Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:28:10.109Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Resource partitioning in a ladybird, Menochilus sexmaculatus: function of body size and prey density

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 December 2014

D.D. Chaudhary ,
B. Kumar ,
G. Mishra  and
Omkar
D.D. Chaudhary
Affiliation:
Ladybird Research Laboratory, Department of Zoology, University of Lucknow, Lucknow 226 007, India
B. Kumar
Affiliation:
Ladybird Research Laboratory, Department of Zoology, University of Lucknow, Lucknow 226 007, India
G. Mishra
Affiliation:
Ladybird Research Laboratory, Department of Zoology, University of Lucknow, Lucknow 226 007, India
Omkar*
Affiliation:
Ladybird Research Laboratory, Department of Zoology, University of Lucknow, Lucknow 226 007, India
*
*Author for correspondence Phone: +919415757747 Fax: +915222740467 E-mail: omkaar55@hotmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the present study, resource partitioning by natural conspecific size variants (small and large) of ladybird, Menochilus sexmaculatus (Fabricius) females, in response to varying prey densities was assessed using functional and numerical responses as measures of prey density. The prey provided was small (second) and large (fourth) instars of Aphis craccivora Koch. Results revealed that under choice condition, small and large females of M. sexmaculatus consumed higher number of small and large instars, respectively. Small females exhibited a modified Type II functional response on small aphid instars and a Type II functional response on fourth aphid instars. Large females exhibited a Type II functional response when provided either second or fourth aphid instars. Numerical response in terms of numbers of eggs laid by both the females increased with increase in the density of either of the aphid instars. However, in small females, oviposition had a positive correlation with the numbers of small and large aphid instars consumed; being strong for the small aphid instars. While in large females, oviposition was positively correlated with the numbers of large aphid instars consumed and not small aphid instars. It therefore seems that intraspecific resource partitioning in M. sexmaculatus occurs prominently in large females than the small females.

Keywords

ladybirdsresource partitioningfunctional responsenumerical response
Type
Research Papers
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 105 , Issue 1 , February 2015 , pp. 121 - 128
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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

Abdollahi, A.G., Afshari, A., Baniameri, V., Dadpour, H., Asadeh, G. & Yazdanian, M. (2010) Functional response of fourth larval instars and female adults of Cryptolaemus montrouzieri Mulsant (Col.: Coccinellidae) to citrus mealybug, Planococcus citri (Risso) (Hom.: Pseudococcidae) in laboratory conditions. In: Proceedings of the 19th Iranian Plant Protection Congress. pp. 1–69.Google Scholar
Agarwala, B.K. & Yasuda, H. (2000) Competitive ability of ladybird predators of aphids: a review of Cheilomenes sexmaculata (Fabr.) (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) with a worldwide checklist of prey. Journal of Aphidology 14, 1–20.Google Scholar
Agarwala, B.K., Das, S. & Bhaumik, A.K. (1987) Natural food range and feeding habits of aphidophagous insects in north east India. Journal of Aphidology 1, 18–22.Google Scholar
Bayoumy, M.H. (2011 a) Foraging behavior of the coccinellids Nephus includes (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) in response to Aphis gossypii (Hemiptera: Aphididae) with particular emphasis on larval parasitism. Environmental Entomology 40, 835–843.Google Scholar
Bayoumy, M.H. (2011 b) Functional response of the aphelinid parasitoid, Aphytis diaspidis: effect of host scale species, Diaspidiotus perniciosus and Hemiberlesia lataniae . Acta Phytopathologica et Entomologica Hungarica 46, 101–113.Google Scholar
Bayoumy, M.H. & 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
Costa, G.C. (2009) Predator size, prey size, and dietary niche breadth relationships in marine predators. Ecology 90, 2014–2019.Google Scholar
Costamagna, A.C., Landis, D.A. & Difonzo, C.D. (2007) Suppression of soybean aphid by generalist predators results in a trophic cascade in soybeans. Ecological Applications 17, 441–451.Google Scholar
Dixon, A.F.G. (2000) Insect Predator-Prey Dynamics: Ladybird Beetles and Biological Control. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 257 pp.Google Scholar
Dixon, A.F.G. (2007) Body size and resource partitioning in ladybirds. Population Ecology 49, 45–50.Google Scholar
Evans, E.W. (2000) Egg production in response to combined alternative food by the predator Coccinella transversalis . Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 94(2), 141–147.Google Scholar
Fathipour, Y., Hosseini, A., Talebi, A. & Moharramipour, S. (2006) Functional response and mutual interference of Diaeretiella rapae (Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae) on Brevicoryne brassicae (Homoptera: Aphididae). Acta Entomologica Fennica 17, 90–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grez, A.A., Rivera, P. & Zaviezo, T. (2007) Foliar and ground-foraging predators of aphids associated with alfalfa crops in Chile: are they good or bad partners? Biocontrol Science and Technology 17, 1071–1077.Google Scholar
Grez, A.A., Zaviezo, T. & 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 Experimentalis et Applicata 139, 1–7.Google Scholar
Grez, A.A., Viera, B. & 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 Experimentalis et Applicata 142, 36–44.Google Scholar
Gupta, R.K., Pervez, A., Guroo, M.A. & 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
Holling, C.S. (1959) Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism. The Canadian Entomologist 91, 385–398.Google Scholar
Honek, A. (1978) Trophic regulation of postdiapause ovarioles maturation in Coccinella septempunctata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Entomophaga 23(3), 213–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juliano, S.A. (2001) Nonlinear curve fitting: predation and functional response curves. pp. 159–182 in Cheiner, S.M. & Gurven, J. (Eds) Design and Analysis of Ecological Experiments. 2nd edn. London, Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Kumar, B., Pandey, G., Mishra, G. & Omkar, (2013) Predatory performance of aphidophagous ladybirds: a measure of prey suitability? International Journal of Tropical Insect Science 33(2), 120–126.Google Scholar
Kumar, B., Mishra, G. & Omkar, (2014) Functional response and predatory interactions within conspecific and heterospecific guilds of two congeneric species (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). European Journal of Entomology 111(2), 257–265.Google Scholar
Losey, J.E. & Denno, R.F. (1998) Positive predator-predator interactions: enhanced predation rates and synergistic suppression of aphid populations. Ecology 79, 2143–2152.Google Scholar
Losey, J.E. & Denno, R.F. (1999) Factors facilitating synergistic predation: the central role of synchrony. Ecological Applications 9, 378–386.Google Scholar
Luck, R.F. (1985) Principles of arthropod predation. pp. 497–530 in Huffaker, C.B. & Rabb, R.L. (Eds) Ecological Entomology. New York, Wiley.Google Scholar
Mishra, G., Kumar, B., Shahid, M., Singh, D. & Omkar, (2011) Evaluation of four co-occuring ladybirds for use as biocontrol agents of pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum (Homoptera: Aphididae). Biocontrol Science and Technology 21, 991–997.Google Scholar
Mishra, G., Omkar, , Kumar, B. & Pandey, G. (2012) Stage and age-specific predation in four aphidophagous ladybird beetles. Biocontrol Science and Technology 22, 463–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Omkar, & Kumar, G. (2013) Responses of an aphidophagous ladybird beetle, Anegleis cardoni, to varying densities of Aphis gossypii . Journal of Insect Science 13, 24. doi:10.1673/031. 013.2401.Google Scholar
Omkar, & Pervez, A. (2000) Biodiversity of predaceous coccinellids (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) in India: a review. Journal of Aphidology 14, 41–67.Google Scholar
Omkar, & Pervez, A. (2004) Functional and numerical responses of Propylea dissecta (Mulsant) (Col., Coccinellidae). Journal of Applied Entomology 128(2), 140–146.Google Scholar
Omkar, & Pervez, A. (2011) Functional response of two aphidophagous ladybirds searching in tandem. Biocontrol Science and Technology 21, 101–111.Google Scholar
Omkar, & Srivastava, S. (2003) Functional response of seven spotted ladybeetle, Coccinella septempunctata Linnaeus for mustard aphid Lipaphis erysimi (Kaltenbach). Insect Science and its Application 23(2), 149–152.Google Scholar
Omkar, , Mishra, G., Srivastava, S., Gupta, A.K. & 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
Omkar, , Mishra, G., Kumar, B., Singh, N., & 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.Google Scholar
Osman, M.A. & 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.Google Scholar
Rhamhalinghan, M. (1987) Feeding behaviour of Coccinella septempunctata L. var. confusa Wiedemann (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) in relation to temperature. I. Pre-oviposition period. Journal of Entomological Research. 11, 178–183.Google Scholar
Roger, D. (1972) Random search and insect population models. Journal of Animal Ecology 41, 369–383.Google Scholar
Sabaghi, R., Sahragard, A. & Hosseini, R. (2011) Functional and numerical responses of Scymnus syriacus Marseul (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) to the black bean aphid, Aphis fabae Scopoli (Hemiptera: Aphididae) under laboratory conditions. Journal of Plant Protection Research 51(4), 423–428.Google Scholar
Sarmento, R.A., Pallini, A., Venzon, M., Desouza, O., Molina-Rugama, A.J. & Oliveira, C.L. (2007) Functional response of the predator, Eriopis connexa (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) to different prey types. Brazillian Archives of Biology and Technology 50, 121–126.Google Scholar
Sloggett, J.J. (2008 a) Weighty matters: body size, diet and specialization in aphidophagous ladybird beetles (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). European Journal of Entomology 105, 381–389.Google Scholar
Sloggett, J.J. (2008 b) Habitat and dietary specificity in aphidophagous ladybirds (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae): explaining specialization. Proceedings of the Netherlands Entomological Society Meeting 19, 95–113.Google Scholar
Snyder, W.E. (2009) Coccinellids in diverse communities: which niche fits? Biological Control 51, 323–335.Google Scholar
Snyder, W.E. & Ives, A.R. (2003) Interactions between specialist and generalist natural enemies: parasitoids, predators, and pea aphid biocontrol. Ecology 84, 91–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephens, D.W. & Krebs, J.R. (1986) Foraging Theory. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Tulli, M.C., Carmona, D.M. & Vincini, A.M. (2013) Influence of plant diversity on the numerical response of Eriopis connexa (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) to changes in cereal aphid density in wheat crops. International Journal of Ecology ID 789532, 1–8.Google Scholar
Watt, K.E.F. (1959) A mathematical model for the effect of densities of attacked and attacking species on the number attacked. The Canadian Entomologist 91, 129–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar