Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T09:04:17.510Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do functional traits improve prediction of predation rates for a disparate group of aphid predators?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2008

J.R. Bell ,
A. Mead ,
D.J. Skirvin ,
K.D. Sunderland ,
J.S. Fenlon  and
W.O.C. Symondson
J.R. Bell*
Affiliation:
Rothamsted Research, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, AL5 2JQ, UK Warwick HRI, University of Warwick, Wellesbourne, Warwick, CV35 9EF, UK Cardiff School of Biosciences, Cardiff University, Biomedical Sciences Building, Museum Avenue, Cardiff CF10 3US, UK
A. Mead
Affiliation:
Warwick HRI, University of Warwick, Wellesbourne, Warwick, CV35 9EF, UK
D.J. Skirvin
Affiliation:
Warwick HRI, University of Warwick, Wellesbourne, Warwick, CV35 9EF, UK
K.D. Sunderland
Affiliation:
Warwick HRI, University of Warwick, Wellesbourne, Warwick, CV35 9EF, UK
J.S. Fenlon
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK
W.O.C. Symondson
Affiliation:
Cardiff School of Biosciences, Cardiff University, Biomedical Sciences Building, Museum Avenue, Cardiff CF10 3US, UK
*
*Author for correspondence Fax: +44(0)1582 760981 E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aphid predators are a systematically disparate group of arthropods united on the basis that they consume aphids as part of their diet. In Europe, this group includes Araneae, Opiliones, Heteroptera, chrysopids, Forficulina, syrphid larvae, carabids, staphylinids, cantharids and coccinellids. This functional group has no phylogenetic meaning but was created by ecologists as a way of understanding predation, particularly for conservation biological control. We investigated whether trait-based approaches could bring some cohesion and structure to this predator group. A taxonomic hierarchy-based null model was created from taxonomic distances in which a simple multiplicative relationship described the Linnaean hierarchies (species, genera, etc.) of fifty common aphid predators. Using the same fifty species, a functional groups model was developed using ten behavioural traits (e.g. polyphagy, dispersal, activity, etc.) to describe the way in which aphids were predated in the field. The interrelationships between species were then expressed as dissimilarities within each model and separately analysed using PROXSCAL, a multidimensional scaling (MDS) program. When ordinated using PROXSCAL and then statistically compared using Procrustes analysis, we found that only 17% of information was shared between the two configurations. Polyphagy across kingdoms (i.e. predatory behaviour across animal, plant and fungi kingdoms) and the ability to withstand starvation over days, weeks and months were particularly divisive within the functional groups model. Confirmatory MDS indicated poor prediction of aphid predation rates by the configurations derived from either model. The counterintuitive conclusion was that the inclusion of functional traits, pertinent to the way in which predators fed on aphids, did not lead to a large improvement in the prediction of predation rate when compared to the standard taxonomic approach.

Keywords

behavioural traitsconfirmatory MDSfunctional groupsProcrustes analysisPROXSCALmultidimensional scaling (MDS)
Type
Research Paper
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 98 , Issue 6 , December 2008 , pp. 587 - 597
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Cambridge University Press

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

Agustí, N., Shayler, S., Harwood, J.D., Vaughan, I.P., Sunderland, K.D. & Symondson, W.O.C. (2003) Collembola as alternative prey sustaining spiders in arable ecosystems: prey detection within predators using molecular markers. Molecular Ecology 12, 3467–3475.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ambrosino, M.D., Luna, J.M., Jepson, P.C. & Wratten, S.D. (2006) Relative frequencies of visits to selected insectary plants by predatory hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae), other beneficial insects, and herbivores. Environmental Entomology 35, 394–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bianchi, F.J.J.A., Booij, C.J.H. & Tscharntke, T. (2006) Sustainable pest regulation in agricultural landscapes: a review on landscape composition, biodiversity and natural pest control. Proceedings of the Royal Society Series B 273, 1715–1727.Google ScholarPubMed
Blondel, J. (2003) Guilds or functional groups: does it matter? Oikos 100, 223–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borg, I. & Groenen, P. (2005) Modern Multidimensional Scaling: Theory and Applications. 614 pp. Springer, London.Google Scholar
Cole, L.J., McCraken, D.I., Dennis, P., Downie, I.S., Griffin, A.L., Foster, G.N., Murphy, K.J. & Waterhouse, T. (2002) Relationships between agricultural management and ecological groups of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) on Scottish Farmland. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 93, 323–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, K.W. (1974) Structure and function of stream ecosystems. Bioscience 24, 631–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deagle, B.E. & Tollit, D.J. (2007) Quantitative analysis of prey DNA in pinniped faeces: potential to estimate diet composition? Conservation Genetics 8, 743–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Leeuw, J. & Heiser, W. (1980) Multidimensional Scaling with restrictions on the configuration. pp. 501–522 in Krishnaiah, P.R. (Ed.) Multivariate Analyses V. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Dill, M.L., Fraser, A.H.G. & Roitberg, B.D. (1990) The economics of escape behaviour in the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum. Oecologia 83, 473–478.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dinter, A. (2002) Microcosm studies on intraguild predation between female erigonid spiders and lacewing larvae and influence of single versus multiple predators on cereal aphids. Journal of Applied Entomology 126, 249–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dumay, O., Tari, P.S., Tomasini, J.A. & Mouillot, D. (2004) Functional groups of lagoon fish species in Languedoc Roussillon, southern France. Journal of Fish Biology 64, 970–983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faber, J.H. (1991) Functional classification of soil fauna – a new approach. Oikos 62, 110–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finke, D.L. & Denno, R.F. (2005) Predator diversity and the functioning of ecosystems: the role of intraguild predation in dampening trophic cascades. Ecology Letters 8, 1299–1306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foltan, P., Sheppard, S.K., Konvicka, M. & Symondson, W.O.C. (2005) The significance of facultative scavenging in generalist predator nutrition: detecting decayed prey in the guts of predators using PCR. Molecular Ecology 14, 4147–4158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foster, T.E. & Brooks, J.R. (2005) Functional groups based on leaf physiology: are they spatially and temporally robust? Oecologia 144, 337–352.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giribet, G., Edgecombe, G.D. & Wheeler, W.C. (2001) Arthropoda phylogeny based on eight molecular loci and morphology. Nature 413, 157–160.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffiths, E. (1983) The feeding ecology of the carabid beetle Agonum dorsale in cereal crops. PhD thesis, University of Southampton, UK.Google Scholar
Grime, P. (2006) Use of plant trait databases to interpret long-term experiments on the impacts of changing land-use and climate. Presentation, Long-term studies in ecology: a celebration of 150 years of the Park Grass Experiment. Rothamsted Research, 22–24 May 2006, Harpenden, UK.Google Scholar
Harper, G.L., King, R.A., Dodd, C.S., Harwood, J.D., Glen, D.M., Bruford, M.W. & Symondson, W.O.C. (2005) Rapid screening of invertebrate predators for multiple prey DNA targets. Molecular Ecology 14, 819–827.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harwood, J.D. & Obrycki, J.J. (2005) Web-construction behavior of linyphiid spiders (Araneae, Linyphiidae): Competition and co-existence within a generalist predator guild. Journal of Insect Behaviour 18, 593–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harwood, J.D., Sunderland, K.D. & Symondson, W.O.C. (2004) Prey selection by linyphiid spiders: molecular tracking of the effects of alternative prey on rates of aphid consumption in the field. Molecular Ecology 13, 3549–3560.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heiser, W.J. & Meulman, J. (1983) Constrained multidimensional scaling, including confirmation. Applied Psychological Measurement 7, 381–404.CrossRefGoogle 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. European Journal of Entomology 90, 451–455.Google Scholar
Hoogendoorn, M. & Heimpel, G.E. (2001) PCR-based gut content analysis of insect predators: using ribosomal ITS-1 fragments from prey to estimate predation frequency. Molecular Ecology 10, 2059–2067.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hwang, U.W., Friedrich, M., Tautz, D., Park, C.J. & Kim, W. (2001) Mitochondrial protein phylogeny joins myriapods with chelicerates. Nature 413, 154–157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ladislav, M. (1997) Classification of Vegetation: Past, Present and Future. Journal of Vegetation Science 8, 751–760.Google Scholar
Lassau, S.A., Hochuli, D.F., Cassis, G. & Reid, C.A.M. (2005) Effects of habitat complexity on forest beetle diversity: do functional groups respond consistently? Diversity and Distributions 11, 73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindborg, R. & Eriksson, O. (2005) Functional response to land use change in grasslands: Comparing species and trait data. Ecoscience 12, 183–191.CrossRefGoogle 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
Maxey, L. (2006) Can we sustain sustainable agriculture? Learning from small-scale producer-suppliers in Canada and the UK. Geographical Journal 172, 230–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayntz, D., Raubenheimer, D., Salomon, M., Toft, S. & Simpson, S.J. (2005) Nutrient-specific foraging in invertebrate predators. Science 307, 111–113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pearson, M.H. (1980) Factors affecting populations of cereal aphids and their beetle predators. PhD thesis, University of London, London, UK.Google Scholar
Pollet, M. & Desender, K. (1985) Adult and larval feeding ecology in Pterostichus melanarius Ill. (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Mededelingen van der Faculteit Landbouwwetenschappen Rijksuniversiteit Gent 50, 581–594.Google Scholar
Read, D.S., Sheppard, S.K., Bruford, M.W., Glen, D.M. & Symondson, W.O.C. (2006) Molecular detection of predation by soil microarthropods on nematodes. Molecular Ecology 15, 1963–1972.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roschewitz, I., Thies, C. & Tscharntke, T. (2005) Are landscape complexity and farm specialisation related to land-use intensity of annual crop fields? Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 105, 87–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenfeld, J.S. (2002) Functional redundancy in ecology and conservation. Oikos 98, 156–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Settle, W.H., Ariawan, H., Astuti, E.T., Cahyana, W., Hakim, A.L., Hindayana, D. & Lestari, A.S. (1996) Managing tropical rice pests through conservation of generalist natural enemies and alternative prey. Ecology 77, 1975–1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheperd, S., Magnusson, M. & Sjödén, P.-O. (2005) Determinants of consumer behaviour related to organic foods. Ambio 34, 352–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunderland, K.D. (1975) The diet of some predatory arthropods in cereal crops. Journal of Applied Ecology 12, 507–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunderland, K.D. (2002) Invertebrate pest control by carabids. pp. 165–214 in Holland, J.M. (Ed.) The Agroecology of Carabid Beetles. Andover, UK, Intercept Publishers.Google Scholar
Symondson, W.O.C. (2002) Molecular identification of prey in predator diets. Molecular Ecology 11, 627–641.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Symondson, W.O.C., Sunderland, K.D. & Greenstone, M.H. (2002a) Can generalist predators be effective biocontrol agents? Annual Reviews in Entomology 47, 561–594.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Symondson, W.O.C., Glen, D.M., Ives, A.R., Langdon, C.J. & Wiltshire, C.W. (2002b) Dynamics of the relationship between a generalist predator and slugs over five years. Ecology 83, 137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toft, S. (2005) The quality of aphids as food for generalist predators: implications for natural control of aphids. European Journal of Entomology 102, 371–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vattala, H.D., Wratten, S.D., Phillips, C.B., & Wackers, F.L. (2006) The influence of flower morphology and nectar quality on the longevity of a parasitoid biological control agent. Biological Control 39, 179–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Bell supplementary material

Appendices.xls

Download Bell supplementary material(File)
File 5.1 MB