COMMUNITY AND ECOSYSTEM ECOLOGY
Attractiveness of Michigan Native Plants to Arthropod Natural
Enemies and Herbivores
A. K. FIEDLER1 AND D. A. LANDIS
Department of Entomology, 204 Center for Integrated Plant Systems, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, MI 48824-1311
KEY WORDS native plant, habitat management, natural enemy, conservation biological control
Conservation biological control involves practices
that protect and enhance natural enemies already
present in the landscape by decreasing natural enemy
mortality or providing resources that enhance natural
enemy survival and efÞcacy (Ehler 1998). Using plants
to provide needed resources to natural enemies,
termed habitat management, is a growing focus of
conservation biological control (Landis et al. 2000).
Habitat management can provide natural enemies
with alternate hosts (DeBach and Rosen 1991, Menalled et al. 1999, van Emden 2003), shelter (Gurr et
al. 1998), and nonhost food (Baggen et al. 1999,
Wilkinson and Landis 2005) in ways that enhance
biological control (Gurr et al. 2003, Wratten et al.
2003).
Both parasitoids and predators beneÞt from access
to nonhost food, especially nectar and pollen. For
parasitoids, access to nectar may be crucial for adult
survival in species that do not host feed (Jervis and
Kidd 1986). Several laboratory studies have shown
increased longevity and/or fecundity of adult parasitoids with access to nectar or sugars (Dyer and Landis
1996, Baggen et al. 1999, Wäckers 1999). At points in
1 Corresponding author, e-mail: Þedlera@msu.edu.
some parasitoid life cycles, access to sugars may be
more important than host availability (Baggen and
Gurr 1998). Although predators frequently use prey
resources as adults, they often supplement their diets
with plant resources including phloem ßuids (Eubanks and Denno 1999) and pollen (Harmon et al.
2000). In some cases, predators may require protein
garnered from ßower pollen to mature eggs or access
to pollen may increase fecundity (Hickman and Wratten 1996).
To maximize the beneÞt of habitat management,
plant species must be carefully selected. Many natural
enemies cannot access nectar in ßowers with deep,
narrow corollas, because their mouthparts are not
specialized for ßower-feeding (Jervis et al. 1993, Orr
and Pleasants 1996, Wäckers et al. 1996). In addition,
plant and insect phenology must coincide so that insects garner beneÞts of access to nectar and pollen at
the correct time to increase their populations (Jervis
et al. 1993, Orr and Pleasants 1996, Colley and Luna
2000, Siekmann et al. 2001). Finally, screening plants
to select those which provide resources to natural
enemies and not herbivorous pests is an important
consideration (Baggen and Gurr 1998, Baggen et al.
0046-225X/07/0751Ð0765$04.00/0 䉷 2007 Entomological Society of America
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ee/article/36/4/751/465441 by guest on 05 March 2024
Environ. Entomol. 36(4): 751Ð765 (2007)
ABSTRACT The use of plants to provide nectar and pollen resources to natural enemies through
habitat management is a growing focus of conservation biological control. Current guidelines frequently recommend use of annual plants exotic to the management area, but native perennial plants
are likely to provide similar resources and may have several advantages over exotics. We compared
a set of 43 native Michigan perennial plants and 5 frequently recommended exotic annual plants for
their attractiveness to natural enemies and herbivores for 2 yr. Plant species differed signiÞcantly in
their attractiveness to natural enemies. In year 1, the exotic annual plants outperformed many of the
newly established native perennial plants. In year 2, however, many native perennial plants attracted
higher numbers of natural enemies than exotic plants. In year 2, we compared each ßowering plant
against the background vegetation (grass) for their attractiveness to natural enemies and herbivores.
Screening individual plant species allowed rapid assessment of attractiveness to natural enemies. We
identiÞed 24 native perennial plants that attracted high numbers of natural enemies with promise for
habitat management. Among the most attractive are Eupatorium perfoliatum L., Monarda punctata L.,
Silphium perfoliatum L., Potentilla fruticosa auct. non L., Coreopsis lanceolata L., Spiraea alba Duroi,
Agastache nepetoides (L.) Kuntze, Anemone canadensis L., and Angelica atropurpurea L. Subsets of these
plants can now be tested to develop a community of native plant species that attracts diverse natural
enemy taxa and provides nectar and pollen throughout the growing season.
752
ENVIRONMENTAL ENTOMOLOGY
5 of the most widely recommended annual resource
plants that are exotic in Michigan. The goal of this
process was to select a subset of plants for further
consideration in a habitat management program. Our
hypotheses were that (1) plant species would vary in
attractiveness to natural enemy arthropods, (2) some
native plants would be as or more attractive to natural
enemy arthropods as frequently recommended exotics, (3) plant species would attract different numbers
and types of natural enemy and herbivore taxa, and
(4) attractiveness would increase as perennial plants
matured.
Materials and Methods
Plant Selection Criteria. We selected 43 species of
Michigan native plants for study using the following
criteria: (1) native Michigan perennials, (2) adapted
to nonirrigated agricultural Þeld conditions (full sun,
moderate drought periods likely), (3) represent a diversity of bloom periods from early through late season, (4) from a variety of plant families, (5) varied
ßoral color and morphology, (6) forb or shrub species
formerly common in Michigan prairie and oak savanna
habitats, and (7) commercially available Michigan genotypes. Native plants were selected in consultation
with a Michigan native plant nursery owner (W. D.
Schneider, personal communication). Five plant species exotic to Michigan were also selected for study
based on the following criteria: (1) commonly recommended to enhance beneÞcial insects and (2) Þt
criteria 2Ð 4 above. All of the frequently used nonnatives were annuals, reßecting the prevalence of annuals in habitat management studies.
Study Site. An agricultural Þeld on the Michigan
State University Entomology Farm in Ingham County,
MI, was selected for this study. Soil type consisted of
a Marlette Þne sandy loam, and the Þeld was most
recently farmed in a corn-soybean rotation. Plants
were established in 1-m2 blocks spaced 6 m apart
within a matrix of orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata
L.), a species commonly found in the surrounding
landscape, that was regularly mowed to prevent ßowering. The experiment was conducted in a randomized
complete block design with Þve replicates of each of
the 43 native Michigan perennial plants and the 5
exotic plant species. Native plants were obtained as
rooted plugs (Wildtype Design Native Plants & Seeds,
Mason, MI) and planted in September 2003. Plant
densities of three, Þve, or eight plants per plot were
selected based on individual species characteristics
such that the plot would be densely Þlled with plant
material at maturity (Fiedler 2006). Exotic annual
species were planted for comparison to native species,
as follows. Vicia faba (cultivar Windsor; JohnnyÕs
Seeds, Winslow, ME) was seeded on 20 May 2004 and
on 9 May 2005. Sixteen plugs/m2 of L. maritima (cultivar Snow Crystals Ball Seed Company, Chicago, IL)
were planted on 20 May 2004 and 16 June 2005. On 29
May 2004 and 9 May 2005, A. graveolens (cultivar
Mammoth island, C. sativum Spice Coriander) (Richters Herb Specialists, Goodwood, Ontario, Canada),
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ee/article/36/4/751/465441 by guest on 05 March 2024
1999, Lee and Heimpel 2005, Winkler 2005, Ambrosino
et al. 2006, Begum et al. 2006, Lavandero et al. 2006).
When the goal of a habitat management program is
to increase plant resource availability to beneÞcial
insects, several methods have been used to test which
plants are most attractive to natural enemies. The most
controlled are laboratory studies of speciÞc plantÐ
insect interactions that consider whether speciÞc natural enemies can access and feed on plant nectar or
pollen of speciÞc ßowering plants (Patt et al. 1997,
Baggen and Gurr 1998, Baggen et al. 1999). Another
tactic is the use of observational studies of insects
using plants already growing in an area to determine
which are most frequently visited by natural enemies
(van Emden 1963, Bugg et al. 1987, Jervis et al. 1993,
Bugg and Waddington 1994, Idris and GraÞus 1995,
Tooker and Hanks 2000). A third is to select a group
of plants based on previous success and establish them
individually (White et al. 1995, Hickman and Wratten
1996) or in plant groupings (Chaney 1998, Nentwig et
al. 1998, Nicholls et al. 2001, Frank and Shrewsbury
2004, Rebek et al. 2005, Pontin et al. 2006) and assess
the number and type of natural enemies in the planting or nearby Þeld. None of these studies, however,
have established replicated groups of plant species and
compared their individual attractiveness to natural
enemies.
Nonindigenous plants have often been the focus of
habitat management. In part, this is because a small
group of effective plants have been repeatedly used
worldwide. These include alyssum (Lobularia maritima L. Desv.), borage (Borago officinalis L.), and
coriander (Coriandrum sativum L.), native to the
Mediterranean and Southern Europe, dill (Anethum
graveolens L.) and buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum
Moench), native to Asia, faba bean (Vicia faba L.),
native origin unknown, possibly the Mediterranean,
and phacelia (Phacelia tanacetifolia Benth), native to
California. Many of these plants are also annual, which
provides planting and ßowering ßexibility but precludes potential beneÞts of establishing more permanent habitats.
Although most guidelines recommend annual plants
not native to the management area (Dufour 2000),
there is no reason to suspect that perennial native
plants cannot perform as well as annual exotics. Use of
native perennial plants for habitat management has
several beneÞts. These species are adapted to the local
environment. They add to native biodiversity and may
be used to restore imperiled habitats. Finally, they are
less likely to be invasive than exotic annuals. In addition, their perennial habit provides natural enemy
overwintering sites and results in a one-time seed or
plant purchase and establishment of plants compared
with yearly establishment of annual species.
Despite the extensive literature on habitat management, there is a lack of studies using a screening
process that examines the entire natural enemy and
herbivore community visiting single plant species with
adequate replication. Our objective was to compare
the attractiveness to natural enemy and herbivore
arthropods of 43 Michigan native perennial plants and
Vol. 36, no. 4
August 2007
FIEDLER AND LANDIS: HABITAT MANAGEMENT WITH NATIVE PLANTS
plant in 2004 and 2005 (PROC REG; SAS Institute
2003). A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with
block and plant species as factors was conducted on
the mean insect counts for the 3-wk full bloom period
(PROC GLM; SAS Institute 2003). Plant species were
divided into three categories for ANOVA analyses
according to timing of peak bloom: early season (May
to June), midseason (July to 20 August 2004 and July
to 9 August 2005), or late season (21 August 2004 and
10 August 2005 to October). Because of lack of homogeneity of variance between treatments, data for
early season 2004 and mid- and late season 2005 were
analyzed using a weighted least squares approach
based on a separate variance estimate for each treatment, which yields fractional denominator degrees of
freedom (Kutner et al. 2005). Least squares means
separations were performed with a Tukey adjustment
and SatterthwaiteÕs adjustment for degrees of freedom
(␣ ⫽ 0.05) (Satterthwaite 1946).
Results
A total of 41 and 48 of the tested plant species
bloomed in 2004 and 2005, respectively. Individual
species bloomed from early May through September
in 2004 and May through 4 October in 2005 and had
similar bloom periods from year to year except where
noted (Table 1). In both years, natural enemy numbers at most plants increased signiÞcantly throughout
the season (2004: week F ⫽ 33.49, P ⬍ 0.001, R2 ⫽ 0.46;
2005: week F ⫽ 19.96, P ⬍ 0.001, R2 ⫽ 0.30) (Fiedler
and Landis 2007). In 2004, the most attractive plant in
the early season averaged 11.6 natural enemies per
sample during full bloom period, whereas mid- and
late season plants averaged 33.0 and 86.4 natural enemies per sample, respectively. During full bloom period in 2005, the most attractive plants had 31.9, 33.1,
and 199.9 insects per sample in the early, mid-, and late
seasons, respectively. Overall natural enemy numbers
were lower in 2004 than in 2005, with season-long
averages of 13.8 and 20.5 per plant species per sample,
respectively.
In both 2004 and 2005, there was a signiÞcant species
effect on the mean number of natural enemies collected
during full bloom period, indicating that species differed
signiÞcantly in their attractiveness to natural enemies
(2004: early season, F ⫽ 23.16, df ⫽ 7.88, P ⬍ 0.001;
midseason, F ⫽ 29.26, df ⫽ 48, P ⬍ 0.001; late season, F ⫽
8.78, df ⫽ 58, P ⬍ 0.001; 2005: early season, F ⫽ 23.59, df ⫽
51, P ⬍ 0.001, midseason, F ⫽ 53.67, df ⫽ 6.84, P ⬍ 0.001,
late season, F ⫽ 32.27, df ⫽ 6.13, P ⫽ ⬍0.001). Within the
native plants alone, signiÞcant effects on natural enemy
attractiveness were also found in both years (2004: early
season, F ⫽ 15.86, df ⫽ 8.25, P ⬍ 0.001; midseason, F ⫽
9.74, df ⫽ 36, P ⬍ 0. 001; late season, F ⫽ 7.72, df ⫽ 50,
P ⬍ 0.001; 2005: early season, F ⫽ 24.53, df ⫽ 47, P ⬍ 0.001;
midseason, F ⫽ 43.63, df ⫽ 7, P ⬍ 0.001; late season, F ⫽
33.59, df ⫽ 5.87, P ⬍ 0.001), indicating that native plants
varied signiÞcantly in their attractiveness. There was no
signiÞcant effect of block (P ⬍ 0.05) except in late season
2005, when plants in block four attracted signiÞcantly
fewer insects (F ⫽ 3.18, df ⫽ 4, P ⫽ 0.020). Block 4 was
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ee/article/36/4/751/465441 by guest on 05 March 2024
and F. esculentum (cultivar Mancan; Simmons Family
Farms, North Branch, MI) were seeded.
To maintain background fertility for the orchardgrass, granular nitrogen (urea or ammonium nitrate, 33.6 kg N/ha) was applied to the entire Þeld on
23 June 2004 and 14 April 2005. In response to apparent
nutrient deÞciencies in particular plant species, we
applied liquid fertilizer (5.7 liters of 20 Ð20-20; Peters
professional all-purpose plant food, Spectrum
Group, St. Louis, MO) on 23 June 2004 to Ceanothus
americanus L., Monarda punctata L., Sambucus racemosa L., Hydrophyllum virginianum L., Amorpha
canescens (Pursh), and Aquilegia canadensis L.
Flower Phenology. We observed all plants weekly
for occurrence of open ßowers with dates of Þrst, last,
and peak bloom recorded for each species. Hereafter,
we use “peak bloom” to refer to the speciÞc week of
maximum ßoral display for each species and “full
bloom period” to the week of peak bloom and 1 wk on
either side.
Arthropod Collection. From May through September 2004 and 2005, we sampled arthropods weekly
from ßowering plants between the hours of 0930 Ð1330
EST on sunny days with winds ⬍5 mph. For analysis,
we used samples from the full bloom period to reduce
the inßuence of week-to-week variability in insect
catch caused by weather and plant phenology. To
collect insects, a Þne mesh white no-see-um netting
bag (Kaplan Simon Co., Braintree, MA) was placed
over the intake on a gas-powered leaf vacuum (Stihl
BG55, Norfolk, VA). Each plot was vacuumed until all
ßowers were sampled (limited to 30 s in 2004) (Rebek
et al. 2005). To compare the number of insects on
ßowering plants versus background plants, we placed
a 1-m2 PVC quadrat in the mown orchardgrass matrix
in each of Þve blocks and vacuum sampled the quadrat
weekly from 21 June through September 2005. These
samples are subsequently referred to as “grass control.”
Insects were frozen, identiÞed to family, separated
into natural enemies, herbivores, and “other,” and
counted. Insects from any predaceous or parasitic family, or genus or species within a family known to be
predaceous or parasitic, were included as natural enemies. Insects from any family known to be broadly
herbivorous were counted as herbivorous insects. Attractiveness here is based on the number of arthropods
collected per sample, and as such, it is a measurement
of attraction to, arrestment at, and tenure time on the
plant species.
Taxonomy. Insect taxonomic classiÞcation follows
Triplehorn and Johnson (2005), and plant nomenclature follows Voss (1996). Insect vouchers were deposited in the Michigan State University Entomology
Museum, and plant vouchers were deposited in the
Michigan State University Herbarium.
Statistical Analysis. Numbers of natural enemies per
ßowering plant and block were log10(x ⫹ 1)-transformed to better Þt assumptions of normality and
homogeneity of variance. A simple regression was
conducted between the log10 (x ⫹ 1) number of natural enemies and the week of peak bloom for each
753
754
Table 1.
ENVIRONMENTAL ENTOMOLOGY
Vol. 36, no. 4
Flowering phenology 2005
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ee/article/36/4/751/465441 by guest on 05 March 2024
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 experienced more moisture stress during the particularly dry
2005 growing season.
Early Season. In 2004, the native Heracleum maximum (Bartr.) was signiÞcantly more attractive than
other plants (Fig. 1a). Exotic L. maritima and natives
August 2007
FIEDLER AND LANDIS: HABITAT MANAGEMENT WITH NATIVE PLANTS
755
Fragaria virginiana Duchesne were the next most attractive group. In 2005, Angelica atropurpurea L.,
which did not bloom in 2004, and Coreopsis lanceolata
L. were the most attractive plants to natural enemies.
Anemone canadensis, Zizia aurea L. Koch, Penstemon
hirsutus L. Willd., H. maximum, and F. virginiana were
the next most attractive plants but overlapped in signiÞcance with the least attractive species (Fig. 1b).
Samples taken from 21 June 2005 onward show that A.
atropurpurea, C. lanceolata, A. canadensis, P. hirsutus,
and H. maximum attracted more natural enemies than
a neutral grass background (grass control) during the
same period. Although no grass samples were taken
when Z. aurea and F. virginiana were blooming, these
species attracted more natural enemies than other
plants blooming in May and early June. In both 2004
and 2005, no natural enemies were collected at Aquilegia canadensis L., even though abundant blossoms
were present. L. maritima and H. maximum were relatively less attractive in 2005 than in 2004. Overall,
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ee/article/36/4/751/465441 by guest on 05 March 2024
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).
756
ENVIRONMENTAL ENTOMOLOGY
Vol. 36, no. 4
however, plants attracted more natural enemies in
2005 than in 2004 during the early season, with several
plants averaging 4 Ð 60 times more natural enemies in
2005 than in 2004, e.g., Z. aurea, Anemone canadensis,
P. hirsutus, H. virginiana, and F. virginiana.
Midseason. In 2004, the exotics F. esculentum, C.
sativum, and V. faba were far more attractive than any
of the native plants (Fig. 2a). However, in 2005, Apocynum cannabinum L., Potentilla fruticosa auct. non L.,
Spiraea alba Duroi, the exotic V. faba, Ratibida pinnata
(Vent.) Barnh., exotic F. esculentum, Oenothera biennis
L., and Verbena stricta Vent. were the most attractive
plants (Fig. 2b). The remaining plant species were not
signiÞcantly more attractive than the least attractive
species and did not attract more natural enemies than
grass controls from the same period. All midseason
native plants attracted more natural enemies in 2005
than in 2004, including P. fruticosa. Overall, many of
the plants were far more attractive in 2005 than in
2004, except the annual exotics F. esculentum and C.
sativum, which had fewer natural enemies in 2005 than
in 2004.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ee/article/36/4/751/465441 by guest on 05 March 2024
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).
August 2007
FIEDLER AND LANDIS: HABITAT MANAGEMENT WITH NATIVE PLANTS
757
Late Season. In 2004, several native species attracted
as many or more natural enemies as one or more of the
exotics (Fig. 3a). E. perfoliatum L. and L. maritima
attracted signiÞcantly more insects than many other
species. Aster novae-angliae L., Solidago riddellii Frank
ex Riddell, Aster laevis L., Anethum graveolens L., Lobelia siphilitica L., and Helianthus strumosus L. formed
the next most attractive group but overlapped broadly
with the least attractive plants. In 2005, the exotic A.
graveolens was decimated by Papilionidae larvae and
therefore was less attractive than many other species
(Fig. 3b). Native E. perfoliatum was signiÞcantly more
attractive than any other plant species, and Monarda
punctata L., exotic L. maritima, natives Silphium perfoliatum L., S. riddellii, Vernonia missurica Raf., Solidago speciosa Nutt., A. novae-angliae, and H. strumosus
all attracted ⬎25 natural enemies on average. All but
three plant species were more attractive to natural
enemies than the grass control, whereas species listed
above attracted more than twice as many natural enemies as the grass control. Overall, native plants
blooming before September performed better in 2005
than in 2004, including E. perfoliatum, M. punctata, V.
missurica, and Cacalia atriplicifolia L., which were
over twice as attractive to natural enemies in 2005 as
in 2004. A group of species blooming from mid-Sep-
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ee/article/36/4/751/465441 by guest on 05 March 2024
Fig. 3. Late season mean number of natural enemies collected per meter squared during the full bloom period for each
species in (a) 2004 and (b) 2005 (peak bloom dates 21 August to 21 September 2004 and 10 August to 27 September 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). Note change in y axis
scale from Figs. 2 and 3. *A. graveolens underwent heavy herbivory by Papilionid larvae in 2005.
758
ENVIRONMENTAL ENTOMOLOGY
Table 2. Proportion of total natural enemies collected in 2005
at all flowering plants by order and family
Order
Table 3. Proportion of total herbivore hexapods collected in
2005 at flowering plants by order and family
Order
Number
Percent
total
928
6.56
Anthocoridae
Miridae
Nabidae
4,259
918
153
30.11
6.49
1.08
Aeolothripidae
119
0.84
Thysanoptera
Cantharidae
Carabidae
Coccinellidae
1,542
28
587
10.90
0.20
4.15
Coleoptera
Chrysopidae
69
0.49
Braconidae
Bethylidae
Chalcidoidea
Cynipoidea
Ichneumonidae
Sphecidae
Vespidae
225
13
3,485
441
74
78
95
1.59
0.09
24.64
3.12
0.52
0.55
0.67
Bombyliidae
Dolichopodidae
Empididae
Stratiomyidae
Syrphidae
Tachinidae
Total:
22
75
857
20
144
12
14,144
0.16
0.53
6.06
0.14
1.02
0.08
100.00
Family
Arachnida
Hemiptera
Vol. 36, no. 4
Family
Number
Percent total
Aphididae
Cercopidae
Cicadellidae
Miridae
Pentatomidae
Tingidae
2,856
174
1,545
8,850
163
111
14.67
0.89
7.94
45.46
0.84
0.57
867
4.45
Arctiidae
Gelechiodea
Noctuidae
Nymphalidae
Pyralidae
217
2,890
123
14
777
76
248
101
119
12
15
36
1.11
14.84
0.63
0.07
3.99
0.39
1.27
0.52
0.61
0.06
0.08
0.18
Anthomyiidae
Tephritidae
Total:
242
32
19,468
1.24
0.16
100.00
Hemiptera
Thysanoptera
Thripidae
Coleoptera
Neuroptera
Hymenoptera
Orthoptera
Lepidoptera
Diptera
Diptera
Many Arachnida were immature and unidentiÞable to family. Numbers in order rows represent specimens not identiÞed to family level.
Taxa comprising less than 0.05% not included.
tember on performed similarly and quite well in both
years, whereas exotics A. graveolens and L. maritima
had fewer natural enemies in 2005 than in 2004.
Natural Enemy Taxa. The relative proportions of
natural enemy taxa collected were similar in 2004 and
2005 (Fiedler 2006). Hemiptera and Hymenoptera
were the most common orders collected, followed by
Coleoptera (Table 2). Within order, Anthocoridae
and Chalcidoidea were the most common natural enemy groups, followed by Cantharidae, Arachnida, and
Miridae (Plagiognathus politus Uhler) (Table 2). The
most numerous beetles were Cantharidae. Arachnida
were composed of Thomisidae, Salticidae, Tetragonathidae, Aranaeidae, and Lycosidae. Many Arachnida, however, were immatures and unidentiÞable to
family. The most numerous Hemiptera were Anthocoridae. Predatory Aeolothripidae composed 14% of
total thrips in 2005 (Table 2). The most common
Hymenoptera were Chalcidoidea, and the most numerous Diptera collected were Empididae.
The most common natural enemy arthropods in
grass controls were Chalcidoidea (especially Mymaridae), Nabidae, Thomisidae, Staphylinidae, and Cynipoidea. Several groups, Mymaridae, Nabidae, and
Staphylinidae, were also more common in grass than
in ßowering plant samples.
Plant Attractiveness to Herbivores. In both 2004 and
2005, plants that were more attractive to natural enemies were also generally more attractive to herbiv-
Lepidoptera is composed of larvae and unidentiÞable adults. Numbers in order rows represent specimens not identiÞed to family level.
Taxa comprising less than 0.05% not included.
orous insects (Figs. 4Ð 6), although exceptions occur.
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. Species that attracted greater numbers of natural enemies
than herbivores in early season 2004 included F. virginiana, S. obovatus, H. maximum, and C. lanceolata. In
2005, only Anemone canadensis and A. atropurpurea
had greater natural enemy than herbivore abundance
(Fig. 4b).
During midseason, the exotic plants, notably V.
faba, attracted more herbivores than the background
grass controls. In 2004, the native P. fruticosa was the
one plant notably more attractive to natural enemies
than herbivores (Fig. 5a). In 2005, the most attractive
mid season native plants all were more attractive to
herbivores than natural enemies (Fig. 5b). SpeciÞcally, P. fruticosa, A. cannabinum, V. stricta, R. pinnata,
and O. biennis all had greater numbers of herbivores
than natural enemies.
In the late season, herbivores at many ßowering
species were relatively less abundant than in the early
and midseason. In 2004, E. perfoliatum, L. siphilitica, S.
perfoliatum, and H. strumosus all were more attractive
to natural enemies than herbivores, whereas the opposite was true for S. speciosa (Fig. 6a). In 2005, M.
punctata, V. missurica, S. perfoliatum, C. atriplicifolia, E.
perfoliatum, H. strumosus, and S. riddellii all were more
attractive to natural enemies than herbivores,
whereas the opposite was true for L. maritima and
S. speciosa (Fig. 6b).
The most common herbivores collected in grass
controls differed somewhat from those at ßowering
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ee/article/36/4/751/465441 by guest on 05 March 2024
Cerambycidae
Chrysomelidae
Curculionidae
Elateridae
Scarabaeidae
August 2007
Table 4.
tolerances
FIEDLER AND LANDIS: HABITAT MANAGEMENT WITH NATIVE PLANTS
759
The 23 Michigan native plant species best suited to attract natural enemy insects with bloom, plant physiognomy, and moisture
2005 peak
bloom date
Common name
Genus and species
Plant
type
Tolerance
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
m
m
m
m
m
m
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
24 May
6 June
14 June
14 June
14 June
21 June
21 June
12 July
12 July
2 Aug.
2 Aug.
9 Aug.
9 Aug.
16 Aug.
16 Aug.
23 Aug.
23 Aug.
23 Aug.
23 Aug.
30 Aug.
13 Sept.
20 Sept.
27 Sept.
Wild strawberry
Golden alexanders
Canada anemone
Penstemon
Angelica
Cow parsnip
Sand coreopsis
Shrubby cinquefoil
Indian hemp
Hoary vervain
Yellow coneßower
Evening primrose
Meadowsweet
Yellow giant hyssop
Horsemint
Ironweed
Cup plant
Boneset
Blue lobelia
Pale-leaved sunßower
RiddellÕs goldenrod
New England aster
Smooth aster
Fragaria virginiana Duchesnea
Zizia aurea L. Koch
Anemone canadensis L.a
Penstemon hirsutus L. Willd.
Angelica atropurpurea L.a
Heracleum max Bartr.a
Coreopsis lanceolata L.
Potentilla fruticosa auct. non L.
Apocynum cannabinum L.b
Verbena stricta Vent.
Ratibida pinnata (Vent.) Barnh.
Oenothera biennis L.c
Spiraea alba Duroi
Agastache nepetoides (L.) Kuntze
Monarda punctata L.
Vernonia missurica Raf.
Silphium perfoliatum L.
Eupatorium perfoliatum L.
Lobelia siphilitica L.
Helianthus strumosus L.
Solidago riddellii Frank ex Riddelld
Aster novae-angliae L.
Aster laevis L.
Forb
Forb
Forb
Forb
Forb
Forb
Forb
Shrub
Forb
Forb
Forb
Forb
Shrub
Forb
Forb
Forb
Forb
Forb
Forb
Forb
Forb
Forb
Forb
Average
Wet
Average
Average
Average
Average
Dry
Average
Average
Dry
Average
Average
Wet
Average
Dry
Average
Average
Wet
Average
Dry
Wet
Average
Average
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 number) Lepidoptera, Cicadellidae, Chrysomelidae, Cercopidae, and Aphididae.
Herbivore Taxa. At the order level, the relative
composition of the herbivore taxa were very similar in
2004 and 2005 (Fiedler 2006). Herbivores in the order
Hemiptera were the most abundant, followed by Coleoptera and Thysanoptera (Table 3). Low numbers of
dipteran and orthopteran herbivores were collected at
plants. Miridae, primarily composed of Lygus sp., were
the most numerous herbivorous insect family (Table
3). Aphididae and Cicadellidae were also common in
both years (Table 3). The most numerous coleopteran
herbivores were Chrysomelidae, and Cerambycidae
and Curculionidae were collected in low numbers.
Scarabaeidae were almost entirely composed of Japanese beetle (Popillia japonica Newman). Lepidopteran adults were not frequently collected in samples.
Only adult Lepidoptera of families known to be pest
species on plants of agricultural importance were
counted separately as herbivores. Larvae and any unidentiÞable adults were identiÞed to order and are
counted as Lepidoptera (Table 3).
Discussion
From the full set of 48 ßower species, ßoral resources were available to insects from 1 May through
30 September 2004 and 4 May through 4 October 2005.
The overlap in plant phenology suggests that a subset
of the most attractive species can be selected for
further testing and habitat manipulation. The native
plants tested showed differing attractiveness to natural enemies, which has also been found with exotic
plants in other studies (Baggen et al. 1999, Colley and
Luna 2000, Ambrosino et al. 2006).
Three widely used exotics (L. maritima, F. esculentum, and V. faba) were very attractive to natural enemies, indicating that recommendations for their use
are well founded. However, many Michigan native
plants were as, or more, attractive as these frequently
recommended exotics. The native perennials became
more attractive to natural enemies as they matured
and were more likely to attract more natural enemies
than exotic annuals in year 2. This suggests that as
perennial natives establish they have potential to be
more attractive to natural enemies than previously
tested annuals for habitat management (Orr and
Pleasants 1996, Nentwig et al. 1998). In addition, the
perennial plants tested have the potential to provide
plant resources over a greater part of the growing
season than annuals. Perennial natives began blooming 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 annual plants bloomed in our study, and F. virginiana
even provided ßoral resources before the danger of
frost damage to annual plugs had passed. Other perennial species bloomed through September in both
2004 and 2005, during which time the only blooming
exotic was L. maritima.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ee/article/36/4/751/465441 by guest on 05 March 2024
Bloom
760
ENVIRONMENTAL ENTOMOLOGY
Vol. 36, no. 4
In addition to nectar and pollen, perennial plants
may provide a moderated microclimate and shelter
from disturbance in highly disturbed agricultural areas, characteristics that have been shown to increase
natural enemy effectiveness (Dyer and Landis 1996).
Rebek et al. (2005) found that plants with ßowers
intact did not attract signiÞcantly different numbers of
natural enemies than plants with ßowers excised.
Likewise, we collected natural enemies in grass alone,
indicating that it may provide some beneÞt, such as
moderated microclimate, shelter, and alternate prey.
However, we did have a set of native plants that were
signiÞcantly more attractive to natural enemies than
the background grass matrix, and which could provide
additional sugar and protein sources to natural enemies. We did not see alternate prey in large numbers
on any plants with the exception of V. faba, which was
infested with aphids in 2005, leading to a high density
of lady beetle larvae, pupae, and adults on this species.
Considering bloom period and attractiveness to natural enemies, we propose a set of plants most suitable
for further study (Table 4). In agricultural settings,
these plants could be established in strips in or along
crop Þelds to provide nectar and pollen to natural
enemies and evaluate the effect of strips on crop yield.
In addition to attractiveness to natural enemies, the
number and type of herbivore collected at a plant must
be evaluated. If an herbivore occurs in higher numbers
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ee/article/36/4/751/465441 by guest on 05 March 2024
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.
August 2007
FIEDLER AND LANDIS: HABITAT MANAGEMENT WITH NATIVE PLANTS
761
at a ßowering plant than in grass alone, its pest potential in crops surrounding the ßowering plant strip
must be considered (Winkler 2005). For example,
Japanese beetle attraction by resource plants may be
of great concern in fruit crops. The native O. biennis
and exotic F. esculentum attracted large numbers of
Japanese beetle in both 2004 and 2005. The presence
of Lygus and Cicadellidae will be of concern to farmers
of crops susceptible to direct damage or viruses transmitted by these insects. The natives V. stricta and R.
pinnata attracted large numbers of Lygus in 2005. Surprisingly, samples from the previously recommended
exotics C. sativum and F. esculentum also contained
Lygus in relatively large numbers. In addition, the
Chrysomelidae common at L. maritima included Phyl-
lotreta striolata (F.), a known herbivore of cabbage
and mustard, and Phyllotreta spp., a potential herbivore on brassicas. This indicates that frequently recommended exotic L. maritima attracts a known canola
pest and potential pest on other Brassicas, which may
increase herbivory if planted near brassicaceous
crops.
In native prairie and savanna habitats, grasses were
a component of the plant matrix and may be vital
components of habitat strips. Although not tested in
our study for attractiveness to natural enemies, we
planted Panicum virginicum L., Elymus canadensis L.,
and Schizachyrium scoparium (Michx.) Nash to test
survivorship and growth in our Þeld plots. The grasses
survived and Þlled the 1-m2 test plots after 2 yr of
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ee/article/36/4/751/465441 by guest on 05 March 2024
Fig. 5. Midseason 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 only. Cross-hatched bars are exotic plant species.
762
ENVIRONMENTAL ENTOMOLOGY
Vol. 36, no. 4
growth. These species, as well as Andropogon gerardii
Vitman and Sorghastrum nutans L. Nash, are all relatively easy to establish native grasses for potential
inclusion with forbs in a planted strip. In addition to
providing structural support, grasses have been shown
to support ground beetle populations in previous studies (Lee et al. 2001, Varchola and Dunn 2001). We
collected higher numbers of Nabidae and Staphylinidae in the exotic grass control than in many ßowering
plant samples, indicating that these groups may also
beneÞt from the inclusion of grass in plant mixtures.
The natural enemy groups most frequently collected at plants for habitat management in this study
could impact a variety of crop pest populations (Fiedler 2006). The most common natural enemy col-
lected, Orius insidiosus, is predaceous on a variety of
small, soft-bodied insects, including aphids, whiteßies,
thrips, spidermites, lepidopteran eggs, and some chrysomelid beetles. The two Cantharidae species collected were Chauliognathus marginatus Fabricius and
C. pennsylvanicus Deg. In their larval stage, both species are predators on soil-dwelling soft-bodied insects
and have been seen feeding on adult Chrysomelidae
and Cicindelidae. Both species feed exclusively on
pollen and nectar as adults. The coccinellid species
collected in this study included Harmonia axyridis
Pallas, Coccinella septempunctata L., Coleomegilla
maculata DeG., and Hippodamia variegata Goeze. All
of these species are known predators on aphids and
other small soft-bodied insects as larvae and adults.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ee/article/36/4/751/465441 by guest on 05 March 2024
Fig. 6. Late 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 only. Cross-hatched bars are exotic plant species.
August 2007
FIEDLER AND LANDIS: HABITAT MANAGEMENT WITH NATIVE PLANTS
other plants such as Rudbeckia hirta L. and Eupatorium
maculatum L. are readily available and similar to some
of our highly attractive species. These species would
be good candidates for broadening future native plant
selection for habitat management.
The establishment time of perennial plants greatly
increases time before ßowering, and therefore, time
before insect abundance at plants can be measured.
Although perennials outperformed annual exotics that
were previously recommended for habitat management in their third growing season, the perennial
planting approach needs a project duration of multiple
years. This difÞculty is likely one of the primary reasons that perennial plants have not been frequently
considered in habitat management studies in the past.
Overall, the frequently recommended exotic annual
plants used in this study were highly attractive to
natural enemies, but our results indicate that equal or
greater numbers of natural enemies are found at some
native perennial plant species compared with the exotic annuals. Not only did plants differ in the total
number and type of natural enemies attracted to them,
they also differed in the number and type of herbivores they attracted. Similar to Baggen et al. (1999),
our study suggests the potential to grow speciÞc plant
species to attract natural enemies of the pests that are
most common in surrounding crops, while not providing resources to crop pests themselves. The process
of screening individual plant species for their attractiveness to natural enemies allows selection of only the
best plants for multiple species Þeld trials. With this
information, a community of native plant species can
be developed to attract insects across taxa and provide
nectar and pollen throughout the season.
Acknowledgments
Two anonymous reviewers provided helpful comments on
this manuscript. We thank D. Richards and E. Knoblock for
Þeld research assistance; G. Parsons, J. Steffen, and B. Nessia
for insect identiÞcation assistance; D. Sebolt and all undergraduate research assistants in the Landis laboratory who
helped with plant establishment and maintenance; J. Tuell
for providing formatting for Table 1; B. Schneider and Wildtype Design, Native Plants and Seed for providing plant
expertise; and R. Tempelman and X. Huang for statistical
assistance. This study was funded by a Michigan State University Plant Sciences Fellowship, an MSU Sustainable Agriculture: Production and Food Ecology Systems grant and
USDA NC SARE Project LCN 04 Ð249.
References Cited
Ambrosino, M. D., J. M. Luna, P. C. Jepson, and S. D. Wratten. 2006. Relative frequencies of visits to selected insectary plants by predatory hoverßies (Diptera: Syrphidae), other beneÞcial insects, and herbivores. Environ.
Entomol. 35: 394 Ð 400.
Baggen, L. R., and G. M. Gurr. 1998. The inßuence of food
on Copidosoma koehleri (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae), and
the use of ßowering plants as a habitat management tool
to enhance biological control of potato moth, Phthorimaea operculella (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). Biol. Control 11: 9 Ð17.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ee/article/36/4/751/465441 by guest on 05 March 2024
The most numerous Chalcidoidea collected at resource plants was Encrytidae Copidosoma. This genus
is known to contain polyembryonic parasitoids of Lepidoptera, and C. floridanum is a known parasitoid of
cabbage looper (Pieris rapae L.). The Miridae collected were Plagiognathus politus Uhler and Chlamydatus associatus Uhler; both species were observed
preying on soybean aphid in Michigan (Costamagna
and Landis 2007). In addition, P. politus is a documented predator on the Chrysomelid Galerucella calamariensis L. Although G. calamariensis is an herbivore for weed biocontrol, P. politus may feed on other
Chrysomelids that are crop pests. The natural enemy
community at these native plant species, therefore,
has potential to control a range of pest species, including a variety of Aphididae, thrips, herbivorous
mites, Lepidoptera, and Chrysomelidae.
In 2004, arthropod sampling time was limited to 30
s/1 m2 plot, whereas in 2005, sampling was continued
in each plot until all ßowers were sampled. Sample
duration in 79% percent of samples taken in 2005,
however, was ⬍30 s. Most samples of ⬎30 s were taken
from August on. Although the increased sampling time
was unlikely to affect results from small plants with
few ßowers, it may have increased the number of
natural enemies at the largest, late blooming plants in
late season 2005. Therefore, it is likely that results from
2005 indicate closer to a true estimate of insect numbers at ßowers in late 2005 than they would have had
we limited sampling to 30 s.
Arthropods in this study were collected by vacuum
sampling, which likely biased samples toward more
sedentary groups, such as arachnids. In contrast, the
vacuum sampling method may have been less likely to
collect more vagile natural enemy groups such as Syrphidae, as well as herbivore groups such as Lepidoptera. Rebek et al. (2005) performed arthropod sampling with both sticky cards and vacuum sampling and
observed lower numbers of arachnids and higher numbers of syrphids in sticky card samples than in vacuum
samples. The standardized midday sampling time provided consistency between insect samples. However,
crepuscular and nocturnal insect groups, including
Chrysopidae (Duelli 1984) and Arachnida (Foelix
1996), may have been underrepresented.
In this study, we did not assess whether natural
enemy insects were actually feeding on plant nectar
and pollen or using the plant for other resources, such
as alternate prey or favorable microclimate. Future
research could determine which natural enemy and
herbivore species beneÞt from plant resources provided by each plant species, as well as whether natural
enemies found at resource plants forage in adjacent
crops. Additional future questions to be addressed are
how to select plants for soil moisture, strip planting,
and how to manage for weed control and plant succession over time.
Out of practicality, this study was limited to 43 of
nearly 1,000 ßowering forbs and shrubs native to Michigan (Voss 1996). Although we selected from species
that were readily available, as well as plants with a
variety of bloom periods, statures, and plant families,
763
764
ENVIRONMENTAL ENTOMOLOGY
cinellidae) predation on pea aphids promoted by proximity
to dandelions. Oecologia (Berl.) 125: 543Ð548.
Hickman, J. M., and S. D. Wratten. 1996. Use of Phacelia
tanacetifolia strips to enhance biological control of aphids
by hoverßy larvae in cereal Þelds. J. Econ. Entomol. 89:
832Ð 840.
Idris, A. B., and E. Grafius. 1995. Wildßowers as nectar
sources for Diadegma insulare (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae), a parasitoid of diamondback moth (Lepidoptera: Yponomeutidae). Environ. Entomol. 24: 1726 Ð1735.
Jervis, M. A., and N.A.C. Kidd. 1986. Host-feeding strategies
in Hymenopteran parasitoids. Biol. Rev. Cambridge
Philo. Soc. 61: 395Ð 434.
Jervis, M. A., N.A.C. Kidd, M. G. Fitton, T. Huddleston, and
H. A. Dawah. 1993. Flower-visiting by Hymenopteran
parasitoids. J. Natural History. 27: 67Ð105.
Kutner, M. H., C. J. Nachtsheim, J. Neter, and W. Li. 2005.
Applied linear statistical models. Duxbury Press, Chicago,
IL.
Landis, D. A., S. D. Wratten, and G. M. Gurr. 2000. Habitat
management to conserve natural enemies of arthropod
pests in agriculture. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 45: 175Ð201.
Lavandero, B., S. D. Wratten, R. K. Didham, and G. Gurr.
2006. Increasing ßoral diversity for selective enhancement of biological control agents: a double-edged sward?
Basic Appl. Ecol. 7: 236 Ð243.
Lee, J. C., and G. E. Heimpel. 2005. Impact of ßowering
buckwheat on Lepidopteran cabbage pests and their
parasitoids at two spatial scales. Biol. Control 34: 290 Ð301.
Lee, J. C., F. B. Menalled, and D. A. Landis. 2001. Refuge
habitats modify impact of insecticide disturbance on carabid beetle communities. J. Appl. Ecol. 38: 472Ð 483.
Menalled, F. D., P. C. Marino, S. H. Gage, and D. A. Landis.
1999. Does agricultural landscape structure affect parasitism and parasitoid diversity? Ecol. Applic. 9: 634 Ð 641.
Nentwig, W., T. Frank, and C. Lethmayer. 1998. Sown weed
strips: ArtiÞcial ecological compensation areas as an important tool in conservation biological control, pp. 133Ð
153. In P. Barbosa (ed.), Conservation biological control.
Academic, San Diego, CA.
Nicholls, C. I., M. Parrella, and M. A. Altieri. 2001. The
effects of a vegetational corridor on the abundance and
dispersal of insect biodiversity within a northern California organic vineyard. Landscape Ecol. 16: 133Ð146.
Orr, D. B., and J. M. Pleasants. 1996. The potential of native
prairie plant species to enhance the effectiveness of the
Ostrinia nubilalis parasitoid Macrocentrus grandii. J. Kansas Entomol. Soc. 69: 133Ð143.
Patt, J. M., G. C. Hamilton, and J. H. Lashomb. 1997. Foraging success of parasitoid wasps on ßowers: Interplay of
insect morphology, ßoral architecture and searching behavior. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 83: 21Ð30.
Pontin, D. R., M. R. Wade, P. Kehrli, and S. D. Wratten.
2006. Attractiveness of single and multiple species ßower
patches to beneÞcial insects in agroecosystems. Ann.
Appl. Biol. 148: 39 Ð 47.
Rebek, E. J., C. S. Sadof, and L. M. Hanks. 2005. Manipulating the abundance of natural enemies in ornamental
landscapes with ßoral resource plants. Biol. Control 33:
203Ð216.
SAS Institute. 2003. SAS/STAT userÕs guide for personal
computers. Version 9.1. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.
Satterthwaite, F. E. 1946. An approximate distribution of
estimates of variance components. Biometrics Bull. 2:
110 Ð114.
Siekmann, G., B. Tenhumberg, and M. A. Keller. 2001.
Feeding and survival in parasitic wasps: sugar concentration and timing matter. Oikos 95: 425Ð 430.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ee/article/36/4/751/465441 by guest on 05 March 2024
Baggen, L. R., G. M. Gurr, and A. Meats. 1999. Flowers in
tri-trophic systems: mechanisms allowing selective exploitation by insect natural enemies for conservation biological control. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 91: 155Ð161.
Begum, M., G. M. Gurr, S. D. Wratten, P. R. Hedberg, and
H. I. Nicol. 2006. Using selective food plants to maximize
biological control of vineyard pests. J. Appl. Ecol. 43:
547Ð554.
Bugg, R. L., and C. Waddington. 1994. Using cover crops to
manage arthropod pests of orchardsÑa review. Agric.
Ecosyst. Environ. 50: 11Ð28.
Bugg, R. L., I. E. Ehler, and L. T. Wilson. 1987. Effect of
common knotweed (Polygonum-Aviculare) on abundance and efÞciency of insect predators of crop pests.
Hilgardia 55: 1Ð51.
Chaney, W. E. 1998. Biological control of aphids in lettuce
using in-Þeld insectaries, pp. 73Ð 83. In C. H. Pickett and
R. L. Bugg (eds.), Enhancing biological control. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Colley, M. R., and J. M. Luna. 2000. Relative attractiveness
of potential beneÞcial insectary plants to aphidophagous
hoverßies (Diptera: Syrphidae). Environ. Entomol. 29:
1054 Ð1059.
Costamagna, A. C., and D. A. Landis. 2007. Quantifying predation on soybean aphid through direct Þeld observations. Biol. Control (in press).
DeBach, P., and D. Rosen. 1991. Biological control by natural enemies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
UK.
Duelli, P. 1984. Flight, dispersal, migration, pp. 110 Ð116. In
M. Canard, Y. Séméria, and T. R. New (eds.), Biology of
Chrysopidae. Kluwer, Boston, MA.
Dufour, R. 2000. Farmscaping to enhance biological control
(http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/PDF/farmscaping.pdf).
Dyer, L. E., and D. A. Landis. 1996. Effects of habitat, temperature, and sugar availability on longevity of Eriborus
terebrans (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae). Environ. Entomol. 25: 1192Ð1201.
Ehler, L. E. 1998. Conservation biological control: past,
present, and future, pp. 1Ð 8. In P. Barbosa (ed.), Conservation biological control. Academic, San Diego, CA.
Eubanks, M. D., and R. F. Denno. 1999. The ecological
consequences of variation in plants and prey for an omnivorous insect. Ecology 80: 1253Ð1266.
Fiedler, A. K. 2006. Evaluation of Michigan native plants to
provide resources for natural enemy arthropods. MS thesis, Department of Entomology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
Fiedler, A. K., and D. A. Landis. 2007. Plant characteristics
associated with natural enemy abundance at Michigan
native plants. Environ. Entomol. 36: 878 Ð 886.
Foelix, R. F. 1996. Biology of spiders. Oxford University
Press, New York.
Frank, S. D., and P. M. Shrewsbury. 2004. Effect of conservation strips on the abundance and distribution of natural
enemies and predation of Agrotis ipsilon (Lepidoptera :
Noctuidae) on golf course fairways. Environ. Entomol.
33: 1662Ð1672.
Gurr, G. M., H. F. van Emden, and S. D. Wratten. 1998.
Habitat manipulation and natural enemy efÞciency: implications for the control of pests, pp. 155Ð183. In P.
Barbosa (ed.), Conservation biological control. Academic, San Diego, CA.
Gurr, G. M., S. D. Wratten, and J. M. Luna. 2003. Multifunction agricultural biodiversity: pest management and
other beneÞts. Basic Appl. Ecol. 4: 107Ð116.
Harmon, J. P., A. R. Ives, J. E. Losey, A. C. Olson, and K. S.
Rauwald. 2000. Coleomegilla maculata (Coleoptera: Coc-
Vol. 36, no. 4
August 2007
FIEDLER AND LANDIS: HABITAT MANAGEMENT WITH NATIVE PLANTS
Wäckers, F. L., A. Bjornsten, and S. Dorn. 1996. A comparison of ßowering herbs with respect to their nectar accessibility for the parasitoid Pimpla turionellae. Proc. Exp.
Appl. Entomol. 7: 177Ð182.
White, A. J., S. D. Wratten, N. A. Berry, and U. Weigmann.
1995. Habitat manipulation to enhance biological-control of brassica pests by hover ßies (Diptera, Syrphidae).
J. Econ. Entomol. 88: 1171Ð1176.
Wilkinson, T. K., and D. A. Landis. 2005. Habitat diversiÞcation in biological control: the role of plant resources,
pp. 305Ð325. In F. L. Wackers, P.C.J. van Rijn, and J. Bruin
(eds.), Plant-provided food for carnivorous insects. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Winkler, K. 2005. Assessing the risks and beneÞts of ßowering Þeld edges: strategic use of nectar sources to boost
biological control. PhD thesis, Laboratory of Entomology.
Wageningen University, Wageningen, Germany.
Wratten, S., L. Berndt, G. M. Gurr, J. Tylianakis, P. Fernando, and R. Didham. 2003. Adding ßoral diversity
to enhance parasitoid Þtness and efÞcacy. Proceedings
of the international symposium on biological control of
arthropods, 14 Ð18 January 2002, Morgantown, WV.
Received for publication 26 June 2006; accepted 4 April 2007.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ee/article/36/4/751/465441 by guest on 05 March 2024
Tooker, J. F., and L. M. Hanks. 2000. Flowering plant hosts
of adult Hymenopteran parasitoids of central Illinois.
Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 93: 580 Ð588.
Triplehorn, C. A., and N. F. Johnson. 2005. An introduction
to the study of insects. Thomson Brooks/Cole, Belmont,
CA.
van Emden, H. F. 1963. Observations on the effect of ßowers on the activity of parasitic hymenoptera. Entomol.
Mon. Mag. 98: 265Ð270.
van Emden, H. F. 2003. Conservation biological control:
from theory to practice, pp. 199 Ð208. In Proceedings of
the international symposium on biological control of arthropods, 14 Ð18 January 2002, Morgantown, WV.
Varchola, J. M., and J. P. Dunn. 2001. Inßuence of hedgerow
and grassy Þeld borders on ground beetle (Coleoptera:
Carabidae) activity in Þelds of corn. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 83: 153Ð163.
Voss, E. G. 1996. Michigan ßora; a guide to the identiÞcation
and occurrence of the native and naturalized seed-plants
of the State: Parts I:III. Cranbrook Institute of Science.
University of Michigan. University Herbarium, BloomÞeld Hills, MI.
Wäckers, F. L. 1999. Gustatory response by the hymenopteran parasitoid Cotesia glomerata to a range of nectar and
honeydew sugars. J. Chem. Ecol. 25: 2863Ð2877.
765