Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T06:50:53.245Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Survival and predation rate of wild-caught and commercially produced Orius majusculus (Reuter) (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2021

Kim Jensen Open the ORCID record for Kim Jensen [Opens in a new window] ,
Søren Toft Open the ORCID record for Søren Toft [Opens in a new window] ,
Jesper G. Sørensen Open the ORCID record for Jesper G. Sørensen [Opens in a new window]  and
Martin Holmstrup Open the ORCID record for Martin Holmstrup [Opens in a new window]
Kim Jensen*
Affiliation:
Department of Bioscience, Section for Terrestrial Ecology, Aarhus University, Vejlsøvej 25, 8600 Silkeborg, Denmark
Søren Toft
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Section for Genetics, Ecology and Evolution, Aarhus University, Ny Munkegade 116, Building 1540, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark
Jesper G. Sørensen
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Section for Genetics, Ecology and Evolution, Aarhus University, Ny Munkegade 116, Building 1540, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark
Martin Holmstrup
Affiliation:
Department of Bioscience, Section for Terrestrial Ecology, Aarhus University, Vejlsøvej 25, 8600 Silkeborg, Denmark
*
Author for correspondence: Kim Jensen, Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The quality of biological control agents used in augmentative releases may be affected by rearing conditions due to inbreeding or laboratory adaptation, or to phenotypic effects of the rearing environment. We hypothesized that individuals from a wild population would be in better body condition and kill more prey than individuals from a commercially produced population. We caught wild Orius majusculus (Reuter) in a maize field and compared their initial body mass, survival, and prey reduction capacity to commercially produced O. majusculus. Predation capacity and survival were compared in short-term Petri dish tests with Frankliniella tenuicornis (Uzel) thrips, Ephestia kuehniella (Zeller) moth eggs, or Rhopalosiphum padi (L.) aphids as prey, and in longer-term outdoor mesocosms containing live seedling wheat grass with thrips or aphids as prey. Wild-caught O. majusculus were typically heavier and overall had higher survival during tests than commercially produced O. majusculus. Females were heavier than males and typically killed more prey. However, we found no difference between wild-caught and commercially produced individuals on prey reduction, neither in Petri dishes nor in mesocosms. Our study suggests that commercially produced O. majusculus have lower body condition than wild O. majusculus due to their lower body mass and survival, but that this does not have any negative effect on the number of pest prey killed over the timelines and conditions of our tests. Commercially produced O. majusculus thus did not have a lower impact on pest prey numbers than wild-caught individuals and therefore had similar biological control value under our study conditions.

Keywords

Artificial rearingbiological controlinsect productionmesocosm studypest insectspredator
Type
Research Paper
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 112 , Issue 3 , June 2022 , pp. 311 - 317
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by 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

Alatawi, FJ, Mushtaq, HMS, Mirza, JH and Kamran, M (2019) Predation efficiency and preference of lab-reared and field-collected populations of predatory mite Cydnoseius negevi (Acari: Phytoseiidae) on two mite pest species Oligonychus afrasiaticus and Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae). International Journal of Pest Management 4, 363–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aragón-Sánchez, M, Román-Fernández, LR, Martínez-García, H, Aragón-García, A, Pérez-Moreno, I and Marco-Mancebón, VS (2018) Rate of consumption, biological parameters, and population growth capacity of Orius laevigatus fed on Spodoptera exigua. BioControl 63, 785–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bereś, PK, Kucharczyk, H and Kucharczyk, M (2013) Thrips abundance on sweet corn in southeastern Poland and the impact of weather conditions on their population dynamics. Bulletin of Insectology 66, 143–152.Google Scholar
Beukeboom, LW (2017) Improving pest control: mass rearing and field performance – an introduction. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 162, 105–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bigler, F (1989) Quality assessment and control in entomophagous insects used for biological control. Journal of Applied Entomology 108, 390–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaeser, P, Sengonca, C and Zegula, T (2004) The potential use of different predatory bug species in the biological control of Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande) (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). Journal of Pest Science 77, 211–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boller, EF and Chambers, DL (1977) Quality aspects of mass-reared insects. In Ridgway, RL and Vinson, SB (eds), Biological Control by Augmentation of Natural Enemies. Boston, MA: Springer, pp. 219–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonte, M and De Clercq, P (2010) Influence of diet on the predation rate of Orius laevigatus on Frankliniella occidentalis. BioControl 55, 625–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonte, J, De Hauwere, L, Conlong, D and De Clercq, P (2015) Predation capacity, development and reproduction of the southern African flower bugs Orius thripoborus and Orius naivashae (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae) on various prey. Biological Control 86, 52–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosco, L and Tavella, L (2013) Distribution and abundance of species of the genus Orius in horticultural ecosystems of northwestern Italy. Bulletin of Insectology 66, 297–307.Google Scholar
Bosco, L, Giacometto, E and Tavella, L (2008) Colonization and predation of thrips (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) by Orius spp. (Heteroptera: Anthocoridae) in sweet pepper greenhouses in Northwest Italy. Biological Control 44, 331–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappelen, J (2018) Vejret i Danmark - Sommer 2018. Copenhagen: Danish Meteorological Institute.Google Scholar
Castañé, C, Iriarte, J and Lucas, E (2002) Comparison of prey consumption by Dicyphus tamaninii reared conventionally, and on a meat-based diet. BioControl 47, 657–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, DL (1977) Quality control in mass rearing. Annual Review of Entomology 22, 289–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, AC (2000) Feeding fitness and quality of domesticated and feral predators: effects of long-term rearing on artificial diet. Biological Control 17, 50–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowder, DW (2007) Impact of release rates on the effectiveness of augmentative biological control agents. Journal of Insect Science 7, 15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Clercq, P and Degheele, D (1993) Quality assessment of the predatory bugs Podisus maculiventris (Say) and Podisus sagitta (Fab.) (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae) after prolonged rearing on a meat-based artificial diet. Biocontrol Science and Technology 3, 133–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Clercq, P, Coudron, TA and Riddick, EW (2014) Production of heteropteran predators. In Morales-Ramos, JA, Rojas, MG and Shapiro-Ilan, DI (eds), Mass Production of Beneficial Organisms. Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic Press, pp. 57–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helgadóttir, F, Toft, S and Sigsgaard, L (2017) Negative effects of low developmental temperatures on aphid predation by Orius majusculus (Heteroptera: Anthocoridae). Biological Control 114, 59–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, AA and Ross, PA (2018) Rates and patterns of laboratory adaptation in (mostly) insects. Journal of Economic Entomology 111, 501–509.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoffmann, AA, Hallas, R, Sinclair, C and Partridge, L (2001) Rapid loss of stress resistance in Drosophila melanogaster under adaptation to laboratory culture. Evolution 55, 436–438.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Honěk, A (1993) Intraspecific variation in body size and fecundity in insects: a general relationship. Oikos 66, 483–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakob, EM, Marshall, SD and Uetz, GW (1996) Estimating fitness: a comparison of body condition indices. Oikos 77, 61–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, K, Kristensen, TN, Heckmann, L-HL and Sørensen, JG (2017) Breeding and maintaining high-quality insects. In van Huis, A and Tomberlin, JK (eds), Insects as Food and Feed: from Production to Consumption. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers, pp. 175–198.Google Scholar
Kingsolver, JG and Huey, RB (2008) Size, temperature, and fitness: three rules. Evolutionary Ecology Research 10, 251–268.Google Scholar
Mackauer, M (1976) Genetic problems in the production of biological control agents. Annual Review of Entomology 21, 369–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendoza, JE, Balanza, V, Cifuentes, D and Bielza, P (2020) Selection for larger body size in Orius laevigatus: intraspecific variability and effects on reproductive parameters. Biological Control 148, 104310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messelink, GJ, Bloemhard, CM, Sabelis, MW and Janssen, A (2013) Biological control of aphids in the presence of thrips and their enemies. BioControl 58, 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasmussen, LB, Jensen, K, Sørensen, JG, Sverrisdóttir, E, Nielsen, KL, Overgaard, J, Holmstrup, M and Kristensen, TN (2018) Are commercial stocks of biological control agents genetically depauperate? – A case study on the pirate bug Orius majusculus Reuter. Biological Control 127, 31–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, PA, Endersby-Harshman, NM and Hoffmann, AA (2019) A comprehensive assessment of inbreeding and laboratory adaptation in Aedes aegypti mosquitoes. Evolutionary Applications 12, 572–586.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sobhy, IS, Sarhan, AA, Shoukry, AA, El-Kady, GA, Mandour, NS and Reitz, SR (2010) Development, consumption rates and reproductive biology of Orius albidipennis reared on various prey. BioControl 55, 753–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sørensen, JG, Addison, MF and Terblanche, JS (2012) Mass-rearing of insects for pest management: challenges, synergies and advances from evolutionary physiology. Crop Protection 38, 87–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terblanche, JS (2014) Physiological performance of field-released insects. Current Opinion in Insect Science 4, 60–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Toft, S, Jensen, K, Sørensen, JG, Sigsgaard, L and Holmstrup, M (2020) Food quality of Ephestia eggs, the aphid Rhopalosiphum padi and mixed diet for Orius majusculus. Journal of Applied Entomology 144, 251–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tommasini, MG, van Lenteren, JC and Burgio, G (2004) Biological traits and predation capacity of four Orius species on two prey species. Bulletin of Insectology 57, 79–93.Google Scholar
van Lenteren, JC (2003) Quality Control and Production of Biological Control Agents: Theory and Testing Procedures. London: Cabi Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Lenteren, JC, Bolckmans, K, Köhl, J, Ravensberg, WJ and Urbaneja, A (2018) Biological control using invertebrates and microorganisms: plenty of new opportunities. BioControl 63, 39–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Lenteren, JC, Bueno, VHP, Burgio, G, Lanzoni, A, Montes, FC, Silva, DB, de Jong, PW and Hemerik, L (2019) Pest kill rate as aggregate evaluation criterion to rank biological control agents: a case study with Neotropical predators of Tuta absoluta on tomato. Bulletin of Entomological Research 109, 812–820.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vandekerkhove, B, De Puysseleyr, V, Bonte, M and De Clercq, P (2011) Fitness and predation potential of Macrolophus pygmaeus reared under artificial conditions. Insect Science 18, 682–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weldon, CW, Yap, S and Taylor, PW (2013) Desiccation resistance of wild and mass-reared Bactrocera tryoni (Diptera: Tephritidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research 103, 690–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodworth, LM, Montgomery, ME, Briscoe, DA and Frankham, R (2002) Rapid genetic deterioration in captive populations: causes and conservation implications. Conservation Genetics 3, 277–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar