Identification of the Klambothrips myopori (Thysanoptera: Phlaeothripidae) Predator Complex in California

To identify the predator complex of the invasive thrips, Klambothrips myopori, on its ornamental host plant Myoporum laetum, field surveys were conducted at three sites in southern California over the period of 1 y. Five insect orders and five spider families were represented in the survey. Although the most abundant groups differed among collection sites, syrphid larvae, anthocorids, Chrysoperla spp., Franklinothrips orizabensis Johansen (Thysanoptera: Aeolothripidae), and one spider family (Salticidae) were all collected at each site. Based on the field surveys, Orius spp. and Chrysoperla spp. were identified as possible key natural enemies of K. myopori. Laboratory studies were then conducted to determine the consumption rates of Orius insidiosus Say (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae) and Chrysoperla rufilabris Burmeister (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) at constant densities of K. myopori and to define the functional responses of the predators. Both predators consumed more second-instar larvae than other prey stages. Orius insidious displayed a type II functional response, while C. rufilabris displayed both type II and type III depending on prey stage. Generally speaking, O. insidiosus and C. rufilabris consumed a higher proportion of prey at lower pest densities, implying that in an augmentative control program using these commercially available natural enemies, predators could be released early in the year when host plants begin to flush and thrips populations are low to suppress population growth.

Predators associated with the pine bark adelgid (Hemiptera: Adelgidae), a native insect in Appalachian forests, United States of America, in its southern range

The pine bark adelgid, Pineus strobi (Hartig) (Hemiptera: Adelgidae), is an herbivore native to eastern North America that specialises on eastern white pine, Pinus strobus Linnaeus (Pinaceae). Little is known about P. strobi, especially in its southern range in the Appalachian Mountains, United States of America, and the composition of its predator complex has not yet been documented in this region. The current study identifies arthropod predators associated with P. strobi in Appalachian forests of Virginia based on a two-year survey. Predators were identified using morphology and DNA barcoding. Predator species include: Laricobius rubidus LeConte (Coleoptera: Derodontidae), Leucopis piniperda Malloch (Diptera: Chamaemyiidae), and Leucopis argenticollis Zetterstedt (Diptera: Chamaemyiidae), that are known adelgid specialists. Also found were predators from the families Cecidomyiidae (Diptera), Coccinellidae (Coleoptera), Chrysopidae (Neuroptera), Hemerobiidae (Neuroptera), and Syrphidae (Diptera). The Cecidomyiidae were especially diverse, with 14 different species inferred from their DNA barcodes. Knowledge of this predator complex is particularly valuable for anticipation and detection of potential interactions between native predator species and those that are being considered for the introduction for biological control of invasive adelgid pests within the southern Appalachian ecosystem.

Consumption of flea beetles (Phyllotreta, Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) by spiders in field habitats detected by molecular analysis

Flea beetles, Phyllotreta Chevrolat (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) species, are often found in oilseed rape (OSR), Brassica napus Linnaeus (Brassicaceae). Among predators in the generalist predator complex present in agricultural fields, wolf spiders (Araneae: Lycosidae) are found on the ground and cobweb spiders (Araneae: Theridiidae) build webs in the foliage. We present group-specific primers developed for five flea beetle species within the genus Phyllotreta and study the incidence of predation of flea beetles by these spider groups using DNA-based gut-content analysis. Wolf spiders of the genus Pardosa Koch and the cobweb spider, Phylloneta impressa (Koch), were collected in three winter OSR fields. Flea beetle densities as well as the occurrence of predators and alternative prey were monitored. In total 19.4% of the collected Pardosa tested positive for flea beetle DNA in the polymerase chain reaction analyses, whereas 10% P. impressa were positive. Pardosa were more likely to be positive for flea beetle DNA when Pardosa activity density was low. Phylloneta impressa were more likely to be positive for flea beetle DNA if they were positive for pollen beetle DNA. Implications of these results for conservation biological control and future studies of food webs in OSR are discussed.

Monoclonal antibodies reveal the potential of the tetragnathid spider Pachygnatha degeeri (Araneae: Tetragnathidae) as an aphid predator

The drive towards a more sustainable and integrated approach to pest management has engendered a renewed interest in conservation biological control, the role of natural enemy communities and their interactions with prey. Monoclonal antibodies have provided significant advances in enhancing our knowledge of trophic interactions and can be employed to help quantify predation on target species. The tetragnathid spider Pachygnatha degeeri Sundevall was collected from fields of winter wheat in the UK and assayed by ELISA for aphid proteins. It was demonstrated that this spider did not simply consume greater quantities of aphids because it was bigger. In addition, P. degeeri contained significantly greater concentrations of aphid in their guts than other spiders, showing that aphids comprised a greater proportion of their diet. Although P. degeeri constituted only 6% of the spider population numerically, females and males respectively contained 16% and 37% of total aphid proteins within all spiders screened, significantly more than their density would predict. These spiders also preyed upon aphids at a disproportionately high rate in June, during the aphid establishment phase, theoretically the best time for limiting growth in the aphid population. Although less abundant than other generalist predators, the capability of these hunting spiders to consume large numbers of aphids highlights them as a more significant component of the predator complex than had previously been realized. Limitation of aphid numbers early in the year by generalist predators provides more time for the specialist aphid predators and parasitoids to move in.