Open Access
How to translate text using browser tools
1 September 2010 Distribution and Habitat Preference of Carabidae and Staphylinidae (Coleoptera) in an Orange Orchard and a Forest Fragment
Francisco J. Cividanes, Edileusa S. Araújo, Sérgio Ide, Júlio C. Galli
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

A survey of Carabidae and Staphylinidae (Coleoptera) was conducted in a forest fragment and an orange orchard located in the Gavião Peixoto municipality, São Paulo State, Brazil to identify dominant predator species that may be important in the biocontrol of orange pests. Beetles were captured by pitfall traps arranged along 2 parallel transects 200 m long, placed across the orchard/forest boundary, extending 100 m into each habitat. The Shannon-Wiener diversity and Bray-Curtis similarity indices were calculated for both habitats, and habitat preference of abundant species were investigated by analysis of variance. Carabids comprised 91% and 86% of the beetles observed in the fragment and orchard, respectively. Abaris basistriata Chaudoir, Athrostictus sp.1, Tetracha brasiliensis (Kirby), Pseudabarys sp. 1, Selenophorus seriatoporus Putzeys, Selenophorus sp.4, and the staphylinid Xenopygus sp.2 were the dominant species. There was no significant increase or decrease in carabid and staphylinid species richness from the edge to the interior of the fragment and orchard. Abaris basistriata prefered the forest fragment and the orange orchard, while Athrostictus sp.1, Pseudobarys sp., Selenophorus sp.4, and S. seriatoporus were orchard associated. The presence of ground vegetation on the orchard soil can have favored the establishment of ground-dwelling beetles that may be acting to control important orange pests. Dominant species determined in this study should be considered in future researches aiming to enhance the biocontrol in orange orchards.

Studies dealing with the occurrence of arthropod predators in citrus orchards are rare in Brazil. The information available is related to coccinellids, lacewings, and syrphids (Rodrigues et al. 2004), ants (Carvalho et al. 2000), wasps (Galvan et al. 2002), and mites (Silva & Oliveira 2006). Some studies have reported on the occurrence of parasitoids in orchards (Garcia et al. 2001; Jahnke et al. 2005).

Ground beetles (Carabidae) and rove beetles (Staphylinidae) include important ground dwelling predator species that can contribute to the natural control of pests, and are strongly influenced by environmental conditions (Pfiffner & Luka 2000; Holland 2002). Factors known to influence their abundance and distribution include vegetation type, temperature, humidity, food availability, and the species' life cycles (Lovei & Sunderland 1996; Kromp 1999).

In Brazilian citrus orchards occur several insect pests whose larval and/or pupae stage develop in the soil and, therefore, can be encountered and consumed by ground-dwelling beetles. Among these pests are the Mediterranean fruit fly Ceratitis capitata (Wied.) and several species of Anastrepha (Diptera: Tephritidae), the citrus borer, Ecdytolopha aurantiana (Lima) (Lepidoptera:Tortricidae) and the beetles Macrodactylus pumilio Burm. (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae), Naupactus cervinus (Boheman) and Naupactus rivulosus (Oliv.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). It is noteworthy that already carabid species have been observed and considered voracious consumers of C. capitata pupae (Urbaneja et al. 2006). On the other hand, currently most of Brazilian orange orchards have been conducted without cultivation for weed suppression. As a consequence, the soils of these orchards are covered with spontaneous vegetation composed mainly of grasses. This agricultural practice can contribute to the natural control of pests by providing refuge to natural enemies of pests including ground-dwelling beetles (Minarro & Dapena 2003; Bone et al. 2009).

The diversity and abundance of predatory insects in crops are related to the vegetation in the vicinity, which may favor the occurrence of these insects in agroecosystems (Thomas et al. 2002). The presence of natural habitats may increase the occurrence of carabids and staphylinids in crops (Dyer & Landis 1997). As these predators are potentially important natural pest-control agents, they can be crucial for sustainable agricultural systems by preventing insect pest outbreaks (Kromp 1999).

Farming practices such as cultivation of different plant species and changes in habitat structure due to cultivation methods can alter the species composition, distribution, and abundance of insects (Lovei & Sunderland 1996). To increase the effectiveness of carabids and staphylinids as biological control agents, it is necessary to evaluate the influence of habitat type on their assemblage composition (Holland & Luff 2000).

The objectives of this study were to determine the habitat preferences of abundant species, the species diversity, and the distribution of individual species of Carabidae and Staphylinidae across a forest fragment, an orange orchard and the edge between these habitats.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was carried out in an area located in Gavião Peixoto municipality, São Paulo State, Brazil (21°49′19″S, 48°24′46″W).The soil is classified as an Ultisol. The site comprised 10 ha of an orange Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck orchard adjacent to 19 ha of a semi-deciduous broadleaf tropical forest fragment.

Beetles were sampled by pitfall traps, arranged on 2 parallel 200-m transects, 10 m apart, from Nov 2004 to Oct 2006, totaling 36 sampling dates. A total of 48 traps were installed (20 traps in the fragment, 20 in the orchard and 8 in the edge). Each transect spanned the habitat boundary, with 100 m in the crop field and 100 m in the forest fragment. Four traps were set close to each other (1 m) at the edge between the forest fragment and the crop, and from this point additional traps were installed at 10-m intervals. Sampling was biweekly during the growing season and monthly otherwise. On each sampling date, the traps were set and remained in the field for 1 week. Beetles were preserved for identification at the Insect Ecology Laboratory at Unesp, Jaboticabal Campus. Identifications were made by 1 of the authors (SI). The specimens were identified to generic level with help of keys by Navarrete-Heredia et al. (2002) and Reichardt (1977). Specific identifications were done by comparison with specimens deposited in the Coleção Entomológica Adolph Hempel, Institute Biológico, São Paulo (IBSP-IB) and Museu de Zoologia, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo. The exemplars are deposited in IBSP-IB.

Beetle communities were assessed by the Shannon-Wiener (H) and Bray-Curtis (IBC) indices (Brower et al. 1998). Species with the highest abundance, dominance, frequency, and constancy faunistic coefficients (Silveira Neto et al. 1995) were designated as dominant. Regression analysis was used to determine the effect of distance from the edge on species richness, for orchard and forest habitats. To establish the distribution frequency of species that had at least 20 individuals captured during the study, the total number of individuals caught in a trap was plotted against their position on the transect. The habitat preference of these species were determined by analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey test, considering the total number of individuals captured in the fragment, orchard and edge, at each sampling date.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Among the beetles captured, 71% of individuals occurred in the orange orchard and 21% in the forest fragment. The carabids comprised 91% and 86% of the individuals observed in the fragment and orchard, respectively (Table 1), and were therefore more abundant in the forest fragment and orange orchard than the staphylinids. Magagula (2006) observed that carabids were at least 26 times more numerous than staphylinids in a citrus orchard and a windbreak. The low occurrence of carabids and staphylinids in the fragment (141 individuals) compared to 473 individuals in the orchard may result from a smaller number of prey, and/or unfavorable habitat characteristics. Lovei & Sunderland (1996) reported similar results where the density of adult carabids in annual crops was 32/m2, but was extremely low in forests (2/m2).

TABLE 1.

TOTAL NUMBER OF CAPTURED INDIVIDUALS OF CARABIDAE AND STAPHYLINIDAE IN ORANGE ORCHARD, FOREST FRAGMENT AND EDGE. DOMINANT SPECIES IN BOLD TYPE.

t01_339.gif

The carabids classified as dominant species were: Abaris basistriata Chaudoir, Athrostictus sp.1, Tetracha brasiliensis (Kirby), Pseudabarys sp.1, Selenophorus seriatoporus Putzeys, and Selenophorus sp.4; only Xenopygus sp.2 was dominant among the staphylinids (Table 1).

The species richness of carabids and staphylinids was higher in the orchard than in the fragment (Fig. 1). A relatively high number of beetle species was observed at the edge, often exceeding the number of species in the fragment. The species richness of carabids at the edge was lower than in the orchard, whereas for staphylinids it was similar from the edge to 40 m within the orchard. Regression analyses did not indicate a significant relationship between species-richness distribution of carabids and staphylinids, and the distance from the edge for both the fragment (yCarabidae = 4.9535 + 0.0065x, r = 0.0860, P > 0.05; yStaphylinidae = 1.8252 - 0.0071x, r = 0.2256, P > 0.05) and orchard (yCarabidae = 8.6926 + 0.0267x, r = 0.4293, P > 0.05; yStaphylinidae = 2.447 - 0.0025x, r = 0.0600, P > 0.05). Therefore the variation in number of species did not depend on the position on the transect.

Fig. 1.

Carabidae and Staphylinidae species richness plotted against position on the transect. The zero indicates the edge between the orange orchard (positive numbers) and the forest fragment (negative numbers).

f01_339.eps

The carabid species diversity coefficients for the fragment (H = 0.871) and orchard (H = 0.900) were close to each other, indicating that they are similar in richness and dominance structure. Because the occurrence of carabids depends on environmental conditions such as temperature, moisture, and vegetation type (Kromp 1999; Holland 2002), the present results indicate that the forest fragment and the orange orchard with ground vegetation support carabid assemblages of similar diversity. A greater diversity of staphylinids was found in the fragment (H = 0.614) than in the orchard (H = 0.483), which may indicate that the fragment was more favorable for the occurrence of species of these beetles. However, there are limitations to the interpretation of results on staphylinids, because of the lack of information on the ecology and adult behavior of these beetles (Frank & Thomas 2008).

TABLE 2.

NUMBER (MEAN ± STANDARD ERROR) OF CARABIDAE AND STAPHYLINIDAE CAPTURED IN FOREST FRAGMENT, ORANGE ORCHARD AND EDGE.

t02_339.gif

A low species similarity was observed between the carabid and staphylinid communities present in the orchard and the fragment (IBC Carabidae = 0.353; IBC Staphylinidae = 0.173). In agricultural areas, soil arthropods have been observed to move between crops and forest fragments (French et al. 2001; Thomas et al. 2002). The apparent low rate of movement of carabids and staphylinids between the fragment and the orchard may be related to the presence of ground vegetation on the orchard soil providing favorable conditions that kept the beetles in the orchard.

Table 2 shows the average number of carabids and staphylinids captured in 36 sampling dates. Abaris basistriata appears to prefer the fragment and orchard, while Athrostictus sp.1, Pseudobarys sp., Selenophorus sp.4, and S. seriatoporus are orchard associated. The remaining species show no clear preference and may be regarded as widespread.

Carabids can be classified according to the habitat where they are observed in the agroecosystem (Fournier & Loreau 1999; French & Elliott 1999). In Brazil, T. brasiliensis and species of genus Selenophorus were found in cotton (Ramiro & Faria 2006), maize (Araújo et al. 2004), sugar cane (Macedo & Araújo 2000; Araújo et al. 2005), and vegetables (Cividanes et al. 2003). These findings corroborate the results of the present study, indicating S. seriatoporus, and Selenophorus sp.4 as crop inhabiting species.

Fig. 2.

Catch frequency of individual species of Carabidae plotted against position on the transect. The vertical lines indicate the position of the edge.

f02_339.eps

Although the abundance distribution of carabids might potentially be affected by many factors (Thomas et al. 2002), the distribution frequency of selected species gave some indication of their response to the transition zone (edge) between the fragment and the orchard (Figs. 2 and 3). Abaris basistriata showed a gradual decline in catch frequency from inside the orchard/fragment toward the edge. Scarites sp.2 was most abundant at the edge to at least 30 m into the orchard and fragment, whereas T. brasiliensis was abundant from the edge to 80 m into the orchard. Among the orange-orchard species, the catch frequency of Athrostictus sp.1 declined abruptly from inside the orchard to the edge, whereas S. seriatoporus, Pseudabarys sp.1 and Selenophorus sp.4 showed a more gradual drop in abundance toward the edge. The staphylinid Xenopygus sp.2 was abundant in the orange orchard, with a clear decrease in abundance near the edge.

Fig. 3.

Catch frequency of individual species of Carabidae and Staphylinidae (Xenopygus sp.2) plotted against position on the transect. The vertical lines indicate the position of the edge.

f03_339.eps

This study indicated low similarity between the carabid and staphylinid communities in the orange orchard and forest fragment, but, on the other hand, we observed high species diversity of carabids in the orchard where most of the dominant species also prevailed. Low similarity between communities can indicate low rate of movement of the ground-dwelling beetles between the fragment and orchard (Kajak & Lukasiewicz 1994). Therefore, the high diversity of carabids and the presence of dominant species in the orchard are due probably to no soil disturbance and the presence of ground vegetation on the orchard soil. These characteristics of the orchard favored the establishment of ground-dwelling beetles that may be acting to control important pests such as the fruit flies C. capitata and several species of Anastrepha, the citrus borer, E. aurantiana and the beetles M. pumilio, N. cervinus and N. rivulosus. As most of Brazilian orange orchards employ the same agricultural practice of keeping ground vegetation, further studies are needed to clarify the actual role of these ground-dwelling beetles as biological control agents of pests in orange orchards. Considering that dominant species have the potential to be used in biological control programs (Ellsbury et al. 1998), research in an orange orchard aiming to improve biocontrol should consider the dominant species determined in this study.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (Fapesp), for financial support; and the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), for financial support and for providing a scholarship to the first author.

REFERENCES CITED

1.

R. A. Araújo , M. S. AraújO , A. H. R. Goring , and R. N. C. Guedes 2005. Impacto da queima controlada da palhada da cana-de-açúcar sobre a cornunidade de insetos locais. Neotrop. Entomol. 34: 649–658. Google Scholar

2.

R. A. Araújo , C. A. Badji , A. S. CorrêA , J. A. Ladeira , and R. N. C. Guedes 2004. Impacto causado por Deltametrina em coleópteros do solo associados à cultura do milho em sistema de plantio direto e conventional. Neotrop. Entomol. 33: 379–385. Google Scholar

3.

N. J. Bone , L. J. Thomson , P. M. Ridland , P. Cole , and A. A. Hoffmann 2009. Cover crops in Victorian apple orchards: effects on production, natural enemies and pests across a season. Crop Prot. 28: 675–683. Google Scholar

4.

J. B. Brower , J. H. Zar , and C. N. Von Ende 1998. Field and Laboratory Methods for General Ecology. Boston, McGraw-Hill, 273 pp. Google Scholar

5.

R. S. Carvalho , A. S. Nascimento , and W. J. R. Matrangolo 2000. Controle biológico, pp. 113–118 In A. Malavasi and R. A. Zucchi [eds.], Moscas-das-frutas de importância econômica no Brasil: conhecimento básico e aplicado. Ribeirão Preto, Holos Editora . 327 pp. Google Scholar

6.

F. J. Cividanes , V. P. Souza , and L. K. Sakemi 2003. Composição faunística de insetos predadores em fragmento florestal e em area de hortaliças na região de Jaboticabal, estado de São Paulo. Acta Sci., Biol. Sciences 25: 315–321. Google Scholar

7.

L. E. Dyer , and D. A. Landis 1997. Influence of noncrop habitats on the distribution of Eriborus terebrans (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) in cornfields. Environ. Entomol. 26: 924–932. Google Scholar

8.

M. M. Ellsbury , J. E. Powell , F. Forcella , W. D. Woodson , S. A. Clay , and W. E. Riedell 1998. Diversity and dominant species of ground beetle assemblages (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in crop rotation and chemical input systems for the Northern Great Plains. Ann. Entomol. Soc. America 91: 619–625. Google Scholar

9.

E. Fournier , and M. Loreau 1999. Effects of newly planted hedges on ground-beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in an agricultural landscape. Ecography 22: 87–97. Google Scholar

10.

J. H. Frank , and M. C. Thomas 2008. Rove beetles of Florida, Staphylinidae (Insecta: Coleoptera: Staphylinidae). University of Florida, IFAS Extension.  http://creatures.ifas.ufl.edu Google Scholar

11.

B. W. French , N. C. Elliott , R. C. Berberet , and J. D. Burd 2001. Effects of riparian and grassland habitats on ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) assemblages in adjacent wheat fields. Environ. Entomol. 30: 225–234. Google Scholar

12.

B. W. French , and N. C. Elliott 1999. Temporal and spatial distribution of ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) assemblages in grasslands and adjacent wheat fields. Environ. Entomol. 28: 73–84. Google Scholar

13.

T. L. Galvan , M. C. PicançO , L. Bacci , E. J. G. Perreira , and A. L. B. Crespo 2002. Seletividade de oito inseticidas a predadores de lagartas em citros. Pesq. Agropec. Bras. 37: 117–122. Google Scholar

14.

R. R. M. Garcia , M. C. Carabagialle , L. A. N. Sá , and J. V. Campos 2001. Parasitismo natural de Phyllocnistis citrella Stainton, 1856 (Lepidoptera, Gracillariidae, Phyllocnistinae) no oeste de Santa Catarina, Brasil. Rev. Bras. Entomol. 45: 139–143. Google Scholar

15.

J. M. Holland 2002. Carabid beetles: their ecology, survival and use in agroecosystems, pp. 1–40 In J. M. Holland [ed.], The Agroecology of Carabid Beetles. Andover, Intercept. 356 pp. Google Scholar

16.

J. M. Holland , and M. L. Luff 2000. The effects of agricultural practices on Carabidae in temperate agroecosystems. Integr. Pest Manage. Rev. 5: 109–129. Google Scholar

17.

S. M. Jahnke , L. R. Redaelli , and L. M. G. Diefenbach 2005. Complexo de parasiteides de Phyllocnistis citrella (Lepidoptera, Gracillariidae) em dois pomares de citros em Montenegro, RS, Brasil. Iheringia, Ser. Zool. 95: 359–363. Google Scholar

18.

A. Kajak , and J. Lukasiewicz 1994. Do semi-natural patches enrich crop fields with predatory epigean arthropods. Agric. Ecosys. Environ. 49: 149–161. Google Scholar

19.

B. Kromp 1999. Carabid beetles in sustainable agriculture: a review on pest control efficacy, cultivation impacts and enhancement. Agric. Ecosys. Environ. 74: 187–228. Google Scholar

20.

G. L. Lövei , and K. D. Sunderland 1996. Ecology and behavior of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Annu. Rev. Entomol. 41: 231–256. Google Scholar

21.

N. Macedo , and J. R. Araújo 2000. Efeito da queima do canavial sobre insetos predadores. An. Soc. Entomol. Bras. 29: 71–77. Google Scholar

22.

C. N. Magagula 2006. Habitat specificity and variation of coleopteran assemblages between habitats in a south African (Swaziland) agricultural landscape. Biodivers. Conserv. 15: 453–463. Google Scholar

23.

M. Miñarro , and E. Dapena 2003. Effects of groundcover management on ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in an apple orchard. Appl. Soil Ecol. 23: 111–117. Google Scholar

24.

J. L. Navarrete-Heredia , A. F. Newton , M. K. Thayer , J. S. Ashe , and D. S. Chandler 2002. Illustrated Guide to the Genera of Staphylinidae (Coleoptera) of Mexico. Guadalajara, Universidad de Guadalajara & Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad, 401 pp. Google Scholar

25.

L. Pfiffner , and H. Luka 2000. Overwintering of arthropods in soils of arable fields and adjacent seminatural habitats. Agric. Ecosys. Environ. 78: 215–222. Google Scholar

26.

Z. A. Ramiro , and A. M. Faria 2006. Levantamento de insetos predadores nos cultivares de algodão Bollgard®DP90 e convencional Delta Pine Acala 90. Arq. Inst. Biol. 53: 119–121. Google Scholar

27.

H. Reichardt 1977. A synopsis of the genera of Neotropical Carabidae (Insecta: Coleoptera). Quaest. Entomol. 13: 346–493. Google Scholar

28.

W. C. Rodrigues , P. C. R. Cassino , and R. Silva-Filho 2004. Ocorrência e distribuição de crisopídeos e sirfídeos, inimigos naturais de insetos-pragas de citros, no estado do Rio de Janeiro. Agronomia 38: 83–87. Google Scholar

29.

M. Z. Da Silva , and C. A. L. De. Oliveira 2006. Seletividade de alguns agrotóxicos em uso na citricultura ao ácaro predador Neoseiulus californicus (MacGregor) (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Rev. Bras. Frutic. 28: 205–208. Google Scholar

30.

S. Silveira Neto , R. C. Monteiro , R. A. Zucchi , and R. C. B. Moraes 1995. Uso da análise faunística de insetos na avaliação do impacto ambiental. Sci. Agric. 52: 9–15. Google Scholar

31.

C. F. G. Thomas , J. M. Holland , and N. J. Brown 2002. The spatial distribution of carabid beetles in agricultural landscapes, pp. 305–344 In J. M. Holland [ed.], The Agroecology of Carabid Beetles. Andover Intercept,. 356 pp. Google Scholar

32.

A. Urbaneja , F. Garcia Mari , D. Tortosa , C. Navarro , P. Vanaclocha , L. Bargues , and P. Castanera 2006. Influence of ground predators on the survival of the Mediterranean fruit fly pupae, Ceratitis capitata, in Spanish citrus orchards. BioControl 51: 611–626. Google Scholar
Francisco J. Cividanes, Edileusa S. Araújo, Sérgio Ide, and Júlio C. Galli "Distribution and Habitat Preference of Carabidae and Staphylinidae (Coleoptera) in an Orange Orchard and a Forest Fragment," Florida Entomologist 93(3), 339-345, (1 September 2010). https://doi.org/10.1653/024.093.0303
Published: 1 September 2010
KEYWORDS
biological control
Citrus sinensis
diversity
similarity indices
Back to Top