You are on page 1of 3

Are spiders the perfect predator?

By Mary Whitehouse and Louise Lawrence, CSIRO Entomology

piders are the most abundant predators in agricultural systems. They make up 50 per cent of the predators in unsprayed cotton crops in Australia and up to 80 per cent of cotton crop predators in China. Despite their prominence, spiders have received little attention in Australian cotton and their role in helping to manage pests has generally been overlooked. Research being undertaken as part of the Australian Cotton Cooperative Research Centre in Narrabri and CSIRO Entomology aims to help growers and consultants understand spiders and their true value in crop, so they can begin to incorporate them into IPM strategies. When people discuss beneficial species in crops they usually ignore spiders and talk only about predatory insects. Until recently, the general feeling was that spiders are too difficult to exploit in IPM because most are generalist predators and not specific to one pest species.

Although some spiders are actually specialists (for example, the striped lynx spider is responsible for 80 per cent of the predation on the cotton fleahopper, Pseudatomoscelis seriatus) many spiders capture a wide range of species, and so could be called generalist predators. This can be an advantage in IPM strategies.
NOWHERE TO HIDE It has been shown that the best way to control a multi-prey complex (such as that seen in cotton fields) is to use a multi-predator complex which reduces enemy free space for the pests. In other words, a number of generalist predators living on different parts of the crop control pests well because there is nowhere on the crop which is safe for any pests. Such an approach uses all the predators in the invertebrate community to control pests as opposed to the use of one specialised predator to attack a single pest

species. The latter is the more common approach when biological control agents are used to control agricultural pests. But a complex of general predators is more likely to be effective as they are not restricted to one prey species. This means the numbers of predators present is independent of the numbers of any one prey species. Because the predators are eating a range of prey, their numbers will remain high even if the numbers of one pest species drop. This system means that the numbers of predators in the system will not fluctuate greatly. Control by generalist spiders has proven to be effective. When spider numbers were enhanced in a garden system by increasing its structural complexity (by mulching), pest numbers were significantly reduced. By feeding on a range of prey, spiders are both buffered against a drop in specific pest
32

FIGURE 1: Relative composition of the diets of various spider groups (identified by family name)
Tetragnathid

(long jawed spiders)


Araneid Theridiid

80 80 80 80 80 0

Web builders

(orb weavers) (space web/ redbacks)


Linyphiid

money spiders/sheet web weavers)


Dictynid

(mesh web spiders)

Araneid (garden

orb weaver)

Thomisid

80 80 80 80 80 0

Hunters

(crab spider)
small Oxyopid

(Small lynx spider)


large Oxyopid

(large green lynx spider)


Salticid

(jumping spider)
Lycosid

(wolf spider)

Thomisid

c.

(crab spider)
nt sp s rin gt ai ls be et le s fli es gs hs er /a bu ot id ps m as sp ot
Adapted from Nyffeler 1999

et

ph

id

30 THE AUSTRALIAN COTTONGROWER

be

es

/w

he
NOVEMBERDECEMBER, 2001

rs

FIGURE 2: Dendrogram of spider foraging guilds illustrating the diversity of foraging methods used by spiders (adapted from Uetz et al 1999)
Foliage runners Running spiders Hunting Ground runners Stalkers Stalkers/ ambushers Ambushers Sheet web builders Sheet webs Wandering sheet/tangle weavers Orb weavers Aerial webs Space web builders
Anyphaenidae Clubionidae Sparassidae Lycosidae Dysderida e Gnaphosidae Mimetidae Oxyopidae Salticida e Thomisidae Philodromidae Pisauridae Agelenidae Amaurobiidae Hahniidae Filistatida e Linyphiidae Micryphantida e Araneida e Tetragnathidae Uloboridae Theridiidae Dictynida e Pholcidae

Yellow night stalker


(Photo: C Mares)

Wolf spider

Lynx spider

Webbuilding

Long-jawed spider

Space web spider


(Photos: D McClenaghan)

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Similarity %

30PERFECT PREDATOR

species numbers, and are on hand to take advantage of outbreaks of particular pests. Although most spiders capture a range of prey, different species of spiders capture different types of prey (Figure 1). For

example, in a recent literature survey, Araneids (garden orb weavers) were found to take only aphids, flies and beetles. Theridiids (red-blacks, tangle webs) took aphids, flies, beetles, wasps, bees and ants. Linyphiids (money spiders) took aphids, flies and springtails. Hunting spiders were

FIGURE 3: Proportional comparison of the spider guild composition of selected crops. The dendrogram shows the relationship between the spider communities in the different crops. The bar graph represents the relative abundance of individuals in different spider guilds (based on numerous published reports)

Other Space web-builders Orb weavers Wandering sheet web-builders Sheet web builders Ground runners Soybeans Peanut Cotton Sugar Sorghum Alfalfa Foliage runners Ambushers Stalkers Corn

found to attack a greater range of prey than the web-builders mentioned above, and their diet included a high proportion of other spiders. One perceived downside of spiders is that they kill many beneficial insects, including other spiders. Although this hyperpredation can reduce the effectiveness of a particular predator species, it enhances the overall diversity of predators available by not allowing one predator to take over. Body size also affects prey choice in spiders. Laboratory and field experiments showed that optimal prey length ranges from 5080 per cent of the spiders own length. As small spiders, including many immatures, dominate in agricultural sites, most spider prey will be small (less than four mm long).
SPIDER GUILDS In order to understand spider communities better, spiders are now being classified into guilds (groups) based on the way they forage (Figure 2). Classifying spiders into foraging guilds enabled researchers to compare the spider communities in eight different types of crops (Figure 3). They found that the NOVEMBERDECEMBER, 2001

32 THE AUSTRALIAN COTTONGROWER

Rice

crops fell into two distinct groups of structurally similar spider communities: group one (peanut, alfalfa, soybean, rice) whose spider fauna was dominated by ground runners and wandering sheet webbuilders; and group two (cotton, corn, sugar, sorghum) whose spider fauna was more complex because it also included many orb weavers and stalkers. The most likely reason why crops such as cotton support more types of spiders is because these crops are more structurally

complex than crops such as rice. This complexity provides spiders with more habitats and so allows cotton to support a more diverse range of spiders. This in turn reduces enemy free space for the pests. Consequently, it is in agricultural systems such as cotton where spiders may best be used to help suppress pests. Research has shown there is a wide range of spiders in Australian cotton fields and, with more and more cotton growers now using IPM and conserving beneficials,

these spider populations are likely to be conserved. But there still needs to be research directed specifically at spiders in order to identify which species are the most effective and what conditions enhance their activity. This information would allow spiders to become an integral part of IPM strategies.
For more information contact Mary Whitehouse, CSIRO Entomology, Narrabri, ph: 02 6799 1538, fax: 02 6793 1186, email: Mary.Whitehouse@csiro.au

You might also like