Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T05:05:26.019Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Structure, relationships and diversity in the community of aphids and aphidophagous species in alfalfa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 November 2024

Ivelina Nikolova*
Affiliation:
Department ‘Forage production and breeding’, Agricultural Academy, Institute of Forage Crops, 5800 Pleven, Bulgaria
*
Corresponding author: Ivelina Nikolova: Email: imnikolova@abv.bg
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is a need for comprehensive research on the species structure and the population dynamics of the most common aphidophagous species. A critical factor of the effectiveness of aphid biocontrol is the ratio of beneficial polyphagous (generalist) to oligo- or monophagous (specialist) species within the various trophic groups. Aphids' population density and environmental conditions influence the development and potential feeding of useful insects. The present study aimed to determine the community structure, relationships and diversity between aphids and their aphidophagous species in alfalfa fields using the following methods: sweeping with an entomological net, the quadratic method, coloured sticky board method, route survey method and visual observations. Research on the structure of the aphid–aphidophagous community revealed that aphidophagous species belong to three groups: (1) polyphagous predatory bugs from the families Anthocoridae and Nabidae, (2) oligophagous and polyphagous predators from the families Coccinellidae, Syrphidae and Chrysopidae; and (3) monophagous and oligophagous parasitoids, primarily from the families Aphidiidae and Ichneumonidae. From mid-May to June, there was a sufficiently large potential for aphidophagous species (Coccinellidae, Syrphidae, Chrysopidae, Anthocoridae and Nabidae) to control aphids, while in September, predatory ladybirds from the Coccinellidae family were the main biological control agents. Coccinellidae (Coleoptera) exhibited the highest values of diversity, dominance and richness indices among insect groups in the aphid–aphidophagous community. The existence of diverse aphidophagous species in alfalfa fields suggests that these predators can complement each other, leading to effective biological control of aphids. The synergy among different predator species holds promise for enhancing the overall efficacy of integrated pest management strategies.

Information

Type
Research Paper
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. Meteorological characteristics for the region of Pleven, 1994–2018.

Figure 1

Table 1. Analysis of variance

Figure 2

Table 2. Taxonomic groups of the collected entomological material

Figure 3

Figure 2. CCA graph based on the correlation of population density of aphids and predators for Medicago sativa L. according to several climatic parameters. The period analysed was from March to September.

Figure 4

Table 3. Percentage ratio between representatives of the family Coccinellidae (Coleoptera) (average for 2015–2018)

Figure 5

Table 4. Percentage ratio between species of the family Syrpliidae (Diptera) (average for 2015–2018)

Figure 6

Table 5. Percentage ratio between representatives of the family Chrysopidae (Neuroptera) (average for 2015–2018)

Figure 7

Table 6. Diversity indices of insect species between the four years

Figure 8

Picture 1. Trophic interactions between the dominant aphid and its predators and parasitoids.

Figure 9

Figure 3. Dynamics of predators and aphids: (a) Therioaphis trifolii Monell and Asurthosiphon pisum Harris; (b) Chrysopidae; (c) Coccinellidae; (d) Syrphidae; (f) Nabidae – genus Nabis and Anthocoridae – genus Orius.

Figure 10

Figure 4. Population dynamics of the Syrphidae family (total number of adults and larvae).

Figure 11

Figure 5. Dynamics of dominant species of the Coccinellidae family in alfalfa: (a) Coccinella septempunctata (adults and larvae); (b) Hippodamia variegata; (c) Scymnus frontalis quadrimaculatus; (d) Propylaea quatuordecimpunctata; (f) Coccinella quinquepunctata from (b) to (f) – adult individuals.

Figure 12

Figure 6. Dynamics of adults and larvae of the family Chrysopidae: (a) Chrysoperla carnea Stephens; (b) Chrysopa phyllochroma Wesmael; (c) Chrysopa commata Kis and Ujhelyi; (d) larvae.

Figure 13

Table 7. Regression analysis and regression coefficients of the aphid density regarding their aphidophagous species