Side effects of plant protection products and biological interactions on the European earwig Forficula auricularia L.
Plant protection products are designed to control pests but can have negative side effects on non-target arthropods thus disturbing the important population of natural enemies required for biological control. Although the European earwig, Forficula auricularia L, (Dermaptera: Forficulidae) is not considered to be a key beneficial in pome fruit, it is an important predator of several pests, e.g. woolly apple aphid and pear sucker. The impact of non-selective plant protection products at crucial moments in their (univoltine) life cycle can be of significant relevance compared to insects with numerous generations. Foliar applications in spring when nymphs are migrating into the trees can reduce the number of adults in summer and subsequently affect the population size next year. Multiple and/or combined spraying during summer on adults may have a cumulative effect resulting in less over wintering females which possibly exhibit poor reproductive performance. Previous residual contact bioassays already revealed the harmful side effect of several formulated products on adults. Insects showing sub lethal symptoms recovered partially or died eventually. As spinosad caused significant toxicological effects it was subsequently tested in 3 different dose rates on adults and N4-nymphs. We noticed not only a clear dose-response relationship but N4-nymphs proved to be more susceptible than adults; even a dilution of 1/9-th of the registered dose rate still caused a mortality of 45.5 % after 20 days. Understanding the earwig's population dynamics is essential for efficient practical biocontrol. It proves difficult to increase population levels to sufficient high numbers for optimal pest control. Local biological factors might be limiting. Therefore, we tested two hypotheses that pertain to population limitation: 1. Bird predation during summer, 2. Small mammal nest predation during winter. Enclosure experiments showed no negative bird effect on earwig densities unless large bird flocks inhabited the area. Small mammals did not actively predate the over wintering nests, although other predatory arthropods may be important.
Peusens
G
G
Zoology Department, pcfruit, Fruittuinweg 1, BE-3800 Sint-Truiden, Belgium.
Moerkens
R
R
Beliën
T
T
Gobin
B
B
D000818:Animals; D001042:Aphids / Q000187:drug effects / Q000472:pathogenicity / Q000502:physiology*; D001530:Belgium; D001717:Birds / Q000469:parasitology; D004338:Drug Combinations; D005060:Europe; D007313:Insecta / Q000502:physiology*; D007306:Insecticides / Q000494:pharmacology*; D018942:Macrolides / Q000494:pharmacology*; D008322:Mammals / Q000469:parasitology; D009425:Nesting Behavior; D010572:Pest Control, Biological / Q000379:methods; D010944:Plants / Q000469:parasitology*; D011156:Population Density; D011235:Predatory Behavior; D011722:Pyrethrins / Q000494:pharmacology; D012621:Seasons
D004338:Drug Combinations; D007306:Insecticides; D018942:Macrolides; D011722:Pyrethrins; C099952:bifenthrin; C415329:spinosad