Next Article in Journal
Impact of Long-Term Floods on Spatial Dynamics of Myrmica scabrinodis, a Host Ant of a Highly Threatened Scarce Large Blue (Phengaris teleius)
Next Article in Special Issue
Psyllids in Natural Habitats as Alternative Resources for Key Natural Enemies of the Pear Psyllids (Hemiptera: Psylloidea)
Previous Article in Journal
A Diet with Amikacin Changes the Bacteriobiome and the Physiological State of Galleria mellonella and Causes Its Resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Low Incidence of Avian Predation on the Brown Marmorated Stink Bug, Halyomorpha halys (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae), in Southeastern Orchard Systems
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Insects
Volume 14
Issue 11
10.3390/insects14110890
insects-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Earwig Releases Provide Accumulative Biological Control of the Woolly Apple Aphid over the Years

by
Georgina Alins
1,*,
Jaume Lordan
1,
Neus Rodríguez-Gasol
1,2,
Judit Arnó
3 and
Ainara Peñalver-Cruz
4
1
Fruit Production Program, Institut de Recerca i Tecnologia Agroalimentàries (IRTA), Parc Agrobiotech Lleida, Parc de Gardeny, Fruitcentre Building, 25003 Lleida, Spain
2
Department of Ecology, Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet (SLU), P.O. Box 7044, 75007 Uppsala, Sweden
3
Sustainable Plant Protection Program, Institut de Recerca i Tecnologia Agroalimentàries (IRTA), Ctra de Cabrils km.2, 08348 Cabrils, Spain
4
Sustainable Plant Protection Program, Institut de Recerca i Tecnologia Agroalimentàries (IRTA), Av. Alcalde Rovira Roure, 191, 25198 Lleida, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Insects 2023, 14(11), 890; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14110890
Submission received: 26 September 2023 / Revised: 2 November 2023 / Accepted: 15 November 2023 / Published: 18 November 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biological Control in Temperate Orchards)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

The woolly apple aphid (Eriosoma lanigerum) is a worldwide pest that causes damage to shoots, branches, trunks, and roots and reduces the capacity of apple trees to sprout and bloom. Even though this pest has a diverse guild of natural enemies, the parasitoid Aphelinus mali and the European earwig (Forficula auricularia) are the ones that have the most potential to regulate this pest. In our study we assessed the impact of earwig releases over time on woolly apple aphid populations. To do this, we released earwigs once per season in consecutive years and we compared woolly apple aphid abundance with respect to a control treatment (without earwig release). Overall, we found that earwig releases reduced the size of the colonies, but this effect was only evident from the second year onwards. These results highlighted the importance of considering time on augmentative biological control strategies.

Abstract

Nature-based solutions, such as biological control, can strongly contribute to reducing the use of plant protection products. In our study, we assessed the effect of augmentative releases of the European earwig (Forficula auricularia) to control the woolly apple aphid (Eriosoma lanigerum), a worldwide pest that causes serious damage to apple trees. The trials were carried out in two organic apple orchards located in Catalonia (NE Spain) from 2017 to 2020. Two treatments were compared: with vs. without earwig release. For the treatment, 30 earwigs per tree were released by means of a corrugated cardboard shelter. These releases were performed once per season and were repeated every year. We periodically assessed the length of the woolly apple aphid colonies, the number of colonies per tree, the percentage of aphids parasitized by Aphelinus mali, and the number of earwigs per shelter. Our results showed that earwig releases reduced the length of the colonies, but this effect was noticeable only for the second year onwards. Moreover, we found that those releases were compatible with A. mali. Overall, we demonstrated the positive impact of earwig releases on the woolly apple aphid control and the importance of considering time on augmentative biological control strategies.

1. Introduction

The reduction in the use of pesticides is a social demand that is reflected in policies. For instance, the European Commission released the “European Green Deal” in 2019, which mainly aims “to transform the EU into a fair and prosperous society, with a modern, resource-efficient and competitive economy”. As a result, it developed the “Farm to Fork Strategy”, which urges a reduction in the use of pesticides of around 50% by 2030. To achieve this general goal, useful alternative pest management strategies must be developed, adapted to the local agroecological context, and finally implemented by farmers. In this regard, nature-based solutions such as biological control can strongly contribute to increasing the environmental sustainability of farms [1,2]. However, even though many successful examples of biological control have been reported around the world [3], their practical use is limited [2]. Each of the biological control strategies (classical biological control, augmentative biological control, and conservation biological control) shows different levels of efficacy according to the combination of several factors, such as pest species, crop, guild of natural enemies, and climate among others. Classical biological control consists of an intentional introduction of a foreign natural enemy for permanent establishment and long-term pest control. In augmentative biological control, natural enemies are mass-reared and released on a scheduled basis. Furthermore, this strategy has two modalities (inoculative and inundation biological control) that differ based on the population that controls the pest: in inoculative biological control, it is the progeny that effectuate the control, whereas in inundation biological control, it is the released population. In addition, when a population of natural enemies is inoculated, pest control for several seasons is expected, whereas in inundation biological control, only an immediate effect is expected. Conservation biological control is a set of practices to protect and boost natural enemies’ populations to increase pest control. In any case, the main objective of biological control is to reduce pest populations to lessen economic losses rather than to eliminate the pest. Maintaining a non-damaging level of pests can contribute to sustaining a guild of natural enemies to manage pests in the long term; otherwise, natural enemies may abandon the farm in search for food and then, pest get out of control again [4,5,6].
Unlike pesticides, actions to increase the pest self-regulation capacity of an agroecosystem often have slow responses and are not efficient enough [7,8,9]. Since pests must be managed to minimize current crop losses and to maintain or decrease pest population for the next season, biological control could be a good tool to low down the use of insecticides [10,11].
In this article, we describe the effect of a predator release on the control of an aphid pest population over time. We chose a Mediterranean apple (Malus domestica (Borkhausen)) orchard as multiannual agroecosystem model, the woolly apple aphid (Eriosoma lanigerum (Hausmann) (Hemiptera: Aphididae)) as the exotic pest, and earwigs (Forficula auricularia L. (Dermaptera: Forficulidae)) as a native and generalist predator. Even though this aphid is native to North America, it is present in all apple-growing areas and causes damage to shoots, branches, trunks, and roots. When colonies develop on shoots and branches, the capacity of the apple trees to sprout and bloom is drastically reduced, as it destroys the buds, diminishing the productive potential of the trees [12]. In addition, the woolly apple aphid excretes honeydew and—in case of severe infestation—aesthetically damages the fruits. Therefore, the economic value of the yield is reduced [13].
As most of the aphids, the woolly apple aphid has associated a diverse guild of natural enemies: the parasitoid Aphelinus mali (Haldeman) (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae), which is specific to the woolly apple aphid, and predators such as spiders (Araneae), ladybird beetles (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), lacewings (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae), hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae), and earwigs [14,15,16]. From these natural enemies, A. mali and earwigs are the most cited and the ones that have more potential to regulate this pest [17,18,19,20,21]. Earwigs in particular have been reported as important predators of other pests like pysllids [22], scales [23], flies [24,25], mites [26], and aphids [19,20,27,28,29,30,31]. They are omnivorous insects that, apart from arthropods, also feed on fungi, lichens, and plant material [32,33]. Therefore, earwigs are good candidates to be used in augmentative biological control, since in the absence or low densities of pests, the orchard will always offer alternative food resources. Regardless of the above and to the best of our knowledge, only four papers published in Science Citation Index journals deal with augmentative releases of earwigs for pest control, and they indicate contradictory results. For instance, Carroll et al. [27] reported that earwig releases in apple orchards successfully controlled the green apple aphid (Aphis pomi De Geer (Hemiptera: Aphididae)), but one year later, the same group of research published opposite results [29]. Furthermore, Dib et al. [34] found that earwig release did not reduce rosy apple aphid (Dysaphis plantaginea Passerini (Hemiptera: Aphididae)) populations. Regarding the woolly apple aphid, earwig releases were ineffective in controlling this pest according to Carroll et al. [29] but satisfactory according to Orpet et al. [35]. Moreover, as far as we know, there are not studies that analyse the contribution of augmentative release of earwigs over time, as the reported studies above were conducted for one year.
Given the above, the aim of this study is to assess the impact of augmentative releases of earwigs over time on woolly apple aphid populations. We hypothesise that the release of earwigs before peak abundance will prevent outbreaks. We also explore the effects of those releases on parasitism of the woolly apple aphid colonies.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Site

Trials were carried out in two mature organic apple orchards located in the fruit tree-growing area of Lleida (Catalonia, NE Spain): from 2017 to 2019 in Anglesola (Orchard 1, 41°39′25.1″ N 1°03′24.1″ E) and from 2019 to 2020 in El Palau d’Anglesola, (Orchard 2, 41°39′34.0″ N 0°51′23.9″ E). Orchard 1 is 0.5 ha, and it was planted in 1998 with “Fuji” grafted onto M9 (4 × 1.3 m spacing). Orchard 2 is 1.5 ha, and it was planted in 2000 also with “Fuji” grafted onto M9 (4 × 1.25 m spacing). Both orchards were sprayed with plant protection products allowed by the EU organic growing regulations: azadirachtin to control the rosy apple aphid (Dysaphis plantaginea Passerini (Hemiptera: Aphididae)), granulosis virus to control the codling moth (Cydia pomonella L. (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)), and lime sulphur to control apple scab (Venturia inaequalis Cooke). In addition, the tree rows of Orchard 2 were covered with nets (from June to October in 2019 and from May to October in 2020) to protect apples from codling moth.

2.2. Treatments

Two treatments were compared (earwig release and control) in a completely randomized design with 10 replicates per field, in which each replicate was formed by one tree. The first treatment consisted of the release of 30 earwigs per tree. The release was performed every year at the beginning of the experiment (6 June 2017, 8 June 2018 and 7 May 2019 in Orchard 1 and 8 May 2019 and 14 May 2020 in Orchard 2) by means of a shelter. The shelter constituted a corrugated cardboard cylinder (9 cm diameter × 12 cm height) inserted into a PVC tube [36], and it was placed horizontally next to a woolly apple aphid colony that was used for the surveys (Figure 1A). The control treatment did not receive any artificial shelter, and no earwigs were released. The minimum distance between replicates was 8 m to avoid interference between them. According to Moerkens et al. [37], when earwigs of a single-brood population are released, they remain within a radius of 8.7 m, and those from double-brood populations remain within a radius of 2.3 m. In our area, both populations co-exist [36], therefore 8 m is a compromise distance that allows the performance of the trial in each orchard.
Previously to the treatment randomization, the level of woolly apple aphid infestation was visually assessed in all the trees of the orchard according to a categorical scale (0: 0 colonies per tree, 1: 1–25 colonies per tree, 2: 26–100 colonies per tree, 3: >100 colonies per tree). When possible, only trees in Category 2 were used to conduct the experiment. In each of those trees, one shoot per tree infested by the woolly apple aphid was selected to be evaluated.
The treatments were randomized every year, and the trees sampled during the previous year were not used in the following year.

2.3. Assessments

At the beginning of the trial (first week, when earwigs were released), the length of the woolly apple aphid colonies present in the selected shoots and the number of woolly apple aphid colonies per tree were assessed (Figure 1B). In addition, the presence of parasitized aphids by A. mali was visually estimated according to a categorical scale [21]. The length of the woolly apple aphid colonies and the abundance of parasitized aphids were assessed weekly, whereas the number of woolly apple aphid colonies and the number of earwigs per shelter were recorded fortnightly. The spontaneous populations of earwigs before the releases were not assessed, and the first sampling was performed in the third week of the trial. Once the earwigs were counted, they were immediately released into the same shelter. The difference in sampling frequencies between those natural enemies was set to reduce earwig manipulation.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The length of the woolly apple aphid colonies, the percentage of parasitized colonies, the number of woolly aphid colonies per tree, and the number of earwigs per shelter were analysed per each sampling date and orchard. In addition, to analyse the effect of the treatments on the length of the woolly apple aphid colonies and on the number of colonies per tree along the sampling period, it was calculated the area under the curve of those variables. To do this, it was assumed that the increase or decrease between two consecutive sampling dates was linear. We used Formula (a), and the units of these new variables were expressed as colony length·day and number of colonies per tree·day, respectively.
(a) A = ∑ i = 1 n d × y i + d × y i − y i + 1 2 , where A is the area under the curve; i and n are the first and last sampling data, respectively; and d is the number of days between samplings (7 in the case of colony length and 14 in the case of number of colonies per tree).
When data did not meet ANOVA assumptions, non-parametric test were used (Welch or Kruskal–Wallis tests). A significance level of p ≤ 0.05 was considered for all the analyses. Data were analysed using the JMP statistical software package (Version 16.0.0; SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA).

3. Results

The spontaneous presence of woolly apple aphid differed between years and orchards (Figure 2 and Figure 3). In Orchard 1, the length of the colonies decreased over years, with peaks of 19.2 ± 5.1 cm in 2017, 8.3 ± 1.4 cm in 2018, and 5.3 ± 0.8 in 2019. In contrast, the number of colonies per tree increased over years, with maximums of 21.2 ± 5.4 colonies per tree in 2017, 99.9 ± 5.4 colonies per tree in 2018, and 357.7 ± 41.6 colonies per tree in 2019. In Orchard 2, the length of the colonies was similar between years, with peaks of 2.0 ± 0.5 cm in 2019 and 2.6 ± 0.3 in 2020. Additionally, contrary to what we observed in Orchard 1, the number of colonies per tree decreased over the years, with maximums of 274.2 ± 24.7 colonies per tree in 2019 and of 137.0 ± 15.0 colonies per tree in 2020.
Regarding the effect of the earwig release on woolly apple aphid populations, in both orchards and in the first year, a release of 30 earwigs per tree did not cause a statistically significant change in the level of woolly apple infestation in either colony length (Figure 2A,D, Table 1) or the number of colonies per tree (Figure 3A,D and Table 2). In the second year, the woolly apple aphid colony length was statistically shorter in the release treatment compared to the control in both orchards (Figure 2B,E and Table 1). These results were also observed in the third year of release in Orchard 1 (Figure 2C and Table 1). However, in general, there were no statistically significant differences in the number of colonies per tree (Figure 3C and Table 2).
Concerning earwigs, the number of earwigs per shelter was lower than the number of earwigs released at the beginning of the trial in both orchards and in all the samplings performed during the first and second years of releases (Figure 4). Within orchards, the number of earwigs per shelter was not statistically different between the first and second years of releases. In contrast, in the third year, the number of earwigs per shelter in the first assessment (two weeks after release) exceeded the number of earwigs released (Figure 4A), and the number of earwigs per shelter was statistically higher than in the first and second years of releases.
No significant differences were found in the percentage of the colony parasitized by A. mali for most of the sampling dates (Table 3).

4. Discussion

Our results show for the first time the effect of a release of earwigs conducted in spring and repeated in the following years on biological control of the woolly apple aphid and the timing needed to reduce pest abundance. In this regard, we demonstrated that earwig releases contribute to biological control of the woolly apple aphid and that this effect is not noticed in the first year of release but from the second onwards. Orpet et al. [35] performed a similar trial, but earwigs were released several times throughout spring and summer for only one year. This study reported that the reduction in woolly apple aphid abundance was achieved in the same year of releases. The difference in timing is probably due to a higher number of earwigs released per tree (between 47–230 vs. 30) and a much lower abundance of woolly apple aphid (maximum of an average of about 3 colonies per tree) compared to our orchards (21.2–357.7 colonies per tree). Therefore, we suggest that the difference between Orpet et al.’s [35] and our results could be due to the high difference in the ratio of earwigs released/woolly apple aphid colonies per tree: 15.6–76.6 vs. 0.1–1.4. In addition, it should be noticed that earwigs are omnivorous [32,33], so in the first year of releases, the effect of an increase in earwig population on woolly apple aphid abundance could be diluted by the lack of limitation of food resources (other aphids and soft body arthropods, lichens, fungi, etc.) present in the mature orchards.
In the conditions of the present study, the earwigs released in the first and second year probably caused an accumulative increase in the resident earwig population in the second and third years, respectively. Moreover, the unlimited food in the orchards could support these raised populations over the years. Earwigs mate during summer and lay eggs only once in summer and autumn (in the case of single-brood populations), or twice in summer–autumn and winter–early spring (in case of double-brood populations) [38,39]. So, we hypothesize that the effective boosting of earwig populations regarding biological control was due to combined action of the offspring of the earwigs released in the previous year with the earwigs released in the present year.
As we found that earwig release reduced the colony length in the second year, we expected to catch more earwigs than in the first one. However, the number of earwigs recorded was similar between those years and within orchards. This fact could be explained by the medium efficacy of cardboard shelters to accurately assess earwig populations. Shaw et al. [40] stated that cardboard shelters are more effective in young trees rather than adult trees because of the higher abundance of natural shelters in the older ones. In addition, Moerkens et al. [39] reported an increase in earwigs in shelters after the pear harvest because pears are clustered, providing natural refuges for earwigs. Therefore, we suggest that the increase in earwig population in the second year was not detected by the cardboard shelters, as the number of natural shelters in those mature orchards was high enough. In contrast, in the third year of release, we recorded more earwigs than in the previous years, probably due to the fact that the number of natural shelters were not enough to provide refuge to the accumulated population, and therefore, earwigs occupied the artificial shelters. Overall, we suggest that the number of earwigs per shelter is not an accurate method of determining the abundance of earwig populations. Therefore, a mathematical model for accurately predicting earwig populations should be developed. This model could be based on factors that are known to estimate or affect earwig populations: the output of one or a combination of different sampling methods (corrugated cardboard shelters, frass assessment [41], or video recording [42]); local factors, like ground cover management [41,43] or the abundance of hiding places [36,39]; landscape factors, such as adjacent habitats [44]; and other variables.
On the other hand, the fact that a reduction in the colony length was only recorded in the release treatment confirms the low rate of dispersal of earwigs, also reported by Moerkens et al. [37]. Therefore, the upscaling of earwig releases to manage the woolly apple aphid requires more research to find a balance between the number of points of release per orchard and its costs.
Even though earwig releases reduced the length of the colonies from the second year onwards, this reduction did not eliminate the woolly apple aphid colonies, and therefore, the releases did not diminish the number of colonies per tree. These results could be explained by the ratio of earwigs released/woolly apple aphid colonies per tree. If the number of earwigs released had been higher (>30 earwigs per tree), we could have found a greater reduction in the woolly apple aphid populations. Therefore, more research should be carried out to find a compromise between released earwig efficacy and feasibility. In addition, it is unknown whether a huge release of earwigs could cause an ecological imbalance and a promotion of intraspecific competition for food resources. In our study, we found that a release of 30 earwigs per tree and season is compatible with A. mali since the percentage of parasitized woolly apple aphids was similar between treatments in most of the years and orchards. Several authors reported the compatibility and even the complementarity of spontaneous populations of earwigs and A. mali [18,45] and also earwigs with other natural enemies, like Coccinellid larvae [42].

5. Conclusions

This study shows the positive impact of earwig releases on woolly apple aphid control over time in a warm apple-growing area in which the abundance of this pest is noticeable. A release of 30 earwigs per tree in spring reduced the length of the colonies, but this effect is only evident from the second year onwards. These results highlight the importance of considering time on augmentative biological control strategies. On the other hand, the effects of multiple releases throughout the season should be tested in the context of high populations of this pest to determine if biological control can be achieved in the first year of releases. More research should be performed to find an accurate model for estimating earwig populations in orchards that will allow the prediction of earwig predation on woolly apple aphid colonies and the optimal number of release points per orchard needed to manage this pest.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.A., J.L. and N.R.-G.; methodology, G.A. and N.R.-G.; formal analysis, G.A., J.L. and A.P.-C.; investigation, G.A.; data curation, G.A.; writing—original draft preparation, G.A.; writing—review and editing, G.A., J.L., N.R.-G., J.A. and A.P.-C.; visualization, G.A. and J.A.; supervision, G.A.; project administration, G.A.; funding acquisition, G.A. and J.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the projects RTA201300039-C03-00 (INIA, Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad) and API-Tree (C-IPM) and by the CERCA Programme/Generalitat de Catalunya. During the writing of this manuscript, G.A. and J.A. were supported by the project PID2019-107030RB-C21, and A.P.-C. was financially supported by the PECT AgroBioFood b.Ponent.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Cock, M.J.W.; van Lenteren, J.C.; Brodeur, J.; Barratt, B.I.P.; Bigler, F.; Bolckmans, K.; Cônsoli, F.L.; Haas, F.; Mason, P.G.; Parra, J.R.P. Do new Access and Benefit Sharing procedures under the Convention on Biological Diversity threaten the future of biological control? BioControl 2010, 55, 199–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Brodeur, J.; Abram, P.K.; Heimpel, G.E.; Messing, R.H. Trends in biological control: Public interest, international networking and research direction. BioControl 2018, 63, 11–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. van Lenteren, J.C.; Bolckmans, K.; Köhl, J.; Ravensberg, W.J.; Urbaneja, A. Biological control using invertebrates and microorganisms: Plenty of new opportunities. BioControl 2018, 63, 39–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Eilenberg, J.; Hajek, A.; Lomer, C. Suggestions for unifying the terminology in biological control. BioControl 2001, 46, 387–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lavandero, B.; Ortiz-Martínez, S.; Peñalver-Cruz, A.; Zepeda-Paulo, F. Bases Ecológicas del Control Biológico Derivadas del Control Natural: Factores de Importancia Para el Manejo de Plagas. In Bases Ecológicas Para el Manejo de Plagas; Estay, S.A., Ed.; Ediciones Universidad Católica de Chile: Santiago, Chile, 2021; p. 263. [Google Scholar]
  6. Heimpel, G.; Mills, N. Biological Control: Ecology and Applications; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2017; p. 380. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bostanian, N.J.; Goulet, H.; O’Hara, J.; Masner, L.; Racette, G. Towards Insecticide Free Apple Orchards: Flowering Plants to Attract Beneficial Arthropods. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2004, 14, 25–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Cahenzli, F.; Sigsgaard, L.; Daniel, C.; Herz, A.; Jamar, L.; Kelderer, M.; Jacobsen, S.K.; Kruczynska, D.; Matray, S.; Porcel, M.; et al. Perennial flower strips for pest control in organic apple orchards—A pan-European study. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2019, 278, 43–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Herz, A.; Cahenzli, F.; Penvern, S.; Pfiffner, L.; Tasin, M.; Sigsgaard, L. Managing Floral Resources in Apple Orchards for Pest Control: Ideas, Experiences and Future Directions. Insects 2019, 10, 247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Dedryver, C.-A.; Le Ralec, A.; Fabre, F. The conflicting relationships between aphids and men: A review of aphid damage and control strategies. Comptes Rendus Biol. 2010, 333, 539–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Penvern, S.; Bellon, S.; Fauriel, J.; Sauphanor, B. Peach orchard protection strategies and aphid communities: Towards an integrated agroecosystem approach. Crop Prot. 2010, 29, 1148–1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Barbagallo, S.; Cocuzza, G.E.M.; Cravedi, P.; Komazaki, S. IPM Case Studies: Deciduous Fruit Tree Aphids. In Aphids as Crop Pests, 2nd ed.; VanEmden, H.F., Harrington, R., Eds.; CAB International: Wallingford, UK, 2017; pp. 632–642. [Google Scholar]
  13. Andrews, K.B.; Powell, K.S. Understanding the Fundamental Interactions between Woolly Apple Aphid and Pome Fruit; Horticulture Australia Ltd.: Sydney, Australia, 2009; p. 65. [Google Scholar]
  14. Short, B.D.; Bergh, J.C. Feeding and egg distribution studies of Heringia calcarata (Diptera: Syrphidae), a specialized predator of woolly apple aphid (Homoptera: Eriosomatidae) in Virginia apple orchards. J. Econ. Entomol. 2004, 97, 813–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Asante, S.K. Functional Responses of the European Earwig and Two Species of Coccinellids to Densities of Eriosoma lanigerum (Hausmann) (Hemiptera: Aphididae). Aust. J. Entomol. 1995, 34, 105–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Gontijo, L.M.; Cockfield, S.D.; Beers, E.H. Natural Enemies of Woolly Apple Aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae) in Washington State. Environ. Entomol. 2012, 41, 1364–1371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Monteiro, L.B.; Souza, A.; Belli, E.L. Parasitism on Eriosoma lanigerum (Homoptera: Aphididae) by Aphelinus mali (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) on apple orchards, in Fraiburgo county, state of Santa Catarina, Brazil. Rev. Bras. Frutic. 2004, 26, 550–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Quarrell, S.R.; Corkrey, R.; Allen, G.R. Predictive thresholds for forecasting the compatibility of Forficula auricularia and Aphelinus mali as biological control agents against woolly apple aphid in apple orchards. Biocontrol 2017, 62, 243–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Mueller, T.F.; Blommers, L.H.M.; Mols, P.J.M. Earwig (Forficula auricularia) predation on the woolly apple aphid, Eriosoma lanigerum. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 1988, 47, 145–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Nicholas, A.H.; Spooner-Hart, R.N.; Vickers, R.A. Abundance and natural control of the woolly aphid Eriosoma lanigerum in an Australian apple orchard IPM program. BioControl 2005, 50, 271–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lordan, J.; Alegre, S.; Gatius, F.; Sarasúa, M.J.; Alins, G. Woolly apple aphid Eriosoma lanigerum Hausmann ecology and its relationship with climatic variables and natural enemies in Mediterranean areas. Bull. Entomol. Res. 2015, 105, 60–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Jauset, A.M.; Artigues, M.; Avilla, J.; Sarasúa, M.J. Preliminary study of Forficula sp. (Dermaptera:Forficulidae) as predator of Cacopsylla pyri (Homoptera: Psyllidae), under field conditions in Lleida (Spain). IOBC/WPRS Bull. 2005, 28, 125–128. [Google Scholar]
  23. Logan, D.P.; Maher, B.J.; Rowe, C.A. Predation of diaspidid scale insects on kiwifruit vines by European earwigs, Forficula auricularia, and steel-blue ladybirds, Halmus chalybeus. Biocontrol 2017, 62, 469–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Englert, C.; Herz, A. Acceptability of Drosophila suzukii as prey for common predators occurring in cherries and berries. J. Appl. Entomol. 2019, 143, 387–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Gabarra, R.; Riudavets, J.; Rodríguez, G.A.; Pujade-Villar, J.; Arnó, J. Prospects for the biological control of Drosophila suzukii. Biocontrol 2015, 60, 331–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Weiss, M.J.; McDonald, G. European earwig, Forficula auricularia L. (Dermaptera: Forficulidae), as a predator of the redlegged earth mite, Halotydeus destructor (Tucker) (Acarina: Penthaleidae). Aust. J. Entomol. 1998, 37, 183–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Carroll, D.P.; Hoyt, S.C. Augmentation of European earwigs (Dermaptera, Forficulidae) for biological control of apple aphid (Homoptera, Aphididae) in an apple orchard. J. Econ. Entomol. 1984, 77, 738–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Piñol, J.; Espadaler, X.; Cañellas, N.; Pérez, N. Effects of the concurrent exclusion of ants and earwigs on aphid abundance in an organic citrus grove. BioControl 2009, 54, 515–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Carroll, D.P.; Walker, J.T.S.; Hoyt, S.C. European earwigs (Dermaptera, Forficulidae) fail to control apple aphids on bearing apple-trees and woolly apple aphids (Homoptera, Aphididae) in apple rootstock stool beds. J. Econ. Entomol. 1985, 78, 972–974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Romeu-Dalmau, C.; Piñol, J.; Agustí, N. Detecting aphid predation by earwigs in organic citrus orchards using molecular markers. Bull. Entomol. Res. 2012, 102, 566–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Dib, H.; Jamont, M.; Sauphanor, B.; Capowiez, Y. Predation potency and intraguild interactions between generalist (Forficula auricularia) and specialist (Episyrphus balteatus) predators of the rosy apple aphid (Dysaphis plantaginea). Biol. Control 2011, 59, 90–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kirstová, M.; Pyszko, P.; Kočárek, P. Factors influencing microhabitat selection and food preference of tree-dwelling earwigs (Dermaptera) in a temperate floodplain forest. Bull. Entomol. Res. 2019, 109, 54–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Crumb, S.; Eide, P.; Bonn, A. The European Earwig. Tech. Bull. USA Dep. Agric. Wash. 1941, 766, 1–76. [Google Scholar]
  34. Dib, H.; Jamont, M.; Sauphanor, B.; Capowiez, Y. The feasibility and efficacy of early-season releases of a generalist predator (Forficula auricularia L.) to control populations of the RAA (Dysaphis plantaginea Passerini) in Southeastern France. Bull. Entomol. Res. 2016, 106, 233–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Orpet, R.J.; Goldberger, J.R.; Crowder, D.W.; Jones, V.P. Field evidence and grower perceptions on the roles of an omnivore, European earwig, in apple orchards. Biol. Control 2019, 132, 189–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lordan, J.; Alegre, S.; Moerkens, R.; Sarasúa, M.J.; Alins, G. Phenology and interspecific association of Forficula auricularia and Forficula pubescens in apple orchards. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2015, 13, e1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Moerkens, R.; Leirs, H.; Peusens, G.; Gobin, B. Dispersal of single- and double-brood populations of the European earwig, Forficula auricularia: A mark-recapture experiment. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2010, 137, 19–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lamb, R.J.; Wellington, W.G. Life-history and population characteristics of European earwig, Forficula auricularia (Dermaptera: Forficulidae), at Vancouver, British-Columbia. Can. Entomol. 1975, 107, 819–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Moerkens, R.; Leirs, H.; Peusens, G.; Gobin, B. Are populations of European earwigs, Forficula auricularia, density dependent? Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2009, 130, 198–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Shaw, B.; Nagy, C.; Fountain, M.T. Organic Control Strategies for Use in IPM of Invertebrate Pests in Apple and Pear Orchards. Insects 2021, 12, 1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Suckling, D.M.; Burnip, G.M.; Hackett, J.; Daly, J.C. Frass sampling and baiting indicate European earwig (Forficula auricularia) foraging in orchards. J. Appl. Entomol. 2006, 130, 263–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Orpet, R.J.; Crowder, D.W.; Jones, V.P. Woolly Apple Aphid Generalist Predator Feeding Behavior Assessed through Video Observation in an Apple Orchard. J. Insect Behav. 2019, 32, 153–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Burnip, G.M.; Daly, M.J.; Hackett, J.K.; Suckling, D.M. European earwig phenology and effect of understorey management on population estimation. N. Z. Plant Prot. 2002, 55, 390–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Happe, A.-K.; Roquer-Beni, L.; Bosch, J.; Alins, G.; Mody, K. Earwigs and woolly apple aphids in integrated and organic apple orchards: Responses of a generalist predator and a pest prey to local and landscape factors. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2018, 268, 44–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Gontijo, L.M.; Beers, E.H.; Snyder, W.E. Complementary suppression of aphids by predators and parasitoids. Biol. Control 2015, 90, 83–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Insects 14 00890 g001
Figure 1. (A): Detail of the shelter used to release earwigs. (B): Woolly apple aphid colony with some parasitized aphids.
Figure 1. (A): Detail of the shelter used to release earwigs. (B): Woolly apple aphid colony with some parasitized aphids.
Insects 14 00890 g001
Insects 14 00890 g002
Figure 2. Mean woolly apple aphid colony length (cm) per week, orchard, and year. Vertical bars show standard error. * = p <0.05. (A): Orchard 1, year 2017. (B): Orchard 1, year 2018. (C): Orchard 1, year 2019. (D): Orchard 2, year 2019. (E): Orchard 2, year 2020.
Figure 2. Mean woolly apple aphid colony length (cm) per week, orchard, and year. Vertical bars show standard error. * = p <0.05. (A): Orchard 1, year 2017. (B): Orchard 1, year 2018. (C): Orchard 1, year 2019. (D): Orchard 2, year 2019. (E): Orchard 2, year 2020.
Insects 14 00890 g002
Insects 14 00890 g003
Figure 3. Mean number of woolly apple aphid colonies per tree, week, orchard, and year. Vertical bars show standard error. * = p <0.05. (A): Orchard 1, year 2017. (B): Orchard 1, year 2018. (C): Orchard 1, year 2019. (D): Orchard 2, year 2019. (E): Orchard 2, year 2020.
Figure 3. Mean number of woolly apple aphid colonies per tree, week, orchard, and year. Vertical bars show standard error. * = p <0.05. (A): Orchard 1, year 2017. (B): Orchard 1, year 2018. (C): Orchard 1, year 2019. (D): Orchard 2, year 2019. (E): Orchard 2, year 2020.
Insects 14 00890 g003
Insects 14 00890 g004
Figure 4. Mean number of earwigs per shelter, week, and year within orchard. Vertical bars show standard error. Different letters indicate significant differences among years (p < 0.05). Absence of letter indicates no statistically significant differences among years. (A): Orchard 1. (B): Orchard 2.
Figure 4. Mean number of earwigs per shelter, week, and year within orchard. Vertical bars show standard error. Different letters indicate significant differences among years (p < 0.05). Absence of letter indicates no statistically significant differences among years. (A): Orchard 1. (B): Orchard 2.
Insects 14 00890 g004
Table 1. Area under the line of woolly apple aphid colony length (mean ± standard error).
Table 1. Area under the line of woolly apple aphid colony length (mean ± standard error).
OrchardYearControlEarwig ReleaseDFFp
Orchard 12017942.5 ± 259.81091.2 ± 115.61,150.32110.5799
Orchard 12018381.8 ± 52.6231.7 ± 41.51,195.01380.0380
Orchard 12019276.2 ± 36.752.9 ± 15.31,1931.544<0.0001
Orchard 22019126.1 ± 21.6111.4 ± 21.21,180.23450.6344
Orchard 22020170.4 ± 16.641.4 ± 12.11,1840.4831<0.0001
Significant differences between treatments are shown in bold.
Table 2. Area under the line of number of woolly apple aphid colonies per tree (mean ± standard error).
Table 2. Area under the line of number of woolly apple aphid colonies per tree (mean ± standard error).
OrchardYearControlEarwig ReleaseDFF/χ2p
Orchard 120171165.5 ± 312.11285.2 ± 294.81,190.07770.7836
Orchard 120184555.6 ± 273.14122.3 ± 119.61,192.11240.1633
Orchard 1201914,515.2 ± 1672.420,692.7 ± 2924.912.06290.1509
Orchard 2201921,261.3 ± 1503.122,638 ± 1797.61,180.33650.5695
Orchard 220207700 ± 7257736.1 ± 648.31,190.00140.9708
Table 3. Mean percentage of woolly apple aphid colony parasitized per week, orchard, and year (mean ± standard error).
Table 3. Mean percentage of woolly apple aphid colony parasitized per week, orchard, and year (mean ± standard error).
OrchardYearWeekControlEarwig ReleaseDFF/χ2p
Orchard 120172324.0 ± 6.422.5 ± 3.81,190.04010.8436
2423.0 ± 8.528.0 ± 7.91,190.18560.6717
2515.0 ± 4.123.0 ± 8.510.12060.7283
2635.5 ± 8.762.0 ± 8.01,195.02300.0379
2734.5 ± 10.440.0 ± 10.31,190.14160.7111
2832 ± 12.432.0 ± 12.41,190.00001.0000
2930.6 ± 8.433.0 ± 11.01,180.03020.8641
3065.0 ± 12.083.3 ± 7.71,141.82910.1993
3178.3 ± 5.384.3 ± 5.11,120.66110.4334
3291.7 ± 4.495.7 ± 0.71,120.96270.3476
3398.0 ± 1.296.7 ± 1.11,100.68900.4280
2018230.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0---
249.5 ± 6.811.7 ± 5.91,150.04780.8301
2524.0 ± 6.415.5 ± 4.91,191.10920.3062
2621.5 ± 6.77.5 ± 3.81,193.31893.3189
2743.5 ± 7.630.5 ± 9.51,191.14150.2995
2832.5 ± 7.221.5 ± 6.71,191.25680.2770
3059.0 ± 8.537.0 ± 9.91,192.85640.1083
3170.5 ± 9.477.0 ± 8.51,190.26440.6134
3295.0 ± 0.092.2 ± 2.811.11110.2918
3395.0 ± 0.091.9 ± 3.111.00000.3173
2019196.5 ± 2.02.5 ± 1.11,193.09680.0954
2023.5 ± 5.128.6 ± 9.31,160.26530.6140
2138.0 ± 10.755.7 ± 16.21,160.90650.3561
2213.9 ± 4.117.5 ± 14.21,120.10840.7481
2320.0 ± 5.17.5 ± 2.51,101.23550.2951
2413.5 ± 5.051.3 ± 48.810.18860.6641
2515.5 ± 4.228.3 ± 16.41,121.31090.2765
2614.0 ± 3.251.3 ± 19.41,138.71510.0121
2754.0 ± 11.547.5 ± 4.810.18490.6672
2868.6 ± 12.475.0 ± 25.01,80.05820.8163
2966.0 ± 14.7100.01,50.89200.3984
3056.7 ± 21.950.01,30.02330.8928
31100.0 ± 0.0100.0---
Orchard 220191910.5 ± 2.513.3 ± 5.21,180.25630.6192
2028.0 ± 4.628.3 ± 7.91,180.00140.9707
2117.3 ± 4.322.2 ± 5.31,180.54010.4724
2225.5 ± 5.319.3 ± 4.81,160.67300.4248
2331.0 ± 5.828.6 ± 6.61,160.07550.7873
2449.0 ± 4.330.6 ± 8.312.70560.1000
2545.0 ± 7.961.7 ± 11.71,151.49830.2411
2679.5 ± 6.366.4 ± 10.61,161.28570.2746
2797.9 ± 1.581.0 ± 6.41,119.07930.0130
2895.098.8 ± 1.31,41.80000.2722
29-100.0---
3099.0 ---
3195.0 ± 5.082.5 ± 2.51,35.00000.1548
3295.0100.0 ± 0.0---
3330.075.0 ± 7.61,38.67860.0985
20202015.0 ± 2.117.5 ± 2.41,190.61640.4426
2129.0 ± 5.5100.0 ± 0.0115.2226<0.0001
2242.5 ± 5.5100.01,109.97280.0116
2343.3 ± 7.350.0 ± 50.01,1.040.01740.1319
2445.6 ± 6.337.5 ± 22.51,3.48330.11880.3447
2535.0 ± 7.052.5 ± 19.31,121.16980.3026
2653.3 ± 8.091.7 ± 1.71,117.16160.0232
2769.4 ± 6.885 ± 12.61,111.27440.2853
2876.8 ± 7.565.0 ± 25.01,90.39880.5453
2987.5 ± 5.350.01,67.19620.0437
3093.0 ± 5.8100.01,50.24020.6497
3195.0 ± 0.0----
32100.0----
Significant differences between treatments are shown in bold.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Alins, G.; Lordan, J.; Rodríguez-Gasol, N.; Arnó, J.; Peñalver-Cruz, A. Earwig Releases Provide Accumulative Biological Control of the Woolly Apple Aphid over the Years. Insects 2023, 14, 890. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14110890

AMA Style

Alins G, Lordan J, Rodríguez-Gasol N, Arnó J, Peñalver-Cruz A. Earwig Releases Provide Accumulative Biological Control of the Woolly Apple Aphid over the Years. Insects. 2023; 14(11):890. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14110890

Chicago/Turabian Style

Alins, Georgina, Jaume Lordan, Neus Rodríguez-Gasol, Judit Arnó, and Ainara Peñalver-Cruz. 2023. "Earwig Releases Provide Accumulative Biological Control of the Woolly Apple Aphid over the Years" Insects 14, no. 11: 890. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14110890

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop