Advertisement

Laboratory and glasshouse evaluation of the green lacewing, Chrysopa pallens (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) against the western flower thrips, Frankliniella occidentalis (Thysanoptera: Thripidae)

  • Shovon Chandra Sarkar
  • Endong Wang
  • Zhike Zhang
  • Shengyong WuEmail author
  • Zhongren LeiEmail author
Original Research Paper
  • 51 Downloads

Abstract

Western flower thrips, Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande) (Thysanoptera: Thripidae), is an important invasive polyphagous pest in vegetable and ornamental crops. The increasing resistance to chemical insecticides in F. occidentalis has resulted in heightened interest in alternative control methods including the generalist entomophagous predator Chrysopa pallens (Rambur) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). The first part of this study evaluated the prey capacity of the three larval instars of C. pallens on F. occidentalis larvae, using functional responses. The C. pallens larvae exhibited a type III functional response to the F. occidentalis larvae. When offered 80 thrips larvae, 34–41 were consumed by a single C. pallens larvae within 24 h. The second part examined the effects of releasing C. pallens to control F. occidentalis on glasshouse-cultivated cucumber plants. In comparison with the control, releases of C. pallens larvae at densities of 2, 4, 8, and 16 per plant led to a reduction in F. occidentalis by 11%, 39%, 59%, and 68% of the larvae and 12%, 43%, 58%, and 68% of the adults, respectively, after 5 weeks. Our results suggested that the C. pallens may be an effective biological control agent for use against F. occidentalis.

Keywords

Chrysopa pallens Frankliniella occidentalis Functional response Glasshouse cucumber Biological control 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Dr. Cecil L. Smith, University of Georgia, USA, for helping with the language editing of the manuscript. This work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (Grant no. 2016YFC1201200) and the China Agriculture Research System (CARS-23-D-08).

References

  1. Balduf WV (1974) The bionomics of entomophagous insects. Part II. Order Neuroptera. EW Classey, London, pp 214–355Google Scholar
  2. Bao JZ, Gu JZ (1998) Chinese biological control. Shanxi Science Technology Press, Taiyuan, ShanxiGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennison JA, Maulden KA, Wardlow LR (1998) Novel strategies for improving biological control of western flower thrips on protected ornamentals—potential new biological control agents. Proc BCPC Conf Pest Dis 1:193–198Google Scholar
  4. Boatman ND, Parry HR, Bishop JD, Cuthbertson AG (2007) Impacts of agricultural change on farmland biodiversity in the UK. In: Hester RE, Harrison RM (eds) Biodiversity under threat. RSC Publishing, Cambridge, pp 1–32Google Scholar
  5. Brødsgaard HF (2004) Biological control of thrips on ornamental crops. In: Heinz KM, Driesche RG, Parella MP (eds) Biocontrol in protected culture. Ball Publishing, Batavia, pp 253–264Google Scholar
  6. Byeon YW, Tuda M, Kim JH, Choi MY (2011) Functional responses of aphid parasitoids, Aphidius colemani (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) and Aphelinus asychis (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae). Biocontrol Sci Technol 21:57–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Daane KM, Hagen KS, Mills NJ (1998) Predaceous insects for insects and mite control. In: Ridgway RL, Hoffmann MP, Inscoe MN, Glenister CS (eds) Mass-reared natural enemies: application, regulation, and needs. Thomas Say Publications in Entomological Society of America, Lanham, pp 61–115Google Scholar
  8. German TL, Ullman DE, Moyer JW (1992) Tospoviruses: diagnosis, molecular biology, phylogeny, and vector relationships. Annu Rev Phytopathol 30:315–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hagley EAC, Miles N (1987) Release of Chrysoperla carnea Stephens (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) for control of Tetranychus urticae Koch (Acarina: Tetranychidae) on peach grown in a protected environment structure. Can Entomol 119:205–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hassan SA, Klingauf F, Shahin F (1985) Role of Chrysopa carnea as an aphid predator on sugar beet and the effect of pesticides. J Appl Entomol 100:163–174Google Scholar
  11. Hassanpour M, Mohaghegh J, Iranipour S, Nouri-Ganbalani G, Enkegaard A (2011) Functional response of Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) to Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae): effect of prey and predator stages. Insect Sci 18:217–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hassanpour M, Nouri-Ganbalani G, Mohaghegh J, Enkegaard A (2009) Functional response of different larval instars of the green lacewing, Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae), to the two-spotted spider mite, Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae). J Food Agric Environ 7:424–428Google Scholar
  13. Hassell MP (1978) The dynamics of arthropod predator-prey systems. Princeton University Press, Princeton, p 248Google Scholar
  14. Holling CS (1959) The components of predation as revealed by a study of small-mammal predation of the European pine sawfly. Can Entomol 91:293–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Huang N, Enkegaard A (2010) Predation capacity and prey preference of Chrysoperla carnea on Pieris brassicae. Biocontrol 55:379–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hydorn SB (1971) Food preferences of Chrysopa rufilabris Burmeister in north central Florida. Doctoral dissertation, University of FloridaGoogle Scholar
  17. Jensen SE (2000) Mechanisms associated with methiocarb resistance in Frankliniella occidentalis (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). J Econ Entomol 93:464–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jonsson M, Wratten SD, Landis DA, Gurr GM (2008) Recent advances in conservation biological control of arthropods by arthropods. Biol Control 45:172–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Juliano SA (2001) Non-linear curve fitting: predation and functional response curves. In: Scheiner SM, Gurevitch J (eds) Design and analysis of ecological experiments. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 159–182Google Scholar
  20. Khan I, Morse JG (1999a) Field evaluation of Chrysoperla spp. as predators of citrus thrips. Sarhad J Agric 15:607–610Google Scholar
  21. Khan I, Morse JG (1999b) Laboratory studies on evaluation of Chrysoperla spp. as predators of citrus thrips. Sarhad J Agric 15:459–465Google Scholar
  22. Kirk WD, Terry LI (2003) The spread of the western flower thrips Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande). Agric For Entomol 5:301–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Klingen I, Johansen NS, Hofsvang T (1996) The predation of Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) on eggs and larvae of Mamestra brassicae (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J Appl Entomol 120:363–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Li DX, Tian J, Shen ZR (2007) Functional response of the predator Scolothrips takahashii to hawthorn spider mite, Tetranychus viennensis: effect of age and temperature. Biocontrol 52:41–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Liang XH, Lei ZR, Wen JZ, Zhu ML (2010) The diurnal flight activity and influential factors of Frankliniella occidentalis in the greenhouse. Insect Sci 17:535–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Liu C, Mao J, Zeng F (2015) Chrysopa septempunctata (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) vitellogenin functions through effects on egg production and hatching. J Econ Entomol 108:2779–2788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Liu S, Wang S, Liu BM, Zhou CQ, Zhang F (2011) The predation function response and predatory behavior observation of Chrysopa pallens larva to Bemisia tabaci. Sci Agric Sin 6:010Google Scholar
  28. Mahdian K, Tirry L, De Clercq P (2007) Functional response of Picromerus bidens: effects of host plant. J Appl Entomol 131:160–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Miller GL, Oswald JD, Miller DR (2004) Lacewings and scale insects: a review of predator/prey associations between the Neuropterida and Coccoidea (Insecta: Neuroptera, Raphidioptera, Hemiptera). Ann Entomol Soc Am 97:1103–1125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Morse JG, Hoddle MS (2006) Invasion biology of thrips. Annu Rev Entomol 51:67–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Murdoch WW, Oaten A (1975) Predation and population stability. Adv Ecol Res 9:1–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. New TR (1975) The biology of Chrysopidae and Hemerobiidae (Neuroptera), with reference to their usage as biocontrol agents: a review. Ecol Entomol 127:115–140Google Scholar
  33. Nordlund DA, Vacek DC, Ferro DN (1991) Predation of Colorado potato beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) eggs and larvae by Chrysoperla rufilabris (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) larvae in the laboratory and field cages. J Entomol Sci 26:443–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Omkar PA (2005) Functional responses of coccinellid predators: an illustration of a logistic approach. J Insect Sci 5:1–6Google Scholar
  35. Pappu HR, Jones RAC, Jain RK (2009) Global status of tospovirus epidemics in diverse cropping systems: successes achieved and challenges ahead. Virus Res 141:219–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Principi MM, Canard M (1984) Feeding habits. In: Canard M, Séméria Y, New TR (eds) Biology of chrysopidae. Junk Publishers, The Hague, pp 76–92Google Scholar
  37. Reitz SR (2009) Biology and ecology of the western flower thrips (Thysanoptera: Thripidae): The making of a pest. Fla Entomol 92:7–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Reitz SR, Gao YL, Lei ZR (2011) Thrips: pests of concern to China and the United States. Agric Sci China 10:867–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rogers MA, Krischik VA, Martin LA (2007) Effect of soil application of imidacloprid on survival of adult green lacewing, Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae), used for biological control in greenhouse. Biol Control 42:172–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schenk D, Bacher S (2002) Functional response of a generalist insect predator to one of its prey species in the field. J Anim Ecol 71:524–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shrestha G, Enkegaard A, Giray T (2013) The green lacewing, Chrysoperla carnea: preference between lettuce aphids, Nasonovia ribisnigri, and western flower thrips, Frankliniella occidentalis. J Insect Sci 13:94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Symondson WOC, Sunderland KD, Greenstone MH (2002) Can generalist predators be effective biocontrol agents? Annu Rev Entomol 47:561–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tauber MJ, Tauber CA, Daane KM, Hagen KS (2000) Commercialization of predators: recent lessons from green lacewings (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae: Chrysoperla). Am Entomol 46:26–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Trexler JC, McCulloch CE, Travis J (1988) How can functional response best be determined? Oecologia 76:206–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Trexler JC, Travis J (1993) Nontraditional regression analysis. Ecology 74:1629–1637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Webster CG, Reitz SR, Perry KL, Adkins S (2011) A natural mRNA reassortant arising from two species of plant-and insect-infecting bunya viruses and comparison of its sequence and biological properties to parental species. Virology 413:216–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wiedenmann RN, O'Neil RJ (1991) Laboratory measurement of the functional response of Podisus maculiventris (Say) (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae). Environ Entomol 20:610–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wu SY, Zhang ZK, Gao YL, Xu XN, Lei ZR (2016) Interactions between foliage-and soil-dwelling predatory mites and consequences for biological control of Frankliniella occidentalis. Biocontrol 61:717–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wyckhuys KA, Lu Y, Morales H, Vazquez LL, Legaspi JC, Eliopoulos PA, Hernandez LM (2013) Current status and potential of conservation biological control for agriculture in the developing world. Biol Control 65:152–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Xu XN, Borgemeister C, Poehling HM (2005) Biocontrol of wester flower thrips Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande) by combined releases of plant-inhabiting predatory mite, Amblyseius cucumeris Oudemans or bug, Orius insidious Say with Soil-dwelling mite, Hypoaspis Aculeifer Canestrini. China Agriculture Science Technology Press, Beijing, pp 35–40Google Scholar
  51. Yang XK (1998) Discussion on the scientific name of Chrysopa pallens (Rambur) and related questions. Acta Ecol Sin 41:106–107Google Scholar
  52. Zamani AA, Talebi AA, Fathipour Y, Baniameri V (2006) Temperature-dependent functional response of two aphid parasitoids, Aphidius colemani and Aphidius matricariae (Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae), on the cotton aphid. J Pest Sci 79:183–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zhao Q, Chen J, Liu FX, Xiao WF, Peng Y (2008) Predation of Chrysopa pallens on Myzus persicae and Aphis nerii. J Environ Entomol 3:005Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Society of Applied Entomology and Zoology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Key Laboratory for Biology of Plant Diseases and Insect Pests, Institute of Plant ProtectionChinese Academy of Agricultural SciencesBeijingPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Institute of Plant ProtectionNingxia Academy of Agriculture and Forestry SciencesYinchuanPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations