Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T23:10:15.327Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of ant community structure (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in citrus orchards under chemical and biological control of red scale, Aonidiella aurantii(Maskell) (Hemiptera: Diaspididae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

M. J. Samways
M. J. Samways
Affiliation:
Citrus & Subtropical Fruit Research Institute, Private Bag X11208, Nelspruit 1200, South Africa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Epigaeic ants were sampled by pitfall trapping in three South African citrus orchards supporting low levels of Aonidiella aurantii(Mask.). All three were similar except that chemical control of the scale was in progress in one, biological control in the second, while the third was in transition from chemical to biological control. Within-orchard variation was statistically zero at the chemical and biological control sites, both of which had constant species abundances and rank-abundance sequences throughout. Within the transition site, rank-abundance sequences were constant but species abundancies varied. Despite the statistical constancy of rank, within-orchard samples at the transition and chemical control sites varied in their dominant ants. The biological control site was dominated throughout by Pheidole megacephala(F.). Individuals of the dominant species made up between 59 and 69% of the total, and as the dominant species varied, this high figure suggested strong interspecific competition. Log-normal models were fitted to the site rank-abundance plots. The interquartile index, Q, was higher when based on an underlying log-series model (α) than on a log-normal one; it was about 2·0, which is low compared with most other studies. The total numbers of individuals and species of ants were higher in the biological control than chemical control orchard. Diversity, as measured by α or Q log-normalwas lowest in the chemical control site, medium in the biological controlone, and highest in the transition site. Between-site variation showedvariation in general ant abundance. As with the within-orchard results, those between orchards were relatively constant. Ant management in relation to community structure is critically appraised on the basis of limiting factors (especially abundance of honeydew as food for potentially dominant ants) and rank-abundance sequences.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 71 , Issue 4 , December 1981 , pp. 663 - 670
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

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

Bedford, E. C. G. (1980). Integrated control of citrus pests successful in the Lowveld.— Subtropica 1, 15–17.Google Scholar
Bedford, E. C. G. & Georgala, M. B. (1978). Red scale Aonidiella aurantii(Mask.).—pp. 109–118in Bedford, E. C. G. (Ed.). Citrus pests in the Republic of South Africa.—253 pp. Pretoria, Department of Agricultural Technical Services.Google Scholar
Brian, M. V., Mountford, M. D., Abbott, A. & Vincent, S. (1976). The changes in ant species distribution during ten years post-fire regeneration of a heath.—J. anim.Ecol. 45, 115–133.Google Scholar
Compere, H. (1961). The red scale and its insect enemies.—Hilgardia 31, 173–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanders, S. E. (1945). Coincident infestations of Aonidiella citrinaand Coccus hesperidum,a result of ant activity.—J. econ. Ent. 38, 711–712.Google Scholar
Gauch, H. G. & Chase, G. B. (1974). Fitting the Gaussian curve to ecological data.—Ecology 55, 1377–1381.Google Scholar
Ghent, A. W. (1963). Kendall's “ Tau ” coefficient as an index of similarity in comparisons of plant or animal communities.—Can. Ent. 95, 568–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, R. H. (1979). Sampling design and statistical methods for environmental biologists.—257 pp. New York, Wiley.Google Scholar
Jansen, M. J. W. & Metz, J. J. J. (1979). How many victims will a pitfall make?—Acta biotheor. 28, 98–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeanne, R. L. (1979). A latitudinal gradient in rates of ant predation.—Ecology 60, 1211–1224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempton, R. A. & Taylor, L. R. (1976). Models and statistics for species diversity.—Nature, Lond. 262, 818–820.Google Scholar
Kempton, R. A. & Wedderburn, R. W. M. (1978). A comparison of three measures of diversity.—Biometrics 34, 25–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leston, D. (1973). The ant mosaic—tropical tree crops and the limiting of pests and diseases.—PANS 19, 311–341.Google Scholar
Lynch, J. F., Balinsky, E. C. & Vail, S. G. (1980). Foraging patterns in three sympatric ant species, Prenolepis imparis, Paratrechina melanderiand A phaenogaster rudis(Hymenoptera: Formicidae).—Ecol. Entomol. 5, 353–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Majer, J. D. (1978). An improved pitfall trap for sampling ants and other epigaeic invertebrates.—J. Aust. entomol. Soc. 17, 261–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nel, J. J. C., De Lange, L. & Van Ark, H. (1979). Resistance of citrus red scale, Aonidiella aurantii(Mask.), to insecticides.—J. ent. Soc. sth. Afr. 42, 275–281.Google Scholar
Samways, M. J., Weaving, A. J. S. & Nel, M. (1981). Efficacy of chemical and sticky banding in preventing ants entering guava trees.—Subtropica 2 (3), 3 pp.Google Scholar
Southwood, T. R. E. (1978).Ecological methods. 2nd ed.—524 pp. London, Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Steyn, J. J. (1954 a). The effect of the cosmopolitan brown house ant (pheidole megacephalaF.) on citrus red scale (Aonidiella aurantiiMask.) at Letaba.—J. ent. Soc. sth. Afr. 17, 252–264.Google Scholar
Steyn, J. J. (1954 b). The pugnacious ant (Anoplolepis custodiensSmith) and its relation to the control of citrus scales at Letaba.—Mem. ent. Soc. sth. Afr. no. 3, 96 pp.Google Scholar
Steyn, J. J. (1955). The effect of mixed ant populations on red scale (Aonidiella aurantiiMask.) on citrus at Letaba.—J. ent. Soc. sth. Afr. 18, 93–105.Google Scholar
Taylor, L. R. (1978). Bates, Williams, Hutchinson—a variety of diversities.—pp. 1–18in Mound, L. A. & Waloff, N. (Eds.).Diversity of insect faunas.—204 pp. Oxford,Blackwell. (Symp. R. ent. Soc. Lond. no. 9.)Google Scholar
Taylor, L. R., Kempton, R. A. & Woiwod, I. P. (1976). Diversity statistics and the logseries model.—J. anim. Ecol. 45, 255–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullyett, G. C. (1938). Ants and beneficial insects.— Fmg S. Afr. 13, 120.Google Scholar
Whittaker, R. H. (1977). Evolution of species diversity in land communities.—Evol. Biol. 10, 1–67.Google Scholar