Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T17:15:35.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Predation and prey size choice by the carabid beetle Pterostichus melanarius (Coleoptera: Carabidae): the dangers of extrapolating from laboratory to field

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

A.R. McKemey ,
W.O.C. Symondson  and
D.M. Glen
A.R. McKemey
Affiliation:
School of Biosciences, Cardiff University, PO Box 915, Cardiff, CF10 3TL, UK
W.O.C. Symondson*
Affiliation:
School of Biosciences, Cardiff University, PO Box 915, Cardiff, CF10 3TL, UK
D.M. Glen
Affiliation:
IACR-Long Ashton Research Station, Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Bristol, Long Ashton, Bristol BS41 9AF, UK
*
*Fax: (+44) (0)29 20874305 E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The impact of predation by the generalist carabid beetle Pterostichus melanarius (Illiger) on populations of the field slug Deroceras reticulatum (Müller), and the effects of prey size on the predator–prey interaction, were measured under semi-field conditions. It was hypothesized that environmental heterogeneity would lead to very different patterns of comparative mortality than might be deduced from size choice experiments conducted in the laboratory. Results from outdoor mini-plots, emulating conditions in a field of wheat, demonstrated that P. melanarius significantly reduced numbers of slugs from all size classes, with no apparent preferences. This was in marked contrast to results from earlier laboratory studies, where this beetle fed preferentially on the smallest slugs. The slugs in the mini-plots ranged in size from 2–100 mg and the numbers in the mini-plot reflected the size frequency distribution in the field. Beetles in mini-plots containing high densities of slugs increased significantly in weight, in contrast to beetles in mini-plots with low slug density or no added slugs, which did not. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA), using anti-slug monoclonal antibodies, showed that where there was a higher density of slugs there was more slug protein in the guts of the beetles. It was concluded that environmental heterogeneity probably provided a greater number and diversity of refugia for smaller than for larger slugs, counteracting laboratory-measured size preferences measured in arenas without refugia. These results have implications for a range of ecological studies involving inter- and intra-specific prey size choice, and emphasize the dangers of extrapolating from the laboratory to the field.

Type
Research Article
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 93 , Issue 3 , June 2003 , pp. 227 - 234
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2003

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

Asteraki, E.J. (1993) The potential of carabid beetles to control slugs in grass/clover sward. Entomophaga 38, 193–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, G.M. (1991) Biology of slugs (Agriolimacidae and Arionidae: Mollusca) in New Zealand hill country pastures. Oecologia 85, 581–595.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bohan, D.A., Bohan, A.C., Glen, D.M., Symondson, W.O.C., Wiltshire, C.W. & Hughes, L. (2000) Spatial dynamics of predation by carabid beetles on slugs. Journal of Animal Ecology 69, 367–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohan, D.A., Glen, D.M. & Symondson, W.O.C. (2001) Spatial dynamics of predation by carabids: a response to Mair et al. (2001). Journal of Animal Ecology 70, 877–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckland, S.M. & Grime, J.P. (2000) The effects of trophic structure and soil fertility on the assembly of plant communities. Oikos 91, 336–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, R.B., Simeonidis, A.S. & Smith, J.T. (1997) Evaluation of metallic green ground beetle as a predator of slugs. In Proceedings, 50th New Zealand Plant Protection Conference. Pasture Pests and Beneficials. pp. 51–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cock, M.J.W. (1978) The assessment of preference. Journal of Animal Ecology 47, 805–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, A. (1989) Crowding effects on the growth of juvenile slugs (Limax pseudoflavus). pp. 193–200. in Henderson, I. (Ed.) Slugs and snails in world agriculture, British Crop Protection Conference Monograph. 41. British Crop Protection Council, Thornton Heath, UK.Google Scholar
Desender, K., Van den, Broeck D. & Maelfait, J. (1985) Population biology and reproduction in Pterostichus melanarius Ill. (Coleoptera, Carabidae) from a heavily grazed pasture ecosystem. Mededelingen van de Faculteit Landbouwwetenschappen Rijksuniversiteit 50, 567–575.Google Scholar
Ernsting, G. & Mulder, A.J. (1981) Components of predatory behavior underlying density-dependent prey-size selection by Notiophilus biguttatus F. (Carabidae, Coleoptera). Oecologia 51, 169–174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ernsting, G. & Van Der Werf, D.C. (1988) Hunger, partial consumption of prey and prey size preference in a carabid beetle. Ecological Entomology 13, 155–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillman, M. & Hails, R. (1997) In An introduction to ecological modeling. Oxford: Blackwell Science.Google Scholar
Glen, D.M. & Wiltshire, C.W. (1986) Estimating slug populations from bait-trap catches. Proceedings of the British Crop Protection Conference – Pests and Diseases. pp. 1151–1158.Google Scholar
Glen, D.M., Milsom, N.F. & Wiltshire, C.W. (1989) Effects of seed-bed conditions on slug numbers and damage to winter wheat in a clay soil. Annals of Applied Biology 115, 177–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godan, D. (1983) In Pest slugs and snails: biology and control. Berlin: Spring-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hassell, M.P. (1978) In Arthropod predator–prey systems. Guildford, UK: Princeton University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Kromp, B. (1999) Carabid beetles in sustainable agriculture: a review on pest control efficacy, cultivation impacts and enhancement. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 74, 187–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langan, A.M., Pilkington, G. & Wheater, C.P. (2001) Feeding preferences of a predatory beetle (Pterostichus madidus) for slugs exposed to lethal and sub-lethal dosages of metaldehyde. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 98, 245–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liddell, J.E. & Cryer, A. (1991) In A practical guide to monoclonal antibodies. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
Luff, M.L. (1996) Use of carabids as environmental indicators in grassland cereals. Annales Zoologici Fennici 33, 185–195.Google Scholar
Mair, J. & Port, G.R. (2001) Predation by the carabid beetles Pterostichus madidus and Nebria brevicollis is affected by the size and condition of the prey slug Deroceras reticulatum. Agricultural and Forest Entomology 3, 99–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mair, J., Shirley, M.D.F., Rushton, S.P. & Port, G.R. (2001) Spatial dynamics of predation by carabid beetles on slugs. Journal of Animal Ecology 70, 875–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKemey, A.R. (2000) In Integrating behavioural aspects of carabids–slug interactions using immunological data on predator ecology. PhD thesis, School of Biosciences: Cardiff University.Google Scholar
McKemey, A.R., Symondson, W.O.C., Glen, D.M. & Brain, P. (2001) Effects of slug size on predation by Pterostichus melanarius (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Biocontrol Science and Technology 11, 83–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Micheli, F. (1995) Behavioural plasticity in prey-size selectivity of blue crab Callinectes sapidus feeding on bivalve prey. Journal of Animal Ecology 64, 63–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nyffeler, M. & Symondson, W.O.C. (2001) Spiders and harvestmen as gastropod predators. Ecological Entomology 26, 617–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pakarinen, E. (1994) The importance of mucus as a defence against carabid beetles by the slugs Arion fasciatus and Deroceras reticulatum. Journal of Molluscan Studies 60, 149–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollet, M., Desender, K. & Maelfait, J.P. (1986) Aspects of the feeding ecology of Pterostichus melanarius (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in a heavily grazed pasture. Annales de la Société Royale Zoologique de Belgique 116, 110–111.Google Scholar
Pollet, M., Desender, K. & Van Kerckvoorde, M. (1987) Prey selection in Loricera pilicornis (Col., Carabidae). Acta Phytopathologica et Entomologica Hungarica 22, 425–431.Google Scholar
Purvis, G. & Fadl, A. (1996) Emergence of Carabidae (Coleoptera) from pupation: a technique for studying the ‘productivity’ of carabid habitats. Annales Zoologici Fennici 33, 215–223.Google Scholar
Rollo, C.D. (1982) The regulation of activity in populations of the terrestrial slug Limax maximus (Gastropoda: Limacidae). Research on Population Ecology 24, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
South, A. (1982) A comparison of the life cycles of Deroceras reticulatum (Muller) and Arion intermedius Normand (Pulmonata: Stylommatophora) at different temperatures under laboratory conditions. Journal of Molluscan Studies 48, 233–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
South, A. (1992) In Terrestrial slugs: biology, ecology and control. London: Chapman & Hall.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. (1996) Progress in quantifying predation using antibody techniques. pp 419–455. in Symondson, W.O.C. & Liddell, J.E., (Eds) The ecology of agricultural pests – biochemical approaches. London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Symondson, W.O.C. (1989) Biological control of slugs by carabids. pp 295–300. in Henderson, I., (Ed.) Slugs and snails in world agriculture, British Crop Protection Conference Monograph. 41. Thornton Heath, UK: British Crop Protection Council.Google Scholar
Symondson, W.O.C. (1993a) The effects of crop development upon slug distribution and control by Abax parallelepipedus (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Annals of Applied Biology 123, 449–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Symondson, W.O.C. (1993b) Chemical confinement of slugs: an alternative to electric fences. Journal of Molluscan Studies 59, 259–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Symondson, W.O.C. (in press) Coleoptera (Carabidae, Drilidae, Lampyridae and Staphylinidae). in Barker, G.M. (Ed.) in Natural enemies of terrestrial molluscs. Wallingford, Oxon: CAB International.Google Scholar
Symondson, W.O.C. & Hemingway, J. (1997) Biochemical and molecular techniques. pp. 293–350. in Dent, D.R. & Walton, M.P., (Eds) Methods in ecological and agricultural entomology. Wallingford, Oxon: CAB International.Google Scholar
Symondson, W.O.C., Mendis, V.W. & Liddell, J.E. (1995) Monoclonal antibodies for the identification of slugs and their eggs. EPPO Bulletin 25, 377–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Symondson, W.O.C., Glen, D.M., Wiltshire, C.W., Langdon, C.J. & Liddell, J.E. (1996) Effects of cultivation techniques and straw disposal on predation by Pterostichus melanarius (Coleoptera: Carabidae) upon slugs (Gastropoda: Pulmonata) in an arable field. Journal of Applied Ecology 33, 741–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Symondson, W.O.C., Glen, D.M., Erickson, M.L., Liddell, J.E. & Langdon, C.J. (2000) Do earthworms help to sustain the slug predator Pterostichus melanarius (Coleoptera: Carabidae) within crops? Investigations using a monoclonal antibody-based detection system. Molecular Ecology 9, 1279–1292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Symondson, W.O.C., Glen, D.M., Ives, A.R., Langdon, C.J. & Wiltshire, C.W. (2002a) Dynamics of the relationship between a polyphagous predator and slugs over five years. Ecology 83, 137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Symondson, W.O.C., Sunderland, K.D. & Greenstone, M.H. (2002) Can generalist predators be effective biocontrol agents?. Annual Review of Entomology 47, 561–594.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thiele, H.U. (1977) In Carabid beetles in their environments. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Lenteren, J.C. & Bakker, K. (1976) Functional responses in invertebrates. Netherlands Journal of Zoology 26, 567–572.Google Scholar
Wilby, A. & Brown, V.K. (2001) Herbivory, litter and soil disturbance as determinants of vegetation dynamics during early old-field succession under set-aside. Oecologia 127, 259–265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed