Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Attractiveness of Michigan Native Plants To Arthropod Natural
Attractiveness of Michigan Native Plants To Arthropod Natural
KEY WORDS native plant, habitat management, natural enemy, conservation biological control
Conservation biological control involves practices some parasitoid life cycles, access to sugars may be
that protect and enhance natural enemies already more important than host availability (Baggen and
present in the landscape by decreasing natural enemy Gurr 1998). Although predators frequently use prey
mortality or providing resources that enhance natural resources as adults, they often supplement their diets
enemy survival and efÞcacy (Ehler 1998). Using plants with plant resources including phloem ßuids (Eu-
to provide needed resources to natural enemies, banks and Denno 1999) and pollen (Harmon et al.
termed habitat management, is a growing focus of 2000). In some cases, predators may require protein
conservation biological control (Landis et al. 2000). garnered from ßower pollen to mature eggs or access
Habitat management can provide natural enemies to pollen may increase fecundity (Hickman and Wrat-
with alternate hosts (DeBach and Rosen 1991, Me- ten 1996).
nalled et al. 1999, van Emden 2003), shelter (Gurr et To maximize the beneÞt of habitat management,
al. 1998), and nonhost food (Baggen et al. 1999,
plant species must be carefully selected. Many natural
Wilkinson and Landis 2005) in ways that enhance
enemies cannot access nectar in ßowers with deep,
biological control (Gurr et al. 2003, Wratten et al.
2003). narrow corollas, because their mouthparts are not
Both parasitoids and predators beneÞt from access specialized for ßower-feeding (Jervis et al. 1993, Orr
to nonhost food, especially nectar and pollen. For and Pleasants 1996, Wäckers et al. 1996). In addition,
parasitoids, access to nectar may be crucial for adult plant and insect phenology must coincide so that in-
survival in species that do not host feed (Jervis and sects garner beneÞts of access to nectar and pollen at
Kidd 1986). Several laboratory studies have shown the correct time to increase their populations (Jervis
increased longevity and/or fecundity of adult parasi- et al. 1993, Orr and Pleasants 1996, Colley and Luna
toids with access to nectar or sugars (Dyer and Landis 2000, Siekmann et al. 2001). Finally, screening plants
1996, Baggen et al. 1999, Wäckers 1999). At points in to select those which provide resources to natural
enemies and not herbivorous pests is an important
1 Corresponding author, e-mail: Þedlera@msu.edu. consideration (Baggen and Gurr 1998, Baggen et al.
0046-225X/07/0751Ð0765$04.00/0 䉷 2007 Entomological Society of America
752 ENVIRONMENTAL ENTOMOLOGY Vol. 36, no. 4
1999, Lee and Heimpel 2005, Winkler 2005, Ambrosino 5 of the most widely recommended annual resource
et al. 2006, Begum et al. 2006, Lavandero et al. 2006). plants that are exotic in Michigan. The goal of this
When the goal of a habitat management program is process was to select a subset of plants for further
to increase plant resource availability to beneÞcial consideration in a habitat management program. Our
insects, several methods have been used to test which hypotheses were that (1) plant species would vary in
plants are most attractive to natural enemies. The most attractiveness to natural enemy arthropods, (2) some
controlled are laboratory studies of speciÞc plantÐ native plants would be as or more attractive to natural
insect interactions that consider whether speciÞc nat- enemy arthropods as frequently recommended exot-
ural enemies can access and feed on plant nectar or ics, (3) plant species would attract different numbers
pollen of speciÞc ßowering plants (Patt et al. 1997, and types of natural enemy and herbivore taxa, and
and F. esculentum (cultivar Mancan; Simmons Family plant in 2004 and 2005 (PROC REG; SAS Institute
Farms, North Branch, MI) were seeded. 2003). A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with
To maintain background fertility for the or- block and plant species as factors was conducted on
chardgrass, granular nitrogen (urea or ammonium ni- the mean insect counts for the 3-wk full bloom period
trate, 33.6 kg N/ha) was applied to the entire Þeld on (PROC GLM; SAS Institute 2003). Plant species were
23 June 2004 and 14 April 2005. In response to apparent divided into three categories for ANOVA analyses
nutrient deÞciencies in particular plant species, we according to timing of peak bloom: early season (May
applied liquid fertilizer (5.7 liters of 20 Ð20-20; Peters to June), midseason (July to 20 August 2004 and July
professional all-purpose plant food, Spectrum to 9 August 2005), or late season (21 August 2004 and
Group, St. Louis, MO) on 23 June 2004 to Ceanothus 10 August 2005 to October). Because of lack of ho-
Plants are listed in order of bloom. Exotic plant names are underlined.
f, peak bloom date; 䡲, full bloom; Ñ, in bloom.
a
Observed 2004 peak bloom dates were Aug. 31 for C. lanceolata and P. fruticosa, and Aug. 13 for A. nepetoides.
b
Did not bloom in 2004.
on a slight elevation, and plants there may have experi- Early Season. In 2004, the native Heracleum maxi-
enced more moisture stress during the particularly dry mum (Bartr.) was signiÞcantly more attractive than
2005 growing season. other plants (Fig. 1a). Exotic L. maritima and natives
August 2007 FIEDLER AND LANDIS: HABITAT MANAGEMENT WITH NATIVE PLANTS 755
Fig. 1. Early season mean number of natural enemies collected per 1-m2 plot the week during the full bloom period for
each species (peak bloom dates 1 May to 21 June) (a) 2004 and (b) 2005. Plants listed in 2005 bloom order from left to right.
2004 samples were limited to 30 s; in 2005, plots were sampled until all ßowers were sampled. Grass controls were sampled
from 21 June 2005 onward only. For A. canadensis, P. hirsutus, and A. atropurpurea, the corresponding grass control points
represent the mean of one date; remaining points represent the mean of two dates. Although not in full bloom at this time,
L. maritima is included as the only exotic comparison plant blooming in early season. Bars with different letters within a Þgure
are signiÞcantly different using Tukey-adjusted means comparisons (P ⬍ 0.05).
Fragaria virginiana Duchesne were the next most at- and H. maximum attracted more natural enemies than
tractive group. In 2005, Angelica atropurpurea L., a neutral grass background (grass control) during the
which did not bloom in 2004, and Coreopsis lanceolata same period. Although no grass samples were taken
L. were the most attractive plants to natural enemies. when Z. aurea and F. virginiana were blooming, these
Anemone canadensis, Zizia aurea L. Koch, Penstemon species attracted more natural enemies than other
hirsutus L. Willd., H. maximum, and F. virginiana were plants blooming in May and early June. In both 2004
the next most attractive plants but overlapped in sig- and 2005, no natural enemies were collected at Aqui-
niÞcance with the least attractive species (Fig. 1b). legia canadensis L., even though abundant blossoms
Samples taken from 21 June 2005 onward show that A. were present. L. maritima and H. maximum were rel-
atropurpurea, C. lanceolata, A. canadensis, P. hirsutus, atively less attractive in 2005 than in 2004. Overall,
756 ENVIRONMENTAL ENTOMOLOGY Vol. 36, no. 4
Fig. 2. Midseason mean number of natural enemies collected per 1-m2 plot during the full bloom period for each species
in (a) 2004 and (b) 2005 (peak bloom dates 1 July to 20 August 2004 and 1 July to 9 August 2005). Plants listed in 2005 bloom
order from left to right. 2004 samples were limited to 30 s; in 2005, plots were sampled until all ßowers were sampled. Grass
controls are a mean from the 3-wk full bloom period for each ßowering species. Bars with different letters within a Þgure
are signiÞcantly different using Tukey-adjusted means comparisons (P ⬍ 0.05).
however, plants attracted more natural enemies in L., and Verbena stricta Vent. were the most attractive
2005 than in 2004 during the early season, with several plants (Fig. 2b). The remaining plant species were not
plants averaging 4 Ð 60 times more natural enemies in signiÞcantly more attractive than the least attractive
2005 than in 2004, e.g., Z. aurea, Anemone canadensis, species and did not attract more natural enemies than
P. hirsutus, H. virginiana, and F. virginiana. grass controls from the same period. All midseason
Midseason. In 2004, the exotics F. esculentum, C. native plants attracted more natural enemies in 2005
sativum, and V. faba were far more attractive than any than in 2004, including P. fruticosa. Overall, many of
of the native plants (Fig. 2a). However, in 2005, Apo- the plants were far more attractive in 2005 than in
cynum cannabinum L., Potentilla fruticosa auct. non L., 2004, except the annual exotics F. esculentum and C.
Spiraea alba Duroi, the exotic V. faba, Ratibida pinnata sativum, which had fewer natural enemies in 2005 than
(Vent.) Barnh., exotic F. esculentum, Oenothera biennis in 2004.
August 2007 FIEDLER AND LANDIS: HABITAT MANAGEMENT WITH NATIVE PLANTS 757
Late Season. In 2004, several native species attracted punctata L., exotic L. maritima, natives Silphium per-
as many or more natural enemies as one or more of the foliatum L., S. riddellii, Vernonia missurica Raf., Soli-
exotics (Fig. 3a). E. perfoliatum L. and L. maritima dago speciosa Nutt., A. novae-angliae, and H. strumosus
attracted signiÞcantly more insects than many other all attracted ⬎25 natural enemies on average. All but
species. Aster novae-angliae L., Solidago riddellii Frank three plant species were more attractive to natural
ex Riddell, Aster laevis L., Anethum graveolens L., Lo- enemies than the grass control, whereas species listed
belia siphilitica L., and Helianthus strumosus L. formed above attracted more than twice as many natural en-
the next most attractive group but overlapped broadly emies as the grass control. Overall, native plants
with the least attractive plants. In 2005, the exotic A. blooming before September performed better in 2005
graveolens was decimated by Papilionidae larvae and than in 2004, including E. perfoliatum, M. punctata, V.
therefore was less attractive than many other species missurica, and Cacalia atriplicifolia L., which were
(Fig. 3b). Native E. perfoliatum was signiÞcantly more over twice as attractive to natural enemies in 2005 as
attractive than any other plant species, and Monarda in 2004. A group of species blooming from mid-Sep-
758 ENVIRONMENTAL ENTOMOLOGY Vol. 36, no. 4
Table 2. Proportion of total natural enemies collected in 2005 Table 3. Proportion of total herbivore hexapods collected in
at all flowering plants by order and family 2005 at flowering plants by order and family
Many Arachnida were immature and unidentiÞable to family. Num- orous insects (Figs. 4Ð 6), although exceptions occur.
bers in order rows represent specimens not identiÞed to family level.
Taxa comprising less than 0.05% not included. For example, H. maximum was attractive to natural
enemies but not herbivores in 2004 (Fig. 4a), whereas
the opposite was true for Heuchera americana L. Spe-
tember on performed similarly and quite well in both cies that attracted greater numbers of natural enemies
years, whereas exotics A. graveolens and L. maritima than herbivores in early season 2004 included F. vir-
had fewer natural enemies in 2005 than in 2004. giniana, S. obovatus, H. maximum, and C. lanceolata. In
Natural Enemy Taxa. The relative proportions of 2005, only Anemone canadensis and A. atropurpurea
natural enemy taxa collected were similar in 2004 and had greater natural enemy than herbivore abundance
2005 (Fiedler 2006). Hemiptera and Hymenoptera (Fig. 4b).
were the most common orders collected, followed by During midseason, the exotic plants, notably V.
Coleoptera (Table 2). Within order, Anthocoridae faba, attracted more herbivores than the background
and Chalcidoidea were the most common natural en- grass controls. In 2004, the native P. fruticosa was the
emy groups, followed by Cantharidae, Arachnida, and one plant notably more attractive to natural enemies
Miridae (Plagiognathus politus Uhler) (Table 2). The than herbivores (Fig. 5a). In 2005, the most attractive
most numerous beetles were Cantharidae. Arachnida mid season native plants all were more attractive to
were composed of Thomisidae, Salticidae, Tetrago- herbivores than natural enemies (Fig. 5b). SpeciÞ-
nathidae, Aranaeidae, and Lycosidae. Many Arach- cally, P. fruticosa, A. cannabinum, V. stricta, R. pinnata,
nida, however, were immatures and unidentiÞable to and O. biennis all had greater numbers of herbivores
family. The most numerous Hemiptera were Antho- than natural enemies.
coridae. Predatory Aeolothripidae composed 14% of In the late season, herbivores at many ßowering
total thrips in 2005 (Table 2). The most common species were relatively less abundant than in the early
Hymenoptera were Chalcidoidea, and the most nu- and midseason. In 2004, E. perfoliatum, L. siphilitica, S.
merous Diptera collected were Empididae. perfoliatum, and H. strumosus all were more attractive
The most common natural enemy arthropods in to natural enemies than herbivores, whereas the op-
grass controls were Chalcidoidea (especially Mymari- posite was true for S. speciosa (Fig. 6a). In 2005, M.
dae), Nabidae, Thomisidae, Staphylinidae, and Cy- punctata, V. missurica, S. perfoliatum, C. atriplicifolia, E.
nipoidea. Several groups, Mymaridae, Nabidae, and perfoliatum, H. strumosus, and S. riddellii all were more
Staphylinidae, were also more common in grass than attractive to natural enemies than herbivores,
in ßowering plant samples. whereas the opposite was true for L. maritima and
Plant Attractiveness to Herbivores. In both 2004 and S. speciosa (Fig. 6b).
2005, plants that were more attractive to natural en- The most common herbivores collected in grass
emies were also generally more attractive to herbiv- controls differed somewhat from those at ßowering
August 2007 FIEDLER AND LANDIS: HABITAT MANAGEMENT WITH NATIVE PLANTS 759
Table 4. The 23 Michigan native plant species best suited to attract natural enemy insects with bloom, plant physiognomy, and moisture
tolerances
Plants listed in 2005 bloom order. 2005 bloom period is indicated by letters: e ⫽ early (MayÐJune), m ⫽ middle (July to mid-Aug.), and l ⫽
late season (mid-Aug. on). Tolerance indicates plant suitability for wet-dry environments.
a
Although attractive to natural enemies, these species are difÞcult to establish from seed.
b
Apocynum cannabinum is considered an agricultural weed and should be used with caution.
c
Oenothera biennis attracted large numbers of Japanese beetle in both 2004 and 2005.
d
Solidago speciosa may be substituted in dry environments but contained fewer natural enemies and greater pest numbers.
plants and included (in order of decreasing total num- further testing and habitat manipulation. The native
ber) Lepidoptera, Cicadellidae, Chrysomelidae, Cer- plants tested showed differing attractiveness to natu-
copidae, and Aphididae. ral enemies, which has also been found with exotic
Herbivore Taxa. At the order level, the relative plants in other studies (Baggen et al. 1999, Colley and
composition of the herbivore taxa were very similar in Luna 2000, Ambrosino et al. 2006).
2004 and 2005 (Fiedler 2006). Herbivores in the order Three widely used exotics (L. maritima, F. esculen-
Hemiptera were the most abundant, followed by Co- tum, and V. faba) were very attractive to natural en-
leoptera and Thysanoptera (Table 3). Low numbers of emies, indicating that recommendations for their use
dipteran and orthopteran herbivores were collected at are well founded. However, many Michigan native
plants. Miridae, primarily composed of Lygus sp., were plants were as, or more, attractive as these frequently
the most numerous herbivorous insect family (Table recommended exotics. The native perennials became
3). Aphididae and Cicadellidae were also common in more attractive to natural enemies as they matured
both years (Table 3). The most numerous coleopteran and were more likely to attract more natural enemies
herbivores were Chrysomelidae, and Cerambycidae
than exotic annuals in year 2. This suggests that as
and Curculionidae were collected in low numbers.
perennial natives establish they have potential to be
Scarabaeidae were almost entirely composed of Jap-
more attractive to natural enemies than previously
anese beetle (Popillia japonica Newman). Lepidop-
teran adults were not frequently collected in samples. tested annuals for habitat management (Orr and
Only adult Lepidoptera of families known to be pest Pleasants 1996, Nentwig et al. 1998). In addition, the
species on plants of agricultural importance were perennial plants tested have the potential to provide
counted separately as herbivores. Larvae and any un- plant resources over a greater part of the growing
identiÞable adults were identiÞed to order and are season than annuals. Perennial natives began bloom-
counted as Lepidoptera (Table 3). ing in early May; for example F. virginiana bloomed in
mid-May, followed by Z. aurea in early June. Both
provide ßoral resources before any of the seeded an-
Discussion nual plants bloomed in our study, and F. virginiana
From the full set of 48 ßower species, ßoral re- even provided ßoral resources before the danger of
sources were available to insects from 1 May through frost damage to annual plugs had passed. Other pe-
30 September 2004 and 4 May through 4 October 2005. rennial species bloomed through September in both
The overlap in plant phenology suggests that a subset 2004 and 2005, during which time the only blooming
of the most attractive species can be selected for exotic was L. maritima.
760 ENVIRONMENTAL ENTOMOLOGY Vol. 36, no. 4
Fig. 4. Early season mean number of natural enemies (positive y-axis) and herbivores (negative y-axis) collected per 1-m2
plot the week before, during, and after peak bloom in (a) 2004 and (b) 2005. Plants listed in bloom order. Grass control samples
were collected in 2005 from 21 June onward. Cross-hatched bars are exotic plant species.
In addition to nectar and pollen, perennial plants additional sugar and protein sources to natural ene-
may provide a moderated microclimate and shelter mies. We did not see alternate prey in large numbers
from disturbance in highly disturbed agricultural ar- on any plants with the exception of V. faba, which was
eas, characteristics that have been shown to increase infested with aphids in 2005, leading to a high density
natural enemy effectiveness (Dyer and Landis 1996). of lady beetle larvae, pupae, and adults on this species.
Rebek et al. (2005) found that plants with ßowers Considering bloom period and attractiveness to nat-
intact did not attract signiÞcantly different numbers of ural enemies, we propose a set of plants most suitable
natural enemies than plants with ßowers excised. for further study (Table 4). In agricultural settings,
Likewise, we collected natural enemies in grass alone, these plants could be established in strips in or along
indicating that it may provide some beneÞt, such as crop Þelds to provide nectar and pollen to natural
moderated microclimate, shelter, and alternate prey. enemies and evaluate the effect of strips on crop yield.
However, we did have a set of native plants that were In addition to attractiveness to natural enemies, the
signiÞcantly more attractive to natural enemies than number and type of herbivore collected at a plant must
the background grass matrix, and which could provide be evaluated. If an herbivore occurs in higher numbers
August 2007 FIEDLER AND LANDIS: HABITAT MANAGEMENT WITH NATIVE PLANTS 761
at a ßowering plant than in grass alone, its pest po- lotreta striolata (F.), a known herbivore of cabbage
tential in crops surrounding the ßowering plant strip and mustard, and Phyllotreta spp., a potential herbi-
must be considered (Winkler 2005). For example, vore on brassicas. This indicates that frequently rec-
Japanese beetle attraction by resource plants may be ommended exotic L. maritima attracts a known canola
of great concern in fruit crops. The native O. biennis pest and potential pest on other Brassicas, which may
and exotic F. esculentum attracted large numbers of increase herbivory if planted near brassicaceous
Japanese beetle in both 2004 and 2005. The presence crops.
of Lygus and Cicadellidae will be of concern to farmers In native prairie and savanna habitats, grasses were
of crops susceptible to direct damage or viruses trans- a component of the plant matrix and may be vital
mitted by these insects. The natives V. stricta and R. components of habitat strips. Although not tested in
pinnata attracted large numbers of Lygus in 2005. Sur- our study for attractiveness to natural enemies, we
prisingly, samples from the previously recommended planted Panicum virginicum L., Elymus canadensis L.,
exotics C. sativum and F. esculentum also contained and Schizachyrium scoparium (Michx.) Nash to test
Lygus in relatively large numbers. In addition, the survivorship and growth in our Þeld plots. The grasses
Chrysomelidae common at L. maritima included Phyl- survived and Þlled the 1-m2 test plots after 2 yr of
762 ENVIRONMENTAL ENTOMOLOGY Vol. 36, no. 4
growth. These species, as well as Andropogon gerardii lected, Orius insidiosus, is predaceous on a variety of
Vitman and Sorghastrum nutans L. Nash, are all rela- small, soft-bodied insects, including aphids, whiteßies,
tively easy to establish native grasses for potential thrips, spidermites, lepidopteran eggs, and some chry-
inclusion with forbs in a planted strip. In addition to somelid beetles. The two Cantharidae species col-
providing structural support, grasses have been shown lected were Chauliognathus marginatus Fabricius and
to support ground beetle populations in previous stud- C. pennsylvanicus Deg. In their larval stage, both spe-
ies (Lee et al. 2001, Varchola and Dunn 2001). We cies are predators on soil-dwelling soft-bodied insects
collected higher numbers of Nabidae and Staphylini- and have been seen feeding on adult Chrysomelidae
dae in the exotic grass control than in many ßowering and Cicindelidae. Both species feed exclusively on
plant samples, indicating that these groups may also pollen and nectar as adults. The coccinellid species
beneÞt from the inclusion of grass in plant mixtures. collected in this study included Harmonia axyridis
The natural enemy groups most frequently col- Pallas, Coccinella septempunctata L., Coleomegilla
lected at plants for habitat management in this study maculata DeG., and Hippodamia variegata Goeze. All
could impact a variety of crop pest populations (Fie- of these species are known predators on aphids and
dler 2006). The most common natural enemy col- other small soft-bodied insects as larvae and adults.
August 2007 FIEDLER AND LANDIS: HABITAT MANAGEMENT WITH NATIVE PLANTS 763
The most numerous Chalcidoidea collected at re- other plants such as Rudbeckia hirta L. and Eupatorium
source plants was Encrytidae Copidosoma. This genus maculatum L. are readily available and similar to some
is known to contain polyembryonic parasitoids of Lep- of our highly attractive species. These species would
idoptera, and C. floridanum is a known parasitoid of be good candidates for broadening future native plant
cabbage looper (Pieris rapae L.). The Miridae col- selection for habitat management.
lected were Plagiognathus politus Uhler and Chlamy- The establishment time of perennial plants greatly
datus associatus Uhler; both species were observed increases time before ßowering, and therefore, time
preying on soybean aphid in Michigan (Costamagna before insect abundance at plants can be measured.
and Landis 2007). In addition, P. politus is a docu- Although perennials outperformed annual exotics that
mented predator on the Chrysomelid Galerucella ca- were previously recommended for habitat manage-
Baggen, L. R., G. M. Gurr, and A. Meats. 1999. Flowers in cinellidae) predation on pea aphids promoted by proximity
tri-trophic systems: mechanisms allowing selective ex- to dandelions. Oecologia (Berl.) 125: 543Ð548.
ploitation by insect natural enemies for conservation bi- Hickman, J. M., and S. D. Wratten. 1996. Use of Phacelia
ological control. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 91: 155Ð161. tanacetifolia strips to enhance biological control of aphids
Begum, M., G. M. Gurr, S. D. Wratten, P. R. Hedberg, and by hoverßy larvae in cereal Þelds. J. Econ. Entomol. 89:
H. I. Nicol. 2006. Using selective food plants to maximize 832Ð 840.
biological control of vineyard pests. J. Appl. Ecol. 43: Idris, A. B., and E. Grafius. 1995. Wildßowers as nectar
547Ð554. sources for Diadegma insulare (Hymenoptera: Ichneu-
Bugg, R. L., and C. Waddington. 1994. Using cover crops to monidae), a parasitoid of diamondback moth (Lepidop-
manage arthropod pests of orchardsÑa review. Agric. tera: Yponomeutidae). Environ. Entomol. 24: 1726 Ð1735.
Tooker, J. F., and L. M. Hanks. 2000. Flowering plant hosts Wäckers, F. L., A. Bjornsten, and S. Dorn. 1996. A compar-
of adult Hymenopteran parasitoids of central Illinois. ison of ßowering herbs with respect to their nectar ac-
Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 93: 580 Ð588. cessibility for the parasitoid Pimpla turionellae. Proc. Exp.
Triplehorn, C. A., and N. F. Johnson. 2005. An introduction Appl. Entomol. 7: 177Ð182.
to the study of insects. Thomson Brooks/Cole, Belmont, White, A. J., S. D. Wratten, N. A. Berry, and U. Weigmann.
CA. 1995. Habitat manipulation to enhance biological-con-
van Emden, H. F. 1963. Observations on the effect of ßow- trol of brassica pests by hover ßies (Diptera, Syrphidae).
ers on the activity of parasitic hymenoptera. Entomol. J. Econ. Entomol. 88: 1171Ð1176.
Mon. Mag. 98: 265Ð270. Wilkinson, T. K., and D. A. Landis. 2005. Habitat diversiÞ-
van Emden, H. F. 2003. Conservation biological control: cation in biological control: the role of plant resources,