Predation on blackmargined aphids (Homoptera: Aphididae) by spiders on pecan

Bumroongsook, S.; Harris, Marvin K.; Dean, David A.

doi:10.1016/1049-9644(92)90070-t

Cited by 11 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Sampling of agroecosystems : Many agroecosystems have been studied: cabbage ( Irungu 2007 ), citrus ( Breene et al 1993a ), corn ( Knutson and Gilstrap 1989 ), cotton ( Breene et al 1993c , Dean et al 1982 , Dean and Sterling 1987 , Kagan 1943 , Pamanes-Guerrero 1975 ), guar ( Rogers and Horner 1977 ), peanut ( Agnew et al 1985 ), pecan ( Bumroongsook et al 1992 , Calixto et al 2013 , Liao et al 1984 ), rice ( Woods and Harrel 1976 ), saltcedar ( Knutson et al 2010 ), sugarcane ( Breene et al 1993b ), wildflowers ( Dean and Eger 1986 ), and woolly croton ( Breene et al 1988 ).…”

Section: History Of Collecting In Texasmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An additional twenty-nine published their work [citation in brackets]: Agnew 1981 [ Agnew et al 1982 ], Barron 1995 [ Barron et al 1999 ], Bowen 2002 [ Bowen et al 2004 ], Breene 1988 [ Breene et al 1988 , Breene et al 1989 ], Broussard 2002 [ Broussard and Horner 2006 ], Brown 1984 [ Cokendolpher and Brown 1985 ], Bumroongsook 1986 [ Bumroongsook et al 1992 ], Carpenter 1969 [ Carpenter 1972 ], Cokendolpher 1978 [ Cokendolpher et al 1979 ], Gann 2014 [ Gann et al 2015 ], Hamilton 2008 [ Hamilton and Craig 2008 , Hamilton et al 2012 ], Hamilton 2009 [ Hamilton et al 2011 ], Harwood 1970 [ Harwood 1974 ], Higgins 1988 [ Higgins 1989 , Higgins 1990 , Higgins 1992b , Higgins and McGuinness 1990 ], Hoffmaster 1983 [ Hoffmaster 1985 ], Horner 1967 [ Horner and Stewart 1967 ], Janowski-Bell 1995 [ Janowski-Bell and Horner 1999 ], Jones 1935 [ Jones 1936 ], Kagan 1942 [ Kagan 1943 ], Knutson 1987 [ Knutson and Gilstrap 1989 ], Liao 1984 [ Liao et al 1984 ], Pickett 1985 [ Pickett and Gilstrap 1986 ], Pritchett 1904a [ Pritchett 1904b ], Salmon 1976 [ Salmon and Horner 1977 ], Steffenson 2014 [ Steffenson et al 2014 ], Tugman 1987 [Tugman et al 1990], Woods 1974 [ Woods and Harrel 1976 ], Zhang 2002 [ Zhang et ...…”

Section: History Of Collecting In Texasmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… Aysha gracilis (Hentz, 1847); Agnew et al 1985 : 4, 10; Bonnet 1955 : 837; Breene 1988 : 15, 17, 23–26, 35, 41; Breene et al 1988 : 180–181; Breene et al 1989 : 162; Breene et al 1993c : 9, 47, 74, mf (figs 65A-C); Bumroongsook et al 1992 : 17; Dean and Eger 1986 : 142; Dean and Sterling 1987 : 6; Dean and Sterling 1990 : 402, 405; Dean et al 1982 : 255; Dean et al 1987 : 268; Dean et al 1988 : 287; Dondale and Redner 1982 : 167, mf, desc. (figs 307–312); Glick 1957 : 5; Jones 1936 : 70; Kagan 1942 : 55; Kagan 1943 : 258; Kaston 1972 : 231, desc.…”

Section: Taxonomymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Catalogue of Texas spiders

Dean¹

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This catalogue lists 1,084 species of spiders (three identified to genus only) in 311 genera from 53 families currently recorded from Texas and is based on the “Bibliography of Texas Spiders” published by Bea Vogel in 1970. The online list of species can be found at http://pecanspiders.tamu.edu/spidersoftexas.htm. Many taxonomic revisions have since been published, particularly in the families Araneidae, Gnaphosidae and Leptonetidae. Many genera in other families have been revised. The Anyphaenidae, Ctenidae, Hahniidae, Nesticidae, Sicariidae and Tetragnathidae were also revised. Several families have been added and others split up. Several genera of Corinnidae were transferred to Phrurolithidae and Trachelidae. Two genera from Miturgidae were transferred to Eutichuridae. Zoridae was synonymized under Miturgidae. A single species formerly in Amaurobiidae is now in the Family Amphinectidae. Some trapdoor spiders in the family Ctenizidae have been transferred to Euctenizidae.Gertsch and Mulaik started a list of Texas spiders in 1940. In a letter from Willis J. Gertsch dated October 20, 1982, he stated “Years ago a first listing of the Texas fauna was published by me based largely on Stanley Mulaik material, but it had to be abandoned because of other tasks.” This paper is a compendium of the spiders of Texas with distribution, habitat, collecting method and other data available from revisions and collections. This includes many records and unpublished data (including data from three unpublished studies). One of these studies included 16,000 adult spiders belonging to 177 species in 29 families. All specimens in that study were measured and results are in the appendix. Hidalgo County has 340 species recorded with Brazos County at 323 and Travis County at 314 species. These reflect the amount of collecting in the area.

show abstract

Section: History Of Collecting In Texasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: History Of Collecting In Texasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Taxonomymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Catalogue of Texas spiders

Dean¹

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Pecan tree canopies in Kansas provide refuge for 18 species of predaceous arthropods (Dinkins and Reid, 1985b). In addition, 25 species of arboreal spiders have been shown to feed on pecan aphids (Bumroongsook et al, 1992). In natural systems, predators and parasites hold populations of pecan aphids, gregarious caterpillars, and other secondary pecan pests in check.…”

Section: Pecan Ipm Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Current Pest Management Systems for Pecan

Reid¹

2002

horttech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pecans (Carya illinoinensis) are produced under a wide array of environmental conditions—from the warm humid southeastern states, to the continental climate of the central plains, to the arid climates of the American west. In addition, pecan cultural systems vary from the low-input management of native stands of seedling trees to the intensive management of single-cultivar pecan orchards. This wide diversity of pecan agroecosystems has fostered the development of innovative, site-specific approaches toward pecan pest management. Current pecan pest management programs require an intimate knowledge of orchard ecology. Growers use monitoring methods and prediction models to track pest populations. Biological control agents are conserved by habitat manipulation and/or augmented through inoculative releases. Selective pesticides are used to control target pests while conserving natural enemies. Four pecan cultural systems are described in detail to illustrate how ecological principles are applied to widely diverse pecan agroecosystems.

show abstract

“…The same spiders feed at several times higher rates in laboratory feeding experiments if food is offered ad Libitum (comp. LINGREN et al 1968;MUNIAPPAN and CHADA 1970a;YOUNG and LOCKLEY 1986;BUMROONGSOOK et al 1992). This suggests that in the field these spiders feed below their maximum feeding capacity (NYFFELER et al 1992a).…”

Section: Feeding Frequenciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Insectivorous activities of spiders in United States field crops

Nyffeler

Sterling

Dean

1994

J Applied Entomology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A survey of average spider numbers in U.S. field crops (considering a geographic range from the east to the west coast) gave an overall mean density of ≅ 1 plant‐dwelling spider/m2(± 0.18 SEM). This value is more than 100 times lower than Turnbull's famous ‘overall mean value’ (= 130.8/m2) computed from 37 published censuses of spider numbers in a wide variety of environments from all over the world. Crop fields are disturbed systems whose spider numbers are drastically reduced by agricultural practices such as pesticide use, cultivation, harvest, etc. Small sized spider individuals (including large percentages of immatures) numerically dominate the faunas of U.S. field crops, and these feed primarily on tiny prey organisms (< 4 mm in length). Small web‐building spiders are almost strictly insectivore (insects constituting > 99% of total prey). In contrast, the ‘hunters’ (nonweb‐building spiders) that actively search the plant surface for prey, exhibit a mixed strategy of araneophagic and insectivorous foraging patterns (insects constituting ≅ 90% of total prey). The aggressive ‘active searchers’ are highly polyphagous (compared to the small web‐weavers), but can narrow their feeding niche significantly when a suitable prey species reaches high numbers relative to other prey groups. The numerically dominant spider predators in U.S. field crops feed heavily on small plant‐sucking insects such as plant bugs (Miridae), fleahoppers (Miridae), leafhoppers (Cicadellidae), treehoppers (Membracidae), planthoppers (Delphacidae), and aphids (Aphididae), which is of interest from a biocontrol point of view. A typical agroecosystem spider (i.e., striped lynx spider) may capture an average of ≅ 1 prey per rainfree day in the field (by multiplying this value with the overall mean spider density of 1/m2, it follows that the average prey kill may be in the order of magnitude of ≅ 1 prey/m2/day). At prey densities of 100–300/m2 (as recorded in literature), spiders kill perhaps ≅ 0.3‐1 % of the potential prey per day. Extensive field and laboratory observations, experiments, and computer models conducted by research groups in different parts of the U.S. indicate that the collective predation impact of spiders may contribute significantly to lower pest levels in some crop fields.

show abstract

Predation on blackmargined aphids (Homoptera: Aphididae) by spiders on pecan

Cited by 11 publications

References 8 publications

Catalogue of Texas spiders

Catalogue of Texas spiders

Current Pest Management Systems for Pecan

Insectivorous activities of spiders in United States field crops

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About