarPubMed
Nyaanga, J.G., Kamau, A.W., Pathak, R.S., and Tuey, R.K. 2012. The effect of different cereal aphid species on the performance of two coccinellid predators. Journal of Entomology, 9: 41–49.Google Scholar
Obata, S. 1986. Mechanisms of prey finding in the aphidophagous ladybird beetle, Harmonia axyridis (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Entomophaga, 42: 103–106.Google Scholar
Omkar, and Bind, R.B. 2004. Prey quality–dependent growth, development and reproduction of a biocontrol agent, Cheilomenes sexmaculata (Fabricius) (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Biocontrol Science and Technology, 14: 665–673.Google Scholar
Omkar, , Kumar, G., and Sahu, J. 2011. Monotypic prey-mediated development, survival and life table attributes of a ladybird beetle Anegleis cardoni (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) on different aphid species. Integrated Journal of Tropical Insects, 31: 162–173.Google Scholar
Omkar, and Mishra, G. 2005. Preference-performance of a generalist predatory ladybird: a laboratory study. Biological Control, 34: 187–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pathak, S. 2008. Life attributes of an aphidophagous ladybird, Coelophora saucia (Mulsant). Ph.D. thesis. University of Lucknow, Lucknow, India.Google Scholar
Pervez, A. and Omkar, . 2004. Prey-dependent life attributes of an aphidophagous ladybird beetle, Propylea dissecta (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Biocontrol Science and Technology, 14: 385–396.Google Scholar
Rogers, C.E., Jackson, H.B., and Eikenbary, R.D. 1994. Responses of an imported coccinellid, Propylea punctate, to aphids associated with small grains in Oklahoma. Environmental Entomology, 1: 198–202.Google Scholar
Scannapieco, A.C., Sambucetti, P., and Norry, F.M. 2009. Direct and correlated responses to selection for longevity in Drosophila buzzatii . Biological Journal of Linnean Society, 97: 738–748.Google Scholar
Schoener, T.W. 1969. Optimal size and specialization in constant and fluctuating environments: an energy–time approach. Brookhaven Symposium in Biology, 22: 103–114.Google Scholar
Seiber, J.N., Nelson, C.J., and Lee, S.M. 1982. Cardenolides in the latex and leaves of seven Asclepias species and Calotropis procera . Phytochemistry, 21: 2343–2348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siddiqui, A., Omkar, , Paul, S.C., and Mishra, G. 2015. Predatory responses of selected lines of developmental variants of ladybird, Propylea dissecta (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), in relation to increasing prey and predator densities. Biocontrol Science and Technology, 25: 992–1010.Google Scholar
Singh, N. and Mishra, G. 2016. Slow and fast development in two aphidophagous ladybirds on scarce and abundant prey supply. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 106: 347–358.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soares, A.O., Coderre, D., and Schanderl, H. 2004. Dietary self-selection behaviour by the adults of the aphidophagous ladybeetle Harmonia axyridis (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Journal of Animal Ecology, 73: 478–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stamp, N.E. and Meyerhoefer, B. 2004. Effects of prey quality on social wasps when given a choice of prey. Entomologia Experimentalist et Applicata, 110: 45–51.Google Scholar