Is the spider a good biological control agent for Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae)?

Abstract

ABSTRACT. Spiders, as predators of insects and other invertebrates, are an important part of the natural enemies, and they are recognized as an important biological control agent. Plutella xylostella (Linnaeus, 1758), the diamondback moth (DBM), is a well-known and destructive insect pest of brassicaceous crops worldwide. Here, we analyzed the functional responses of four spiders (Araneae) -Ebrechtella tricuspidata (Fabricius, 1775) (Thomisidae), Pardosa laura (Karsch, 1879) (Lycosidae), Pardosa astrigera (Koch, 1878) (Lycosidae), and Pardosa pseudoannulata (Bösenberg & Strand, 1906) (Lycosidae) -on P. xylostella larvae. We also analyzed intraspecific disturbances in the predation reaction and the intensity of scrambling competition of the spiders to P. xylostella larvae. Our results demonstrated that the functional responses of four spiders of different genera were in line with the Holling II model. Two Lycosidae spiders (P. astrigera and P. pseudoannulata) had the potential to control P. xylostella, and female and male spiders that belonged to the same species had different functional responses to P. xylostella.The functional responses of female predation of P. astrigena, P. laura, and P. pseudoannulata was stronger than the males, but male E. tricuspidatus had stronger functional responses to predation than females. We used the Hassell model to describe the intraspecific disturbance experiments of four spiders. There were intraspecific disturbances in the predation reactions of spiders, indicating that the predation ratio of spiders decreased in relation to the increase of its density, and with the increase of spider density, the intensity of scrambling competition of the spider increased.

Rethinking trophic interactions in agricultural landscapes through tracking secondary feeding

“…To represent piercing/sucking predators, we selected Geocoris punctipes (Say) (Hemiptera: Geocoridae) and Pardosa spp. (Araneae: Lycosidae), given their high abundance in our region's agricultural fields (Kheirodin et al., 2022) and their significant contribution to the control of major insect pests such as whiteflies (Vandervoet et al., 2018) and DBM (Huang et al., 2018; Muckenfuss, 1992). Under laboratory‐controlled conditions, we determined these three predator species' primary and secondary feeding on DBM and collard DNA.…”

“…Lycosidae), given their high abundance in our region's agricultural fields (Kheirodin et al, 2022) and their significant contribution to the control of major insect pests such as whiteflies (Vandervoet et al, 2018) and DBM (Huang et al, 2018;Muckenfuss, 1992).…”

Faunal Biodiversity of Lycosidae (Araneomorphae: Araneae: Arachnida) in India: An Updated Checklist

“…Spiders are mostly entomophagous and are among the most abundant biocontrol/natural agents in many agroecosystems, still their role in biological control programme is still disputed because they not only consume pest populations but also other biocontrol agents (predators/ parasitoids) and thus may hamper the biocontrol programme of the pests caused by those bioagents (Singh, 2021 a, b). However, in irrigated rice at the early crop stages, the natural control of insect population is mainly attributed to spiders and the most abundant spiders assessed across the cropping season are wolf spiders next to long-jawed spiders (Tetragnathidae) (Barrion and Litsinger, 1984;Huang et al, 2018). Despite their role as insect predators and being crucial to the health of terrestrial ecosystems, only 12 species, Adelocosa anops Gertsch, 1973 (endangered, cavernicolous in Hawaii) (World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 1996 a), Dolocosa dolosa (O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1873) (endangered, in St. Helena) , Hogna cinica (Tongiorgi, 1977) (critically endangered, in St. Helena) (White et al, 2019 b), Hogna inexorabilis (O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1870) (decreasing, in St. Helena) (White et al, 2019 c), Hogna ingens (Blackwall, 1857) (decreasing, in Madeira) (Cardoso, 2014), Hogna ligata (O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1870) (decreasing, in St. Helena) , Hogna nefasta Tongiorgi, 1977 (decreasing, St. Helena) (White et al, 2019 e), Lycosa elysae Tongiorgi, 1977 (critically endangered, in St. Helena) (White et al, 2019 f), Lycosa ringens Tongiorgi, 1977 (endangered, in St. Helena) (White et al, 2019 g), Pardosa diuturna Fox, 1937 (vulnerable, in Canada, Alaska) (World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 1996 b), Sosippus placidus Brady, 1972 (vulnerable, in USA) (World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 1996 c), and Vesubia jugorum (Simon, 1881) (decreasing, in Italy) (Isaia and Mammola, 2018) were listed in IUCN Red List of Threatened Species as either critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable, or decreasing.…”

RNA interference against the putative insulin receptor substrate gene IRS1 affects growth and development in the pest natural enemy Pardosa pseudoannulata

“…In this study, RNAi technology was used to explore the growth and development mechanism of spiders. The wolf spider Pardosa pseudoannulata (Araneae: Lycosidae), which is a hunting spider, 30 mainly feeds on rice pests such as planthoppers, leafhoppers, and other Lepidoptera insects 31–33 . It has strong adaptability to the environment and is widely distributed, 34–38 generally being found in wet habitats near the edge of water bodies 39 .…”

“…The wolf spider Pardosa pseudoannulata (Araneae: Lycosidae), which is a hunting spider, 30 mainly feeds on rice pests such as planthoppers, leafhoppers, and other Lepidoptera insects. [31][32][33] It has strong adaptability to the environment and is widely distributed, [34][35][36][37][38] generally being found in wet habitats near the edge of water bodies. 39 Research has shown that the vitellogenin receptor gene 38 and the functional ecdysteroid Ponasterone A (PA) 40 are vital to the growth and development of Pardosa pseudoannulata.…”