Skip to main content
Log in

Evidence for spatial niche partitioning in predaceous aphidophaga: Use of plant colour as a cue

Différentiation spatiale de niche chez des aphidiphages prédateurs: la couleur de la plante comme critère de sélection

  • Published:
BioControl Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A field experiment involving aphid-free control and nutrient-stressed plants of 5 maize (Zea mays L.) genotypes was conducted to determine if predaceous aphidophaga use plant cues, such as colour, to select plants on which to forage. Nutrient stress resulted in plants lighter in colour (Yellow) than control plants in all the maize genotypes. Coccinellids were significantly more abundant on yellow plants than on greener control plants whereas chrysopids were significantly more numerous on controls in 3 out of 5 maize genotypes. These two groups of predators may use plant colour to partition habitat spatially and exploit their aphid prey while minimizing intraguild interactions.

Résumé

Une expérience de terrain avec des plants de maïs (Zea mays L.) de 5 génotypes différents et non infestés par des pucerons a été menée afin de déterminer si les prédateurs aphidiphages utilisaient un critère particulier pour choisir un plant. Plus précisément, l’intérêt était de savoir si les prédateurs étaient capables de discriminer entre des plants nutritionnellement stressés et des plants normalement fertilisés, étant donné que des carences nutritionnelles conduisent à des plants en apparence plus pâles (jaune). Des différences significatives ont effectivement été trouvées dans les choix qu’ont faits les prédateurs. Les coccinelles étaient plus abondantes sur les plants stressés que sur les plants non stressés alors que les chrysopes étaient plus nombreux sur les plants non stressés d’au moins 3 des 5 génotypes utilisés. Il est suggéré que les deux groupes de prédateurs se servent de la couleur des plants afin d’exploiter différentiellement dans l’espace les colonies de pucerons présentes dans un habitat donné. De cette façon, ces deux groupes de prédateurs minimisent les effets négatifs des interactions intraguildes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Banks, C. J. — 1957. The behaviour of individual coccinellid larvae on plants. —Brit. J. Anim. Behav., 5, 12–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boethel, D. J. &Eikenbary, R. D. (eds) — 1986. Interactions of plant resistance and parasitoids and predators of insects. —Ellis Horwood Limited, Chichester, 224 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braimah, H. &van Emden, H. F. — 1994. The role of the plant in host acceptance by the parasitoidAphidius rhopalosiphi (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). —Bull. Entomol. Res., 84, 303–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, M. C., Sutherland, D. &Dixon, A. F. G. — 1984. Plant structure and the searching efficiency of coccinellid larvae. —Oecologia, 63, 394–397.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Coderre, D., Provencher, L. &Tourneur, J.-C. — 1987. Oviposition and niche partitioning in aphidophagous insects on maize. —Can. Entomol., 119, 195–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coderre, D. — 1981. La bio-écologie de l’entomofaune prédatrice des populations aphidiennes du maïs-grain à St-Hyacinthe, Québec.M. Sc. thesis. Université du Québec à Montréal, 183 p.

  • Coderre, D. — 1983. Écologie des espèces aphidiennes et aphidiphages inféodées au maïs de la région sud du Québec.Ph. D. thesis. Université de Sherbrooke, 248 p.

  • Connell, J. H. — 1980. Diversity and the coevolution of competitors, or the ghost of competition past. —Oïkos, 35,131–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixon, A. F. G. — 1985. Aphid ecology.Blackie, Glasgow, 157 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferran, A. &Dixon, A. F. G. — 1993. Foraging behaviour of ladybird larvae (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). —Eur. J. Entomol., 90, 383–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hemptinne, J.-L., Dixon, A. F. G. &Coffin, J. — 1992. Attack strategy of ladybird beetles (Coccinellidae): factors shaping their numerical response. —Oecologia, 90, 238–245.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hemptinne, J.-L., Dixon, A. F. G., Doucet, J.-L. &Petersen, J.-E. — 1993. Optimal foraging by hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae) and ladybirds (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae): mechanisms. —Eur. Entomol., 90, 451–455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Honek, A. — 1985. Habitat preferences of aphidophagous coccinellids (Coleoptera). —BioControl, 30, 253–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, E., Coderre, D. &Brodeur, J. — 1997. Instar-specific defense ofColeomegilla maculata lengi (Coccinellidae): influence on attack success of the intraguild predatorChrysoperla rufilabris (Chrysopidae). —BioControl 42 (1/2), 3–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordlund, D. A., Lewis, W. J., &Altieri, M. A. — 1988. Influences of plant produced allelochemicals on the host and prey selection behavior of entomophagous insects. In: Novel aspects of insect-plant interactions (P. Barbosa &D.K. Letourneau, eds). —Wiley, New York, 65–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Obrycki, J. J. — 1986. The influence of foliar pubescence on entomophagous species. In: Interactions of plant resistance and parasitoids and predators of insects (D. J. Boethel &R. D. Eikenbary, eds). —Ellis Horwood Limited, Chichester, 61–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W. &Zhi- li, Z. — 1983. The reactions of two cereal aphid parasitoids,Aphidius uzbekistanicus andA. ervi to host aphids and their food-plants. —Phys. Entomol., 8, 439–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, P. W., Bouton, C. E., Gross, P., McPheron, B. A., Thompson, J. N. &Weis, A. E. — 1980. Interactions among three trophic levels: influence of plants on interactions between insect herbivores and natural enemies. —Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 11, 41–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prokopy, R. J. &Owens, E. D. — 1983. Visual detection of plants by herbivorous insects. —Ann. Rev. Entomol., 28, 337–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricci, C. — 1986. Beneficial Coccinellidae caught in yellow traps in some italian regions. In: Ecology of Aphidophaga (I. Hodek, ed). —Academia, Praha, 311–447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruzicka, Z. — 1994. Oviposition-deterring pheromone inChrysopa oculata (Neuroptera: Chrysopidea). —Eur. J. Entomol., 91, 361–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruzicka, Z. — 1996. Oviposition-deterring pheromone in Chrysopidae (Neuroptera): intraspecific and interspecific effects. —Eur. J. Entomol., 93, 161–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • SAS — 1987. SAS Procedures, version 6.04,SAS Institute, Cary.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinson, S. B. — 1976. Host selection by insect parasitoids. —Ann. Rev. Entomol., 21, 109–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitman, D. W. &Eller, F. J. — 1992. Orientation ofMicroplitis croceipes (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) to green leaf volatiles: dose-response curves. —J. Chem. Ecol., 18, 1743–1753.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lorenzetti, F., Arnason, J.T., Philogène, B.J.R. et al. Evidence for spatial niche partitioning in predaceous aphidophaga: Use of plant colour as a cue. BioControl 42, 49–56 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02769879

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02769879

Key-Words

Navigation