Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T04:25:54.026Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PREDATORY BEHAVIOR OF THE CLERID BEETLE THANASIMUS DUBIUS (COLEOPTERA: CLERIDAE) ON THE SOUTHERN PINE BEETLE (COLEOPTERA: SCOLYTIDAE)1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

J. L. Frazier ,
T. E. Nebeker ,
R. F. Mizell  and
W. H. Calvert
J. L. Frazier
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, Mississippi 39762
T. E. Nebeker
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, Mississippi 39762
R. F. Mizell
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, Mississippi 39762
W. H. Calvert
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, Mississippi 39762
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The behavior of adults of clerid beetle Thanasimus dubius (F.) preying upon adult southern pine beetles, Dendroctonus frontalis Zimmerman, in an arena in the laboratory is described by classifying the acts according to their consequences. A sequence of five stereotyped acts is performed by the predator: either searching or ambush, seizure of prey, alignment of prey, consumption of prey, and grooming. Handling time by the predator consists of the sums of the durations of the four acts of seizure through grooming, which was not significantly different for male and female predators, but was significantly longer for male prey (13.81 min) than for female prey (10.49 min). Consumption of prey (8–9 min) is the major component of handling time. Predators searched or waited in ambush an average of 5.8 mm before seizing a prey, and captured prey with an efficiency of 72%. Blinding predators had no significant effect on their efficiency at capturing prey. Maxillary and labial palpectomy alone or in combination significantly reduced efficiency of capture, and reduced numbers of prey consumed.

Résumé

Le comportement des adultes du cléride Thanasimus dubius (F.), prédateur des adultes du dendroctone méridional du pin, Dendroctonus frontalis Zimmerman, a été étudié en arène au laboratoire, et décrit en classifiant les actes accomplis d’après leurs conséquences. Le prédateur effectue une séquence de cinq actes stéréotypes : recherche de la proie ou ambuscade, assaut de la proie, orientation de la proie, consommation de la proie, et nettoyage. Le temps de manipulation ("handling time") défini comme étant la somme des quatre derniers actes (l’assaut jusqu’au nettoyage) ne diffère pas significativement pour les mâles et les femelles du prédateur, mais se révèle significativement plus long pour les proies mâles (13.81 min) que pour les proies femelles (10.49 min). La consommation de la proie (8–9 min) est la composante majeure du temps de manipulation. Le prédateur recherche sa proie ou s’embusque pour une durée moyenne de 5.8 min avant d’assaillir sa proie, laquelle est capturée avec une efficacité de 72%. L’efficacité de capture n’est pas affectée de façon significative lorsque la vue du prédateur est rendue inopérante. L’ablation des palpes maxillaires ou labiaux, ou des deux à la fois, réduit significativement l’efficacité de capture et le nombre de proies consommées.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 113 , Issue 1 , January 1981 , pp. 35 - 43
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1981

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

Arzet, R. 1973. Searching behavior of the larvae of Chrysopa carnea Steph. (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). Z. angew. Ent. 74(1): 64–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beddington, J. R., Hassell, M. P., and Lawton, J. H.. 1976. The components of arthropod predation. II. The predator rate of increase. J. Anim. Ecol. 45: 165–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowers, W. S., Nishino, C., Montgomery, M. E., Nault, L. R., and Nielson, M.. 1976. Sesquiterpene progenitor, Germacrene A: An alarm pheromone in aphids. Science 196: 680–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, R. M. and Cockrell, B. J.. 1978. Predator ingestion rate and its bearing on feeding time and the theory of optimal diets. J. Animal Ecol. 47: 529–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coster, J. E., Payne, T. L., Hart, E. R., and Edson, L. J.. 1977. Aggregation of the southern pine beetle in response to attractive host trees. Environ. Ent. 6: 725–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, A. F. G. 1959. An experimental study of the searching behavior of the predatory coccinellid beetle Adalia decempunctata (L.). J. Anim. Ecol. 28: 259–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, W. E. and Payne, T. L.. 1979. Aggregation of Thanasimus dubius (F.) on trees under massattack by the southern pine beetle. Environ. Ent. 8: 178–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doutt, R. L. 1959. The biology of parasitic Hymenoptera. A. Rev. Ent. 4: 161–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, R. T. and Green, H. J.. 1965. Observations on clerid predation of the southern pine beetle. J. Kans. ent. Soc. 38: 202–203.Google Scholar
Hassell, M. P., Lawton, J. H., and Beddington, J. R.. 1976. The components of arthropod predation. I. The prey death rate. J. Anim. Ecol. 45: 135–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holling, C. S. 1959. Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism. Can. Ent. 91: 385–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holling, C. S. 1966. The functional response of invertebrate predators to prey density. Mem. ent. Soc. Can. 48. 86 pp.Google Scholar
Lawton, J. H., Hassell, M. P., and Beddington, J. R.. 1975. Prey death rates and rate of increase of arthropod predator populations. Nature 255: 60–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mittelstaedt, H. 1957. Prey capture in mantids. pp. 51–71in Scheer, B. T. (Ed.), Recent Advances in Invertebrate Physiology. Univ. Oregon Publ., Eugene, Oregon.Google Scholar
Mittelstaedt, H. 1962. Control systems of orientation in insects. A. Rev. Ent. 7: 177–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mizell, R. F. 1980. Thanasimus dubius (F.): Some behavioral factors affecting its predatory role. Ph.D. Dissertation, Mississippi State University. 176 pp.Google Scholar
Moore, G. E. 1972. Southern pine beetle mortality in North Carolina caused by predators and parasites. Environ. Ent. 1: 58–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nebeker, T. E. and Mizell, R. F. III. 1980. Behavioral considerations in quantifying the impact of Thanasimus dubius (F.) adults on bark beetle populations. In Stephen, F. M., Searcy, J. L., and Hertel, G. D. (Eds.), Modeling Southern Pine Beetle Populations. Tech. Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric. 1630.Google Scholar
Nebeker, T. E. and Purser, G. C.. 1980. Relationship of temperature and prey type to developmental time of the bark beetle predator Thanasimus dubius (Coleoptera: Cleridae). Can. Ent. 112: 179–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nebeker, T. E., Purser, G. C., and Mizell, R. F. III. 1980. Collection and maintenance of Thanasimus dubius (F.) for biological and behavioral studies. J. Ga ent. Soc. 15(4): 406–412.Google Scholar
Reeve, R. J. 1975. Temporal and spatial distribution of flying Dendroctonus frontalis Zimmerman (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) and the predator Thanasimus dubius (F.) (Coleoptera: Cleridae) in and near small infestations. M.S. Thesis, Stephen F. Austin State University. 72 pp.Google Scholar
Rogers, D. 1972. Random search: An insect population model. J. Anim. Ecol. 41: 369–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandness, J. N. and McMurty, J. A.. 1972. Prey consumption behavior of Amblyseius largoensis in relation to hunger. Can. Ent. 104: 461–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thatcher, R. C. and Pickard, L. S.. 1966. The clerid beetle, Thanasimus dubius, as a predator of the southern pine beetle. J. econ. Ent. 59: 955–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turnbow, R. W. Jr., 1976. Prey consumption, survivorship and oviposition by adults of the bark beetle predator Thanasimus dubius Fabricius (Coleoptera: Cleridae). M.S. Thesis, Oregon State University. 91 pp.Google Scholar
Van Lentern, J. C. and Bakker, K.. 1976. Functional responses in invertebrates. Netherlands J. Zool. 26: 567–572.Google Scholar
Vinson, S. B. and Iwantsch, G. F.. 1980. Host specificity for insect parasitoids. A. Rev. Ent. 25: 397–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vité, J. P. and Williamson, D. L.. 1970. Thanasimus dubius: Prey perception. J. Insect Physiol. 16: 233–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wratten, S. D. 1973. The effectiveness of the coccinellid beetle, Adalia bipunctata (L.) as a predator of the lime aphid, Eucallipterus tiliae L. J. Animal Ecol. 42: 785–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar