Feeding Preferences of the Rearing of Thanasimus formicarius (L.) (Coleoptera, Cleridae)

Year 2018, Volume: 33 Issue: 2, 215 - 220, 29.12.2018

Gonca Ece Özcan , Nazlı Koçoğlu

https://doi.org/10.28955/alinterizbd.449574

Cited By: 3

Abstract

Predators
have an efficient role on the control of scolytidae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae,
Scolytinae) in the biological control. The most common and effective natural
enemies of the scolytidae is clerid beetle. Since those natural enemies also
feed from the individuals in the different development period of the
scolytidae, it is effective for increasing the predation rate of the predator beetle.
Besides that, the interaction and preferences between predator beetle-prey have
potential importance for the efficacy of control programs. The aim of this
study is to determine the feeding preferences of Thanasimus formicarius (L.) (Coleoptera, Cleridae) adults which
feed from Ips sexdentatus (Boerner)
(Coleoptera: Curculionidae, Scolytinae) adults and larva, quantitatively.. It
is determined that the predator beetle consumed the given adult prey and its
larva, respectively by the weight of 0-50,79% to 21,43-72,92% and by the
feeding customs, 0-66,57% to 50-100% in a one-day period. The differences
between the averages of the weights of its adult prey and its larva which the
predator consumed is statistically significant and it is determined that
predator beetle preferenced for the larva of the prey more than the adults. It
is observed that the predations of T.
formicarius adults is important on the different development periods of the
species I. sexdentatus. As the
pressure of the predator with accurate timing decrease the invasion rate, it
will also decrease the amount of trees to be harmed. 

Keywords

Biological control, Predator beetle, prey interactions

Thanasimus formicarius (L.) (Coleoptera, Cleridae)’un Üretilmesinde (Rearing) Beslenme Tercihi

Abstract

Predatörler, biyolojik mücadelede özellikle kabuk böceklerinin (Coleoptera: Curculionidae, Scolytinae), kontrolünde etkili bir role sahiptirler. Kabuk böceklerinin en yaygın ve etkili doğal düşmanları clerid böceklerdir. Bu doğal düşmalar kabuk böceklerinin farklı gelişim dönemlerindeki bireyleriyle de beslenebildiklerinden avcı böceğin predasyon oranının artması yönünde etkilidir. Bunun yanında avcı böcek - av etkileşimleri ve tercihleri biyolojik control programlarının etkinliğinde potansiyel öneme sahiptir. Bu çalışmanın amacı sabit sıcaklık ve nem koşullarında Ips sexdentatus (Boerner) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae, Scolytinae) ergin ve larvaları ile beslenen Thanasimus formicarius (L.) (Coleoptera, Cleridae) erginlerinin beslenme tercihini nicel olarak tanımlayabilmektir. Avcı böceğin bir günlük sürede beslenmesi için verilen avının erginlerinin ve larvalarının ağırlıklarına göre sırasıyla %0-50,79 ile %21,43-72,92’sini adetlerine göre ise sırasıyla %0-66,57 ile %50-100’ünü tükettiği belirlenmiştir. Predatörün tükettiği avının ergin ve larvalarının ağırlıklarının ortalamaları arasındaki fark istatistiksel olarak anlamlı olup, avcı böceğin avının larvalarını erginlerine oranla daha fazla tercih ettiği belirlenmiştir. T. formicarius erginlerinin zararlı tür olan I. sexdentatus’un farklı gelişim dönemleri üzerindeki predasyonunun önemli olduğu görülmektedir. Doğru bir zamanlama ile predatörün oluşturabileceği baskı, istila oranını azaltabileceği gibi zarar görecek ağaç sayısını da azaltacaktır.

References

• Alston, D. G., 2011. General concepts of biological Control. UTAH pests fact sheet. IPM-015-11. Published by Utah State University Extension and Utah Plant Pest Diagnostic Laboratory.
• Anderegg, W. R. L., Hicke, J. A., Fisher, R. A., Allen, C. D., Aukema, J., Bentz, B., Hood, S., Lichstein, J. W., Macalady, A. K., McDowell, N., Pan, Y. Raffa, K., Sala, A., Shaw, J. D., Nathan, L., Stephenson, N.L., Tague, C., and Zeppel, M., 2015.Tree mortality from drought, insects, and their interactions in a changing climate. New Phytol. 208: 674 – 683.
• Black S. H., Kulakowski D., Noon, B. R., and DellaSala D., 2010. Insects and roadless forests: a scientific review of causes. Consequences and Management Alternatives. National Center for Conservation Science 33pp.
• Costello, S. 2003. Clerid beetles- voracious predators" PDF. Colorado State University Department of Entomology. 1–15.
• Fettig, C. J., Klepzig, K. D., Billings, R. F., Munson, A. S., Nebeker, T. E., Negrón, J. F., and Nowak, J. T., 2007. The effectiveness of vegetation management practices for prevention and control of bark beetle infestations in coniferous forests of the western and southern United States. Forest Ecology and Management 238, 24-53.
• Fettig, C. J and Hilszczannski J., 2015. Management strategies for bark beetles in conifer Forests. In: Vega FE, Hofstetter RW (eds.). Bark Beetles. Biology and Ecology of Native and Invasive Species. Elsevier, Amsterdam. 555–584.
• Gullan, P. J., and Cranston P. S., 2012. Böcekler: entomolojinin ana hatları. Bölüm 16. The insect an outline of entomology. Fourth Edition. Wiley-Blackwell. Çeviri Editörü: Ali Gök. XVI+564
• Lingren, B. S., and Raffa, K. F., 2013. .Evolution of tree killing in bark beetles (Coleoptera: Curculionidae): trade-offs between the maddening crowds and a sticky situation. 145, 5, 471-495. https://doi.org/10.4039/tce.2013.27
• Mack, R. N., Simberloff, D., Lonsdale, E. M., Evans, H., Clout, M., and Bazzaz, F. A., 2000. Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences and control. Ecol. Appl. 10, 3, 689–710
• Marini, L., Økland, B., Jönsson, A. M., Bentz, B., Carroll, A., Forster, B., Grégoire, J. C., Hurling, R., Nageleisen, L. M., Netherer, S., Ravn, H.P., Weed, A., and Schroeder, M., 2017. Climate drivers of bark beetle outbreak dynamics in Norway spruce forests. Ecography 40: 001–010, doi: 10.1111/ecog.02769
• Moeck, H. A, and Safranyik, L., 1984. Assessment of predator and parasitoid control of bark beetles. Can For Serv Inf Rep BC-X-248
• Morris, J. L; Cottrell, S., Fettig, C. J., DeRose, R. J., Mattor, K. M., Carter, V. A., Clear, J., Clement, J., Hansen, W. D., Hicke, J. A., Higuera, P. E., Seddon, A. W. R., Seppä, H., Sherriff, R. L; Stednick, J. D., and Seybold, S. J., 2018. Bark beetles as agents of change in social-ecological systems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 16(S1): S34-S43. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1754.
• Özcan, G. E., 2017a. The effect of the moisture content of scotch pines by bark beetle attacks. IV. IMCOFE / ROME, Abstract Book, 230 p.
• Özcan, G. E., 2017b. Assessment of Ips sexdentatus population considering the capture in pheromone traps and their damages under non-epidemıc conditions. Journal of the Forestry Society of Croatia. Šumarski List. 1-2, 47-56.
• Pearson, D. E., and Callaway, R.M., 2003. Indirect effects of host-specific biological control agents. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution, 18 , 9, 456-461.
• Powers, J. S., Sollins, P., Harmon, M.E., Julia A., and Jones, J.A., 1999. Plant-pest interactions in time and space: A Douglas-fir bark beetle outbreak as a case study. Landscape Ecology 14: 105–120.
• Raffa, K. E, Grégoire, J. C, and Lindgren, B. S., 2015. Natural history and ecology of bark beetles. Bark Beetles Biology and Ecology of Native and Invasive Species. Elsevier. Chapter 1, 1-28pp.
• Reeve, J. D., 1997. Predation and bark beetle dynamics. Oecologia, 112, 48-54
• Uygun, N., Ulusoy, M. R., and Satar, S., 2010. Biological control. Türk. biyo. müc. derg.,, 1 (1): 1-14.
• Warzee, N., and Grégoire, J. C., 2003. Thanasimus formicarius (Coleoptera, Cleridae) Why a Large Range of Prey for a Specialized Predator? Proccedings. IUFRO Kanazawa, Forest Insect Population Dynamics and Host Influences, 16–18.
• Turchin, P., Taylor, A. D., and Reeve, J. D., 1999. Dynamical role of predators in population cycles of a forest insect: an experimental test. Science 285, 1068–1071.