APHIDOPHAGOUS COCCINELLIDS DIVERSITY ON MAIZE AGRO-ECOSYSTEM

IN BISHNUPUR DISTRICT OF MANIPUR, NORTH EAST INDIA

O. Hemchandra1 and M. Bineshwar Singh2

1
Department of Zoology, Kumbi College, Kumbi – 795133
e-mail: dinamaniinam@gmail.com
# - 8837409869
2
Department of Botany, Kumbi College, Kumbi – 795133
# - 8837409067
Abstract
Survey on the aphidophagous coccinellids and their prey aphid of maize agro-
ecosystem were conducted at maize growing areas of Bishnupur district of Manipur
during 2017, 2018 and 2019 for their diversity and periodicity of occurrence. In the
present study, 23 species of aphidophagous coccinellids belonging to 15 genera viz.,
Megalocaria, Cheilomenes, Coccinnella, Coelophora, Cryptogonus, Cryptolaemus,
Jauravia, Harmonia, Micraspis, Nephus, Oenopia, Propylea, Pseudaspidimerus,
Scymnus, Synonycha under 3 subfamilies viz., Coccinellinae, Scymninae and
Sticholotidinae with their dominancy value of 76.54, 22.25 and 1.28 % respectively
feeding on 3 species of aphids viz., Rhopalosiphum maidis (Fitch), Hysteroneura
setariae (Thomas), Melanaphis sacchari (Zehntner) infesting different canopy of maize
growing area were observed. R. maidis is the major and constraint species infesting the
maize crop. As regards the periodicity of occurrence among the predatory beetle, the
Cheilomenes sexmaculata (F.), Micraspis discolor (Fabricius), Oenopia kirbyi Mlsant,
Cryptogonus quadriguttatus (Weise) were major predominant species, ubiquitously
present throughout the cropping period.

Key words: Aphidophagous, aphids, Biodiversity, coccinellids, maize.

Introduction
Diversity is a concept that refers to the range of variation or differences among
some set of entities which refers to variety within the living world. Diversity of insects in
particular area can be summarized with two components i.e., species richness and
evenness (Vanclay, 1992). Now a day, IPM is well known to entomologists, where all
suitable pest control techniques are being involved to find ecologically and
environmentally safe ways of pest management. Biological control should be regarded as
the backbone of IPM programme and about 90 % of all potential pests are already under
biological control (Debach & Rosen, 1991 and Pedigo, 2004). The main component of
biological control was predators, parasitoids and pathogens, of these the predators have
been successful groups. Among the predatory insects, the ladybird beetles have been
associated with good fortune in many myths and legends. The ladybird beetle have been
known world wide as a predator both in their larval and adult stages of a number of
insects such as aphids, coccids, scale etc. ninety percent of the known 4200 coccnellids
species are predaceous (Iperti & Paoletti, 1999) and Indian coccinellids diversity includes
261 predaceous species (Omkar & Pervez, 2000). The coccinellid beetles are considered
to be a great economic importance in agro-ecosystem through their successful employed
in the biological control of many injurious insects (Agarwala & Ghosh, 1988). The
culture of maize cultivation has a long tradition in and is still one of the most important
crops in the state. Among the phytophagous insects found to feed on maize, the aphid is
notorious cosmopolitan insect which is considered as key pests of maize in the state. The
indiscriminately use of chemical insecticides without monitoring the pest population may
have adverse side effects to a great extent to human being, beneficial insects like
aphidophagous predators. In this aspect exploration of predators in an agro-ecosystem
may play a vital role as part of IPM programmes. The study on the aphidophagous
coccinellids diversity in the field would increase its ability and be a prime requirement of
biological control agent. But, reviews on the diversity of aphidophagous coccinellids
from Manipur are totally lacking. So, the present study was undertaken to determine the
diversity of the ladybird beetles in arable crop landscape over cropping period.

Materials and Methods

Systematic survey on diversity of aphidophagous coccinellids:
The study was conducted in the commercial fields, where maize is grown as a
component of the traditional cropping pattern. The surveys were carried out weekly
during natural cropping period during 2017, 2018 and 2019. Aphids and their predatory
ladybirds were counted by visual observation from 20 randomly selected plants each
from different maize cultivated area of the state. Individual of predatory species was
observed as larvae and adult stages on different maize canopy. The larvae of the observed
predators were also collected and reared in the laboratory till their emergence as the
adults for proper identification.
Dominance, Constancy and persistence
The value of dominance (D) and constancy (C) were calculated for the guilds of
aphidophagous coccinellids. Persistence (P) which measures the number of month a
species is present in the samples was calculated. Species were classified according to the
method of Magro & Hemptinne, 1999. The importance of the presence of the different
coccinellids in maize was then compared on the basis of the values of D, C and P.

Results and discussion

Systematic survey on diversity of aphidophagous coccinellids:
Systematic survey on diversity of aphidophagous coccinellids from maize agro-
ecosystem indicated that a total of 23 different species belonging to 15 different genera
viz., Megalocaria, Cheilomenes, Coccinella, Coelophora, Cryptogonus, Cryptolaemus,
Jauravia, Harmonia, Micraspis, Nephus, Oenopia, Propylea, Pseudaspidimerus,
Scymnus, Synonycha under 3 subfamilies viz., Coccinellinae, Scymninae and
Sticholotidinae under the family Coccinellidae were recorded as associated with three
aphid species viz., Rhopalosiphum maidis (Fitch), Hysteroneura satariae (Thomas),
Melanapis sacchari (Zehntner) infesting different canopy of maize plants at different
agronomic area of district (Table 1). Study observed that the R. maidis is the most
predominant aphid species among the maize infested aphids. The periodicity of
occurrence for aphidophagous coccinellid beetle diversity in maize field was higher in
subfamily Coccinellinae (77.47 % with 13 species) which is followed by Scymninae
(22.25 %) with 9 species) and Sticholotidinae (1.28 % only a single species) of the total
captured individuals in terms of their composition/richness and most abundant/dominant
(Table 2 and Fig. 1).
Dominance, Constancy and Persistence
A total of 5052 individuals from three different maize fields were captured during
the field surveys (Table 3a and b). Among the aphidophagy beetles, the Cheilomenes
sexmaculata (F.), Micraspis discolor (Fabricius), Oenopia kirbyi Mulsant, Cryptogonus
quadriguttatus (Weise) were most dominant species, ubiquitously present throughout the
cropping period with 33.54 %, 17.79 %, 12.37 %, 11.28 % dominancy and 96.08 %,
88.24 %, 80.39 %, 78.43 % constancy, respectively. Dominance and constancy value are
variable for each species wither in the same field. But in the present results some patterns
emerged that the aphidophagous coccinellid predators can be sorted out in six different
groups as follows:
Group I – Dominant and constant species: Cheilomenes sexmaculata
Group II – Sub-dominant and constant species: Cryptogonus quadriguttatus, Micraspis
discolor, Oenopia kirbyi.
Group III – Accessory and constant species: Coccinella septempunctata.
Group IV – Accessory and sub-constant species: Coelophota saucia, Cryptogonus kapuri,
C. montrouzieri, C. transversalis, H. eucharis.
Group V – Accessory and incidental species: Jauravia quadrinotata, Oenopia sexareata.
Group VI – Vesstigial and incidental species: Megalocaria dilatata, C. posmedialis, H.
dimidiate, J. quadrinotata, M. univittata, Nephus regularis, O. sexareata, Propylea
dissecta, Pseudaspidimerus trinotatus, Scymnus coniferarum, Scymnus (Pullus) castanes,
Scymnus (Scymnus) nubilus, Synonyca grandis.
Persistence values are follows the same decreasing tendency as observed in
dominancy and constancy. A number of studies suggested that species diversity within a
trophic level can have effects on resource capture and on a food web (Andow, 1991; Sih,
et al., 1998; Tilman, 1999; Naeem, 2002). Our results showed that the trophic
composition of the predator assemblage can play an important role in determining the
nature of the relationship between predator diversity and ecosystem functioning. In the
present study the dominance and constancy values (Table a and b) were highly variable.
This is a consequence of the interaction between species and their relationship with a
fluctuating environment (Begon et al., 1996; Snyder, 2009).variability does not hide a
pattern as the species are distributed in six groups in terms of their dominance, constancy
and persistence in the communities. That is the dominant species were always the same
even if the hierarchy within the group was variable in time and space. This situation was
also observed for aphidophagous coccinellid guilds in different habitats (Hempinne,
1989) and for parasitoid guilds (Ehler, 1994). There are hypothesis to explain these
changing hierarchies but they need to be experimentally tested. In a perspective of
biological control, the impact of species ranking on pest populations remains an
important research topic (Ehler, 1994).
The ladybirds in groups I, II, and III have the strongest presence in maize crop
agro-ecosystems. They represent a potential group of species for biological control of
maize aphid in this district. They are regularly considered in such a way by Kehat &
Greenberg (1970). The IV, V and VI groups are sometimes mentioned for other crop in
other countries but nobody grants them much importance on maize crop. The species of
thse groups are usually considered as aphidophagous (Hodek, 1970; Iperti, 1983;
Agarwala & Ghosh, 1988; Omkar & Bind, 1993). On the contrary, in our samples the
presence of grubs and adults of this group is negligible to the appearance of coccinellids
predators of maize aphids. At the moment it is not possible to firmly rule out
aphidophagy among these groups of present study. They could be breeding on aphids and
other soft body insects outside the maize field and move in later in the season in response
to large quantity of honeydew excreted by aphid. Hagen, et al. (1970) and Evans (1994)
have demonstrated the powerful attraction of honeydew for several predators.
Finally, this work provides a first large scale phenology of the most important
ladybird beetles in maize cropping field in Bishnupur district, Manipur, North East India.
It is a valuable data in the context of an integrated pest management because pesticides
applications can be scheduled to minimize farmful effects on the beneficial fauna as well
as environment.
Acknowledgements
The authors are thankful to the Principal, Head, Department of Zoology, Kumbi
College, Kumbi for encouragement and providing necessary laboratory facilities during
the course of work.

References
Agarwala, B. K. and Ghosh, A. K. 1988. Prey records of aphidophagous Coccinellidae in
Indua. A review and bibliography. Trop. Pest Manage., 34: 1 – 14.
Andow, D., 1991. Vegetational diversity and arthropod populations response. Ann. Rev.
Entomol., 36: 561 – 585.
Begon, M., Harper, J. L. and Townsed, C. R., 1996. Ecology. Individuals, Populations
and Communities, 3rd ed., Oxford, Blackwell Science Ltd., 1069 pp.
Debach, P. and Rosen, D., 1991. Biological control by Natural Enemies. Cambridge
Univ. Press. 448 pp.
Ehler, L. E., 1994. Parasitoid communities, parasitoid guilds and biological control. In
Hawkins, B.A. & Sheehan, W. (Eds.): Parasitoid Community Ecology, Oxford,
Oxford Science Publications, 419 – 436.
Evans, E. W., 1994. Indirect interactions among phytophagous insects: aphids, honeydew
and natural enemies. In Leather, S. R. Watt, A.D., Mills, N. J. & Walters, K. F. A.
(Eds.) Individuals, Populations and Patterns in Ecology. Andover, Hampshire,
Intercept Ltd: 287 – 298.
Hagen, K. S., Sawall, J. R., E. F., Tassan, R. L. 1970. the use of food sprays to increase
effectiveness of entomophagous insects. In Proc. Tall Timbers Conf. Ecol. Anim.
Control Habitat Manage., 2: 59 – 82.
Hemptinne, J. L. 1989. Ecophysiologie d’Adalia bipunctata (L.) (Coleoptera:
Coccinellidae). These presentee pour l’obtention du grade de docteur en sciences
Agronomipues, Universite Libre de bruxelles, Belgique, 156 pp.
Hodek, I., 1970. Coccinellids and the modern pest management. Bioscience, 20: 543 –
552.
Iperti, G. and Paoletti, M. G., 1999. Biodiversity of predaceous Coccinellidae in relation
to bioindicators of sustainable landscapes. Practical use of invertebrates to assess
sustainable land use. Agri. Ecosyst. Environ., 74: 323 – 342.
Iperti, G., 1983. Les Coccinelles de France. In A.C.T.A. (Ed.), Faune et flore auxiliaries
en agriculture, journees d’etudes et & information, 4 et 5 mai 1983, Paris: 89 –
96.
Kehat, M. and Greenberg, S. 1970. Survey and distribution of ladybeetles (Coccinellidae)
in citrus grave in Israel. Entomophaga, 15(3): 275 – 280.
Magro, A. and Hemptinne, J. L., 1999. The pool of coccinellids (Coleoptera:
Coccinellidae) to control coccids (Homoptera: Coccoidea) in Portuguese citrus
graves. Bol. San. Veg. Plagas, 25: 311 – 320.
Naeem, S., 2002. Ecosystem consequences of biodiversity loss: the evolution of a
paradigm. Ecology, 83: 1537 – 1557.
Omkar and Bind, R. B. 1993. Records of aphids natural enemies complex of Uttar
Pradesh. II. The Coccinellids. J. Adv. Zool., 14: 96 – 99.
Omkar and Pervez, A., 2000. Biodiversity of predaceous coccinellids (Coleoptera:
Coccinellidae) in India: a review. J. Aphidol., 14: 41 – 66.
Pedigo, L. P. 2004. Entomology and pest management. Prentice – Hall of India Pvt. Ltd.
New Delhi, India
Sih, A., England, G. and Wooster, D. 1998. Emergent impacts of multiple predators on
prey. Trends Ecol. Evol., 13: 350 – 355.
Snyder, W. E., 2009. Coccinellids in diverse communities: Which niche fits? Biological
Control, 51(2): 323 – 335.
Tilman, D. 1999. The ecological consequences of changes in biodiversity: a search for
general principles. Ecology, 80: 1455 – 1474.
Vanclay, J. K., 1992. Species richness and productive forest management. Proc. Oxf.
Con. Trop. Forests. In: Biodiversity and Environment, 18 – 31 pp. Agarwal, S.K.,
S. Trewali and P.S. Dubey (eds.) A.P.H. Pub. Corp., New Delhi, India.
Table 1: Period of occurrence of aphidophagous coccinellids of maize agro – ecosystem.
Sl. Coccinellid species Aphid species Period of occurrence
No. (Months)
Coccinellinae
1. Megalocaria dilatata (Fabricius) R. maidis, H. setariae March – April
2. Cheilomenes sexmaculata (F.) R. maidis, H. setariae, March – September
M. sacchari
3. Coccinella septempunctata L. R. maidis, H. setariae March – August
4. Coccinella transversalis F. R. maidis, M. sacchari April – July
5. Coelophora saucia (Mulsant) R. maidis, H. setariae June – July
6. Harmonia dimidiata (Fabr.) R. maidis July – August
7. Harmonia eucharis (Mulsant) R. maidis, H. setariae March – July
8. Micraspis discolor (Fabricius) R. maidis, H. setariae, July – August
M. sacchari
9. Micraspis univittata (Hope) R. maidis July
10. Oenopia kirbyai Mulsant R. maidis, H. setariae, March – August
M. sacchri
11. Oenopia sexareata (Mulsant) R. maidis July – August
12. Propylea dissecta (Mulsant) R. maidis July – August
13. Synonycha grandis (Thunberg) M. sacchari June – July
Scymninae
14. Cryptogonous kapuri Ghorpade R. maidis, H. setariae August
15. Cryptogonous postmedialis Kapur R. maidis, H. setariae March – July
16. Cryptogonous quadriguttatus (Weise) R. maidis, H. setariae, March – August
M. sacchari
17. Cryptolaemus montrouzieri Mulsant R. maidis April – May
18. Nephus regularis Sicard R. maidis April – May
19. Scymnus coniferarum Crotch R. maidis, H. setariae March –
April
20. Scymnus (Pullus) castaneus Sicard R. maidis, M. sacchari July – August
21. Scymnus (Scymnus) nubilus Mulsant R. maidis, H. setariae June – July
22. Pseudaspidimerus trinotatus R. maidis, H. setariae June – September
(Thunberg)
Sticholotidinae
23. Jauravia quadrinotata Kapur R. maidis March
Table 2: Subfamily wise dominancy of the total number of species of aphidophagous
Coccinellids captured from maize agro – ecosystem.
Sl. Coccinellid species % of dominancy
No.
Coccinellinae
1. C. sexmaculata (F.) 33.57
2. M. discolor (Fabricius) 17.79
3. O. kirbyai Mulsant 12.37
4. C. septempunctata L. 4.05
5. H. eucharis (Mulsant) 1.82
6. C. transversalis F. 1.39
7. O. sexareata (Mulsant) 1.33
8. C. saucia (Mulsant) 1.06
9. M. univittata (Hope) 0.93
10. H. dimidiata (Fabr.) 0.64
11. P. dissecta (Mulsant) 0.60
12. S. grandis (Thunberg) 0.48
13. M. dilatata (Fabricius) 0.47
Scymninae
14. C. quadriguttatus (Weise) 11.28
15. C. montrouzieri Mulsant 6.30
16. C. kapuri Ghorpade 1.28
17. C. postmedialis Kapur 0.90
18. S. coniferarum Crotch 0.81
19. N. regularis Sicard 0.50
20. P. trinotatus (Thunberg) 0.45
21. S. (Scymnus) nubilus Mulsant 0.40
22. S. (Pullus) castaneus Sicard 0.33
Sticholotidinae
23. J. quadrinotata Kapur 1.28
Table 3a: Classification of aphidophagous coccinellids with their dominance value of the
total number of species of captured from maize agro – ecosystem
Sl. Dominancy Coccinellids Dominance value
No. category (%)
Dominant
1 C. sexmaculata 33.54
Sub – dominant
2 M. discolor 17.79
3 O. kirbyi 12.37
4 C. quadriguttatus 11.28
Accessory
5 C. montrouzieri 6.30
6 C. septempunctata 4.05
7 H. eucharis 1.82
8 C. transversalis 1.39
9 O. sexareata 1.33
10 C. kapuri 1.28
11 J. quadrinotata 1.28
12 C. saucia 1.06
Vestigial
13 M. univittata 0.93
14 C. postmedialis 0.90
15 S. coniferarum 0.81
16 H. dimidiata 0.64
17 P. dissecta 0.60
18 N. regularis 0.50
19 S. grandis 0.48
20 M. dilatata 0.47
21 P. trinotatus 0.45
22 S. (Scymnus) nubilus 0.40
23 S. (Pullus) castaneus 0.33
Total number of individuals = 5052
Table 3b: Classification of aphidophagous coccinellids with their constancy value of the
total number of species of captured from maize agro – ecosystem.
Sl. Constancy Coccinellids Constancy Persistence
No. category value values
Constant
1 C. sexmaculata 96.08 4
2 M. discolor 88.24 4
3 O. kirbyi 80.39 4
4 C. quadriguttatus 78.43 4
5 C. septempunctata 41.18 4
Sub – constant
6 H. eucharis 39.22 3
7 C. montrouzieri 37.25 3
8 C. kapuri 37.25 3
9 C. saucia 35.29 3
10 C. transversalis 35.29 3
Incidental
11 O. sexareata 15.69 2
12 C. postmedialis 13.73 2
13 M. dilatata 7.84 2
14 H. dimidiata 7.84 2
15 M. univittata 7.84 2
16 P. dissecta 7.84 2
17 S. coniferarum 7.84 2
18 S. grandis 7.84 2
19 J. quadrinotata 5.88 1
20 N. regularis 5.88 1
21 S. (Pullus) castanes 5.88 1
22 S. (Scymnus) nubilus 5.88 1
23 P. trinotatus 5.88 1