A preliminary study on the occurrence and significance of phytophagous arthropods and natural enemies on <i>Sapindus saponaria</i> saplings

Germano Leão Demolin-Leite; Germano Leão Demolin-Leite

doi:10.48130/tia-0024-0001

2024 Volume 4

Article Contents

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

References

Next Previous

ARTICLE Open Access

A preliminary study on the occurrence and significance of phytophagous arthropods and natural enemies on Sapindus saponaria saplings

Germano Leão Demolin-Leite^, ,

Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Instituto de Ciências Agrárias, Insetário G.W.G. Moraes, 39.404-547, Montes Claros, Minas Gerais State, Brasil

More Information

Corresponding author: germano.demolin@gmail.com

Received: 31 October 2023
Revised: 21 December 2023
Accepted: 18 January 2024
Published online: 20 February 2024
Technology in Agronomy 4, Article number: e004 (2024) | Cite this article

Abstract

Sapindus saponaria trees exhibit potential for global application in the restoration of degraded ecosystems. However, the susceptibility of S. saponaria saplings to detrimental effects caused by various phytophagous insects and mites necessitates a comprehensive evaluation. In this investigation, 48 S. saponaria saplings were scrutinized with a focus on phytophagous arthropods and their natural enemies. The assessment involved the determination of the Importance Index-Production Unknown (% I.I.-P.U.) to rank the arthropods based on their impact. Notably, phytophagous arthropods such as Liriomyza sp., Bemisia sp., Phaneropterinae, Tetranychus sp., Tropidacris collaris, and Stereoma anchoralis exhibited the highest % I.I.-P.U. on the S. saponaria saplings, highlighting their potential threat to future commercial crops given their association with crop pests. Conversely, natural enemies, including Cycloneda sanguinea and Pseudomyrmex termitarius, demonstrated the highest % I.I.-P.U. on these saplings. This underscores the significance of these natural predators in mitigating the impact of herbivorous arthropods on S. saponaria saplings. The presence of C. sanguinea and P. termitarius suggests their potential value in enhancing the resilience of S. saponaria saplings by effectively reducing the population of herbivorous arthropods.
- Agriculture,
- Ants,
- Damage,
- Beetle,
- Forestry production

Introduction

Sapindus saponaria (Sapindaceae) is widely distributed throughout the Americas^[1], attaining heights of up to eight meters^[2]. In Brazil, it is ubiquitously present across all regions^[3]. Renowned for its ecological significance, this species is extensively employed for the reclamation of degraded ecosystems globally^[4−6]. Additionally, the fruits of S. saponaria find utility in Brazilian folk medicine, primarily for their saponin content, while its seeds and wood are utilized in the creation of jewelry and baskets, respectively^[2,7]. Despite the economic importance of this plant, the knowledge about its associated arthropods remains largely deficient. A recent discovery in China identified a novel species, Leptopulvinaria sapinda (Hemiptera: Coccidae), as an assailant of S. saponaria^[8]. However, comprehensive insights into the arthropod fauna associated with this plant are still lacking. Notably, insects and mites pose potential threats to S. saponaria saplings, and the mitigating influence of spiders on defoliation caused by beetles is recognized. The intricate interactions between the plant and its arthropod inhabitants warrant further investigation to elucidate the ecological dynamics and potential implications for the sustainability of S. saponaria populations.

The aim of this investigation was to assess the population dynamics of phytophagous insects, mites, and natural enemies associated with 48 S. saponaria saplings over a two-year period. The quantification and comparison of these arthropod species were conducted utilizing the Importance Index-Production Unknown (% I.I.-P.U.), a metric derived as a percentage from the Importance Index (I.I.)^[9,10]. This methodology enabled the classification and ranking of the arthropods based on their relative importance to the studied S. saponaria saplings, providing a quantitative basis for evaluating their ecological significance within the examined timeframe.

Materials and methods

This research was undertaken at the 'Instituto de Ciências Agrárias da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (ICA/UFMG)', Brazil, spanning the period from April 2015 to March 2017. For comprehensive information regarding climate classification, latitude, longitude, altitude, and soil characteristics, please refer to the supplementary details provided in Alvares et al.^[11] & Silva et al.^[12].

Comprehensive information pertaining to seedling production, the substrate employed, field planting procedures, fertilization practices, irrigation protocols, and other relevant details can be found in Silva et al.^[12]. The quantification of defoliation percentage caused by insects, the assignment of damage scores resulting from sap-sucking insects and mites, and the evaluation of arthropod populations are elaborated upon in the study by Demolin-Leite^[10].

Each replication are the total individuals collected on 12 leaves (three heights and four sides of the sapling) for 24 months. The distribution type (aggregated, random, or regular) for the lost source (LS) or solution source (SS) was defined by the Chi-square test using the R-package 'IIProductionUnknown'^[13] (Supplemental Table S1 & S2). The data were subjected to simple regression analysis, and the parameters were all significant (p < 0.05) using the R-package 'IIProductionUnknown'^[13] (Supplemental Table S3). Simple equations were selected by observing the criteria: (1) data distribution in the figures (linear or quadratic response), (2) the parameters used in these regressions were the most significant (p < 0.05), (3) p < 0.05 and F of the Analysis of Variance of these regressions, and iv) the coefficient of determination of these equations (R²). Only L.S. and SS with p < 0.05 were shown in Supplemental Table S1−S3. The data above were used in the Percentage of Importance Index-Production Unknown (% I.I.-P.U.).

Percentage of Importance Index-Production Unknown (% I.I.-P.U.)^[10] is:

% I.I.-P.U. = [(ks₁ × c₁ × ds₁)/Σ(ks₁ × c₁ × ds₁) + (ks₂ × c₂ × ds₂) + (ks_n × c_n × ds_n)] × 100^[9],

where, i) the key source (ks) is: ks = damage (non-percentage) (Da.)/total n of the LS on the samples or ks = reduction of the total n. of LS (RLS)/total n. of the SS on the samples^[10]. Where Da. or RLS = R² × (1 − P), when it is of the first degree, or (R² × (1 − P)) × (β₂/β₁), when it is of the second degree, where R² = determination coefficient and P = significance of ANOVA, β₁ = regression coefficient, and β₂ = regression coefficient (variable²), of the simple regression equation of the loss source (LS) or solution source (SS)^[10].

When it is not possible to separate the Da. between two or more LS, there should be a division of the Da. among the LS as a proportion of their respective 'total n'. Da. = 0 when Da. was non-significant for damage or non-detected by LS in the system^[10]. When an SS operates in more than one LS, that caused damage, its ks are summed. RLS = 0 when Da. by LS or RLS was non-significant for damage by LS or reduced LS by SS in the system^[10].

ii) c (constancy) = Σ of occurrence of L.S. or S.S. on samples, where absence = 0 or presence = 1^[9].

iii) ds (distribution source) = 1 − P of the chi-square test of LS or SS on the samples^[9]. Counts (non-frequency) of L.S. or S.S. are used to perform the chi-square test.

These data, above, are obtained, by R-package 'IIProductionUnknown'^[13].

Percentage of RLS per SS (% RLSSS) = (R.L.S.S.S./total n of the LS – abundance or damage) × 100, where RLSSS = RLS × total n of the SS, with the R.L.S. not being summed in this case^[10]. These data, above, are obtained, by R-package 'IIProductionUnknown'^[13].

Results

The phytophagous arthropods exhibiting the highest % I.I.-P.U. on the leaves of S. saponaria saplings encompassed Liriomyza sp. (mines) (Diptera: Agromyzidae) at 53.49%, Bemisia sp. (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) at 13.29% (with a maximum damage score of IV), Phaneropterinae (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae) at 11.21%, Tetranychus sp. (Acari: Tetranychidae) at 8.95% (with a maximum damage score of III), Tropidacris collaris (Orthoptera: Romaleidae) at 4.61%, and Stereoma anchoralis (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) at 1.33% (Table 1).

Table 1. Total number (n), damage (Da.), key-source (ks), constancy (c), distribution source (ds), number of importance indice (n. II), sum of n. I.I.-P.U. (Σ n. II), and percentage of II by loss source (LS) on 48 Sapindus saponaria (Sapindaceae) saplings.

Loss source
LS	n	Da.	ks	c	ds	n. II.	Σ n. II.	% II.
Liriomyza sp. (mines)	478	0.8600	0.0018	27	1.00	0.0486	0.091	53.49
Bemisia sp.	2333	0.8800	0.0004	32	1.00	0.0121	0.091	13.29
Phaneropterinae	51	0.0206	0.0004	27	0.93	0.0102	0.091	11.21
Tetranychus sp.	709	0.9600	0.0014	6	1.00	0.0081	0.091	8.95
T. collaris	17	0.0069	0.0004	14	0.74	0.0042	0.091	4.61
S. anchoralis	5	0.0020	0.0004	3	1.00	0.0012	0.091	1.33
Charidotis sp.	4	0.0016	0.0004	2	1.00	0.0008	0.091	0.89
Alagoasa sp.	5	0.0020	0.0004	5	0.36	0.0007	0.091	0.80
Cerotoma sp.	4	0.0016	0.0004	4	0.40	0.0006	0.091	0.71
Curculionidae	3	0.0012	0.0004	3	0.44	0.0005	0.091	0.59
Lordops sp.	3	0.0012	0.0004	3	0.44	0.0005	0.091	0.59
Walterianela sp.	2	0.0008	0.0004	1	1.00	0.0004	0.091	0.44
Lepidoptera	2	0.0008	0.0004	2	0.49	0.0004	0.091	0.43
D. speciosa	2	0.0008	0.0004	2	0.49	0.0004	0.091	0.43
Lamprosoma sp.	2	0.0008	0.0004	2	0.49	0.0004	0.091	0.43
Eumolpus sp.	2	0.0008	0.0004	2	0.49	0.0004	0.091	0.43
Epitragus sp.	2	0.0008	0.0004	2	0.49	0.0004	0.091	0.43
Parasyphraea sp.	1	0.0004	0.0004	1	0.53	0.0002	0.091	0.23
Wanderbiltiana sp.	1	0.0004	0.0004	1	0.53	0.0002	0.091	0.23
Gryllidae	1	0.0004	0.0004	1	0.53	0.0002	0.091	0.23
Cephalocoema sp.	1	0.0004	0.0004	1	0.53	0.0002	0.091	0.23
A. reticulatum	11	0.0000	0.0000	2	1.00	0.0000	0.091	0.00
Anastrepha sp.	4	0.0000	0.0000	4	0.40	0.0000	0.091	0.00
B. hebe	10	0.0000	0.0000	7	0.99	0.0000	0.091	0.00
Euxesta sp.	3	0.0000	0.0000	3	0.44	0.0000	0.091	0.00
Fulgoridae	19	0.0000	0.0000	5	1.00	0.0000	0.091	0.00
Nasutitermes sp.	280	0.0000	0.0000	5	1.00	0.0000	0.091	0.00
P. torridus	1	0.0000	0.0000	1	0.53	0.0000	0.091	0.00
Pentatomidae	6	0.0000	0.0000	6	0.32	0.0000	0.091	0.00
Phenacoccus sp.	30	0.0000	0.0000	2	1.00	0.0000	0.091	0.00
Q. gigas	2	0.0000	0.0000	2	0.49	0.0000	0.091	0.00
T. spinipes	5	0.0000	0.0000	1	1.00	0.0000	0.091	0.00
I.I.-P.U. = ks × c × ds. ks = Da./total n of the L.S.. Da. = R² × (1 − P) when it is of the first degree, or (R² × (1 − P)) × (β₂/β₁) when it is of the second degree, where R² = determination coefficient and P = significance of ANOVA, β₁ = regression coefficient, and β₂ = regression coefficient (variable²), of the simple regression equation, or non-percentage of damage per L.S. c = Σ of occurrence of L.S. on each sample, 0 = absence or 1 = presence. ds = 1 − P of chi-square test of the L.S. Da. = 0 when Da. non-significant for damage or non-detected by L.S.

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

The natural enemies with the highest % I.I.-P.U. on the leaves of S. saponaria saplings were identified as Cycloneda sanguinea (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) at 98.94% and Pseudomyrmex termitarius (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) at 1.06%. Notably, the presence of P. termitarius (0.13%) and C. sanguinea (0.02%) led to a reduction in the numbers of Liriomyza sp. mines and Bemisia sp., respectively, on these saplings. Furthermore, the damage inflicted by Bemisia sp. on leaves exhibited a reduction per the number of P. termitarius (2.92%). Conversely, the number of Brachymyrmex sp. (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) resulted in an increase in the number (1.18%) and damage (61.95%) of Bemisia sp. on S. saponaria saplings. The cumulative balances for the reduction in abundance and damage (%) were negative, measuring at −1.03% and −59.03%, respectively, on S. saponaria saplings (Tables 2 & 3).

Table 2. Total number (n), reduction of LS (RLS), key-source (ks), constancy (c), distribution source (ds), number of importance indice (n. II), sum of n. I.I.-P.U. (Σ n. II), and percentage of II by solution source (SS) on 48 Sapindus saponaria (Sapindaceae) saplings.

Solution source
SS	n	RLS.	ks	c	ds	n. II.	Σ n. II.	% II.
C. sanguinea	3	0.1231	0.0410	2	0.99	0.08	0.08	98.94
P. termitarius	121	0.0053	0.0000	20	1.00	0.00	0.08	1.06
A. rogersi	4	0.0000	0.0000	4	0.40	0.00	0.08	0.00
A. uncifera	3	0.0000	0.0000	3	0.44	0.00	0.08	0.00
Araneidae	31	0.0000	0.0000	18	1.00	0.00	0.08	0.00
Brachymyrmex sp.	184	0.0000	0.0000	21	1.00	0.00	0.08	0.00
Camponotus sp.	130	0.0000	0.0000	26	1.00	0.00	0.08	0.00
Chrysoperla sp.	3	0.0000	0.0000	2	0.99	0.00	0.08	0.00
Dolichopodidae	9	0.0000	0.0000	6	1.00	0.00	0.08	0.00
Ectatoma sp.	20	0.0000	0.0000	12	1.00	0.00	0.08	0.00
Leucauge sp.	13	0.0000	0.0000	4	1.00	0.00	0.08	0.00
M. religiosa	11	0.0000	0.0000	9	0.75	0.00	0.08	0.00
O. salticus	1	0.0000	0.0000	1	0.53	0.00	0.08	0.00
Oxyopidae	14	0.0000	0.0000	12	0.50	0.00	0.08	0.00
Pheidole sp.	272	0.0000	0.0000	23	1.00	0.00	0.08	0.00
Polybia sp.	6	0.0000	0.0000	4	1.00	0.00	0.08	0.00
Quemedice sp.	3	0.0000	0.0000	3	0.44	0.00	0.08	0.00
Salticidae	13	0.0000	0.0000	9	1.00	0.00	0.08	0.00
Syrphus sp.	2	0.0000	0.0000	2	0.49	0.00	0.08	0.00
T. angustula	2	0.0000	0.0000	1	1.00	0.00	0.08	0.00
Teudis sp.	3	0.0000	0.0000	3	0.44	0.00	0.08	0.00
Tmarus sp.	2	0.0000	0.0000	2	0.49	0.00	0.08	0.00
Uspachus sp.	4	0.0000	0.0000	4	0.40	0.00	0.08	0.00
I.I.-P.U. = ks × c × ds. ks = R.L.S./total n. of the SS.. R.L.S. = R² × (1 − P) when it is of the first degree, or (R² × (1 − P)) × (β₂/β₁) when it is of the second degree, where R² = determination coefficient and P = significance of ANOVA, β₁ = regression coefficient, and β₂ = regression coefficient (variable²), of the simple regression equation. c = Σ of occurrence of S.S. on each sample, 0 = absence or 1 = presence. ds = 1 − P of chi-square test of the SS. When a SS operates in more than one LS, that caused damage, its ks are summed. ES. = 0 when Da. by LS or ES non-significant for damage by LS or reduced LS by SS.

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

Table 3. Percentage of reduction in abundance and/or damage (%R.) of loss source (LS) per solution source (SS), sum (Σ), and total of Σ of RLS (T.Σ) on 48 Sapindus saponaria (Sapindaceae) saplings.

	LS.
% RLSSS - abundance
SS.	Liriomyza sp. (mines)	Bemisia sp.
C. sanguinea	/	0.02
Brachymyrmex sp.	/	−1.18
P. termitarius	0.13	/
Σ	0.13	−1.16
*T.Σ	−1.03	/
% RLSSS - damage
SS.	Bemisia sp.
Brachymyrmex sp.	−61.95
P. termitarius	2.92
Σ	−59.03
/ = L.S. was not reduced per S.S. % R.L.S.S.S. = (R.L.S.S.S./total n of the L.S. – abundance or damage) × 100, where R.L.S.S.S. = R.L.S. × total n of the S.S. R.L.S. = R² × (1 − P) when it is of the first degree, or (R² × (1 − P)) × (β₂/β₁) when it is of the second degree, where R² = determination coefficient and P = significance of ANOVA, β₁ = regression coefficient, and β₂ = regression coefficient (variable²), of the simple regression equation.

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

Discussion

The phytophagous arthropods, Liriomyza sp., Bemisia sp., Phaneropterinae, Tetranychus sp., T. collaris, and S. anchoralis, demonstrated the highest % I.I.-P.U. on S. saponaria saplings. Liriomyza sp. mines, known to diminish the photosynthetic area in various plants such as Solanum lycopersicon (Solanaceae), Phaseolus vulgaris (Fabaceae), and Terminalia argentea (Combretaceae)^[14−18]. Certain species of Aleyrodidae, exemplified by Bemisia tabaci, are recognized pests inflicting damage on crops including P. vulgaris, Glycine max, Acacia auriculiformis, A. mangium, and Platycyamus regnellii (Fabaceae); Capsicum annuum and S. lycopersicon (Solanaceae); Cucumis melo (Cucurbitaceae); and T. argentea^[10,19−25]. Aleyrodidae, in addition to causing fumagine, are implicated in virus transmission and the introduction of insect toxins^[10,19−25]. Certain species of Tettigoniidae have been documented as causing damage to the fruits of Musa spp. (Musaceae) and the leaves of grasses, A. mangim, A. auriculiformis, and T. argentea^{[10,12,18,26,27]}. Tetranychidae mites, recognized for puncturing the epidermis of leaves, are implicated in G. max, Caryocar brasiliense (Caryocaraceae), S. lycopersicum, and P. vulgaris^[28−33]. T. collaris is known to attack S. saponaria, Casuarina glauca (Casuarinaceae), A. auriculiformis, A. mangium, L. leucocephala, and T. argentea (Combretaceae)^{[12,18,27,34,35]}. Lastly, S. anchoralis has been reported to inflict damage on A. mangium and A. auriculiformis^[10,12,27].

Cycloneda sanguinea and P. termitarius exhibited the highest % I.I.-P.U., thereby diminishing both the numerical abundance and damage caused by Bemisia sp., as well as the population of Liriomyza sp. on S. saponaria saplings. Cycloneda sanguinea, recognized as a significant predator of sap-sucking insects, has demonstrated efficacy in mitigating pest populations on T. argentea saplings in degraded areas and various crops such as Gossypium hirsutum (Malvaceae), Foeniculum vulgare (Apiaceae), and Abelmoschus esculentus (Malvaceae), both in field conditions and laboratory bioassays^[23,36−38]. Tending ants, exemplified by P. termitarius, have been observed to reduce beetle and caterpillar attacks on leaves and fruits^[39−42]. Additionally, Cephalocoema sp. (Orthoptera: Proscopiidae), along with ants, serves as a bioindicator^[10,43]. The potential influence of these predators, particularly those at the apex of the trophic pyramid such as C. sanguinea, in controlling the abundance of herbivores like Bemisia sp. through top-down effects suggests a mechanism that could contribute to the survival of S. saponaria. However, the nuanced relationships between predators and herbivory in commercial crops of S. saponaria warrant further investigation. Contrary to expectations, a negative effect of P. termitarius on Bemisia sp. damage was observed on S. saponaria saplings, defying the anticipated mutualistic relationship between tending ants and sap-sucking insects (Hemiptera)^[44,45]. While Demolin-Leite^[10] did not identify correlations between this tending ant and Aleyrodidae or Aethalion reticulatum (Hemiptera: Aethalionidae) on A. auriculiformis saplings, an increase in the number (≈ 1%) and leaf damage (≈ 62%) caused by Bemisia sp. was noted in relation to the population of Brachymyrmex sp. on S. saponaria saplings, underscoring the complexity of interactions within this ecological system. Further studies are warranted to elucidate the underlying mechanisms governing these relationships. These outcomes can be attributed to the collaborative interactions between tending ants and sap-sucking insects, leading to an exacerbation of the damage inflicted upon these plants. Analogous findings were observed in the context of A. auriculiformis saplings, where the presence of tending ants, specifically Brachymyrmex sp. (e.g., A. reticulatum), and Cephalotes sp. (e.g., Aleyrodidae), resulted in a substantial increase (≈ 95%) in the populations of A. reticulatum and Aleyrodidae, accompanied by a corresponding rise (≈ 30%) in Aleyrodidae-induced damage to this plant^[10]. The detrimental impact of these interactions was reflected in a negative final balance on A. auriculiformis saplings, with a subsequent rise of approximately 57% in herbivorous insect populations within these saplings^[10], mirroring the observed trends in S. saponaria saplings. Particularly at elevated population densities, sap-sucking insects may establish associations with tending ants^[44,45], wherein these ants collectively and aggressively defend their resources, including phytophagous hemipterans^[44]. The lack of a positive effect of tending ants on the biological control of sap-sucking insects may be attributed to mutualistic relationships with these phytophagous insects^[46,47]. In agricultural systems, this dynamic can potentially exacerbate pest-related challenges^[48]. Although Brachymyrmex sp. initially does not pose a significant issue for S. saponaria saplings, the potential for this tending ant species to proliferate and increase sap-sucking insect populations (e.g., Bemisia sp.) exists, particularly under specific conditions such as monoculture, climate, soil variations, and favorable fertilization. This scenario may pose challenges for S. saponaria saplings, especially in the context of prospective commercial crops with monoculture practices.

Liriomyza sp., Bemisia sp., Phaneropterinae, Tetranychus sp., T. collaris, and S. anchoralis, exhibiting the highest % I.I.-P.U. on S. saponaria, pose a potential threat, indicating their capacity to induce losses in crops of this plant. In contrast, C. sanguinea and P. termitarius, characterized by the most substantial % I.I.-P.U., exhibit potential as agents capable of mitigating herbivorous insects on S. saponaria. Furthermore, an anticipated increase in the abundance of ladybeetles, particularly those with major ecological significance, could be expected in future commercial crops of S. saponaria. It is imperative to accord special attention to the association between Brachymyrmex sp. and Bemisia sp. in prospective S. saponaria commercial crops, as this tending ant species has demonstrated an ability to augment the population of the sap-sucking insect. The % I.I.-P.U. emerges as an effective tool for delineating sources of loss and potential solutions in this plant species within systems characterized by production unknown, such as degraded areas. This innovative index holds promise as a valuable tool in the realm of agricultural technology, particularly for monitoring and managing degraded areas.

Author contributions

The author confirms sole responsibility for the following: study conception and design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of results, and manuscript preparation.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article. The data that support the ﬁndings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

'Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico' (CNPq: 305057/2018-9) and 'Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais' (FAPEMIG: CAG - PPM-00080-17). To the Dr. A.D. Brescovit (Instituto Butantan, São Paulo, Brasil) (Arachnida), Dr. A.M. Bello (Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil) (Coleoptera), Dr. A.L.B.G. Peront (Pseudococcidae) (Universidade Federal de São Carlos, São Paulo, Brasil), Dr. C. Matrangolo (UNIMONTES, Minas Gerais, Brasil) (Formicidae), Dr. I.C. Nascimento (EMBRAPA-Ilhéus, Bahia, Brasil) (Formicidae), Dr. L.B.N. Coelho (Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil) (Cicadellidae), and Dr. P.S.F. Ferreira (Hemiptera) (Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Minas Gerais, Brasil) by species identifications. Also to 'Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico' (CNPq) and 'Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais' (FAPEMIG) for financial support.

Conflict of interest

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

Supplementary information

Supplemental Table S1 Aggregated (Agg.), regular (Reg.), or random (Ran.) distribution (Dist.) of the loss sources on 48 Sapindus saponaria (Sapindaceae) saplings.
Supplemental Table S2 Aggregated (Agg.), regular (Reg.), or random (Ran.) distribution (Dist.) of the solution sources on 48 Sapindus saponaria (Sapindaceae) saplings.
Supplemental Table S3 Simple regression equations of damage per loss source (LS) and reduction or increase of abundance or damage (Da.) of LS per solution source (SS) on 48 Sapindus saponaria (Sapindaceae) saplings.

Rights and permissions
Copyright: © 2024 by the author(s). Published by Maximum Academic Press, Fayetteville, GA. This article is an open access article distributed under Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

References

[1]	Quigley DTG, Gainey PA, Easton C. 2017. Soapberry Sapindus sp. (Sapindaceae: Sapindoideae): Drift endocarps from UK waters. New Journal of Botany 7:160−64 doi: 10.1080/20423489.2017.1408187 CrossRef Google Scholar
[2]	Grisi PU, Ranal MA, Gualtieri SCJ, Santana DG. 2012. Allelopathic potential of Sapindus saponaria L. leaves in the control of weeds. Acta Scientiarum-Agronomy 34:1−9 doi: 10.4025/actasciagron.v34i1.11598 CrossRef Google Scholar
[3]	Rodrigues RR, Martins SV, De Barros LC. 2004. Tropical Rain Forest regeneration in an area degraded by mining in Mato Grosso State, Brazil. Forest Ecology and Management 190:323−33 doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2003.10.023 CrossRef Google Scholar
[4]	Rodrigues AA, Vasconcelos Filho SC, Müller C, Rodrigues DA, Mendes GC, et al. 2018. Sapindus saponaria bioindicator potential concerning potassium fluoride exposure by simulated rainfall: Anatomical and physiological traits. Ecological Indicators 89:552−58 doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.02.043 CrossRef Google Scholar
[5]	Torres-Rodríguez S, Díaz-Triana JE, Villota A, Gómez W, Avella-MA. 2019. Ecological diagnostics, formulation and implementation of strategies for the restoration of an interandean dry tropical forest (Huila, Colombia). Caldasia 41:42−59 doi: 10.15446/caldasia.v41n1.71275 CrossRef Google Scholar
[6]	Schad AN, Dick GO, Dodd LL. 2017. Seed germination methods of the Texas Northern Blackland Prairie ecotype of Sapindus saponaria L. var. drummondii (Hook. and Arn.) L.D. Benson (Sapindaceae). Native Plants Journal 18:271−76 doi: 10.3368/npj.18.3.271 CrossRef Google Scholar
[7]	Tsuzuki JK, Svidzinski TIE, Shinobu CS, Silva LFA, Rodrigues-Filho E, et al. 2007. Antifungal activity of the extracts and saponins from Sapindus saponaria L. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências 79:577−83 doi: 10.1590/S0001-37652007000400002 CrossRef Google Scholar
[8]	He X, Han Y, Wu S. 2018. A new species of Leptopulvinaria Kanda from China, with a key to species (Hemiptera, Coccomorpha, Coccidae). Zookeys 781:59−66 doi: 10.3897/zookeys.781.25713 CrossRef Google Scholar
[9]	Demolin-Leite GL. 2021. Importance indice: loss estimates and solution effectiveness on production. Cuban Journal of Agricultural Science 55:1−7 http://scielo.sld.cu/pdf/cjas/v55n2/2079-3480-cjas-55-02-e10.pdf.
[10]	Demolin-Leite GL. 2024. Percentage of importance indice-production unknown: loss and solution sources identification on system. Brazilian Journal of Biology 84:e253218 doi: 10.1590/1519-6984.253218 CrossRef Google Scholar
[11]	Alvares CA, Stape JL, Sentelhas PC, Gonçalves JLM, Sparovek G. 2013. Köppen's climate classification map for Brazil. Meteorologische Zeitschrift 22:711−28 doi: 10.1127/0941-2948/2013/0507 CrossRef Google Scholar
[12]	Silva JL, Demolin Leite GL, de Souza Tavares W, Souza Silva FW, Sampaio RA, et al. 2020. Diversity of arthropods on Acacia mangium (Fabaceae) and production of this plant with dehydrated sewage sludge in degraded area. Royal Society Open Science 7:e191196 doi: 10.1098/rsos.191196 CrossRef Google Scholar
[13]	Demolin-Leite GL, Azevedo AM. 2022. 'IIProductionUnknown': Analyzing Data Through of Percentage of Importance Indice (Production Unknown) and Its Derivations. Manual Package. pp. 1−18. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=IIProductionUnknown
[14]	Nunes GDS, Medeiros AC, Araujo EL, Nogueira CHF, Sombra KDDS. 2013. Resistance of melon accessions to leafminer Liriomyza spp. (Diptera: Agromyzidae). Revista Brasileira de Fruticultura 35:746−54 doi: 10.1590/S0100-29452013000300011 CrossRef Google Scholar
[15]	Ferreira ECB, Freitas MTDS, Sombra KDDS, Siqueira HAAD, Araujo ELD, et al. 2017. Molecular identification of Liriomyza sp. in the northeast and southeast regions of Brazil. Revista Caatinga 30:892−900 doi: 10.1590/1983-21252017v30n409rc CrossRef Google Scholar
[16]	Mcgovern RJ, Koh LH, To-Anun C, Wong SM. 2016. Reduced incidence of tomato yellow leaf curl virus and leafminer in a tomato cultivar in northern Thailand. Crop Protection 89:273−77 doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2016.07.018 CrossRef Google Scholar
[17]	Fernandes FL, Picanço MC, De Sena FME, Xavier VM, Martins JC, et al. 2010. Natural biological control of pests and ecological interactions with predators and parasitoids in bean crop. Bioscience Journal 26:6−14 Google Scholar
[18]	Carvalho JCN, Silva FWS, Leite GLD, Azevedo AM, Teixeira GL, et al. 2020. Does fertilization with dehydrated sewage sludge affect Terminalia argentea (Combretaceae) and associated arthropods community in a degraded area? Scientific Reports 10:e11811 doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-68747-z CrossRef Google Scholar
[19]	Zhang W, Mcauslane HJ, Schuster DJ. 2004. Repellency of ginger oil to Bemisia argentifolii (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) on tomato. Journal of Economic Entomology 97:1310−18 doi: 10.1093/jee/97.4.1310 CrossRef Google Scholar
[20]	Mansaray A, Sundufu AJ. 2009. Oviposition, development and survivorship of the sweetpotato whitefly Bemisia tabaci on soybean, Glycine max, and the garden bean, Phaseolus vulgaris. Journal of Insect Science 9:1 doi: 10.1673/031.009.0101 CrossRef Google Scholar
[21]	Kim S, Jung M, Song YJ, Kang C, Kim BY, et al. 2017. Evaluating the potential of the extract of Perilla sp. as a natural insecticide for Bemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) on sweet peppers. Entomological Research 47:208−16 doi: 10.1111/1748-5967.12211 CrossRef Google Scholar
[22]	Felicio TNP, Costa TL, Sarmento RA, Ramos RS, Pereira PS, et al. 2019. Surrounding vegetation, climatic elements, and predators affect the spatial dynamics of Bemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) in commercial melon fields. Journal of Economic Entomology 112:2774−81 doi: 10.1093/jee/toz181 CrossRef Google Scholar
[23]	Da Costa SSD, Leite GLD, Silva FWS, Santos JB, Azevedo AM, et al. 2021. Arthropods on Terminalia argentea (Combretaceae) fertlized with sewage sludge. Florida Entomologist 104:131−35 doi: 10.1653/024.104.0209 CrossRef Google Scholar
[24]	De Souza GF, Leite GLD, Silva FWS, Silva JL, Sampaio RA, et al. 2021. Bottom-up effects on arthropod communities in Platycyamus regnellii (Fabaceae) fertilized with dehydrated sewage sludge. Revista Colombiana de Entomologia 47:e8943 doi: 10.25100/socolen.v47i1.8943 CrossRef Google Scholar
[25]	Silva JL, Leite GLD, Guanabens REM, Azevedo AM, Fernandes GW, et al. 2021. Fertilization with dehydrated sewage sludge affects the phytophagous Hemiptera, tending ants, and Sternorryncha predators on Acacia mangium (Fabaceae). Annals of Applied Biology 179:345−53 doi: 10.1111/aab.12706 CrossRef Google Scholar
[26]	Zanuncio-Junior JS, Fornazier MJ, Dos Martins DS, Chamorro-Rengifo J, Queiróz RB, et al. 2017. Meroncidius intermedius (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae): a threat to Brazilian banana. Florida Entomologist 100:669−71 doi: 10.1653/024.100.0329 CrossRef Google Scholar
[27]	Mota MVS, Demolin-Leite GL, Guanabens PFS, Teixeira GL, Soares MA, et al. 2023. Chewing insects, pollinators, and predators on Acacia auriculiformis A. Cunn. ex Beth (Fabales: Fabaceae) plants fertilized with dehydrated sewage sludge. Brazilian Journal of Biology 83:e248305 doi: 10.1590/1519-6984.248305 CrossRef Google Scholar
[28]	Farouk S, Osman MA. 2011. The effect of plant defense elicitors on common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) growth and yield in absence or presence of spider mite (Tetranychus urticae Koch) infestation. Journal of Stress Physiology & Biochemistry 7:5−22 Google Scholar
[29]	Murungi LK, Salifu D, Masinde P, Wesonga J, Nyende A, et al. 2014. Effects of the invasive tomato red spider mite (Acari: Tetranychidae) on growth and leaf yield of African nightshades. Crop Protection 59:57−62 doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2014.02.001 CrossRef Google Scholar
[30]	Reichert MB, Silva GL, Rocha MDS, Johann L, Ferla NJ. 2014. Mite fauna (Acari) in soybean agroecosystem in the northwestern region of Rio Grande do Sul State, Brazil. Systematic and Applied Acarology 19:123−36 doi: 10.11158/saa.19.2.2 CrossRef Google Scholar
[31]	Leite GLD, Veloso RVS, Matioli AL, Feres CIMA, Soares MA, et al. 2021. Habitat complexity and mite population on Caryocar brasiliense trees. Acta Scientiarum-Agronnomy 43:e50164 doi: 10.4025/actasciagron.v43i1.50164 CrossRef Google Scholar
[32]	Leite GLD, Veloso RVS, Matioli AL, Soares MA, Lemes PG. 2022. Seasonal mite population distribution on Caryocar brasiliense trees in the Cerrado domain. Brazilian Journal of Biology 82:e236355 doi: 10.1590/1519-6984.236355 CrossRef Google Scholar
[33]	Sarwar M. 2015. Mites (Acarina) as vectors of plant pathogens and relation of these pests to plant diseases. Agricultural and Biological Sciences Journal 1:150−56 Google Scholar
[34]	Poderoso JCM, Da Costa MKM, Correia-Oliveira, ME, Dantas PC, Zanuncio JC, et al. 2013. Occurrence of Tropidacris collaris (Orthoptera; Acridoidea; Romaleidae) damaging Casuarina glauca (Casuarinaceae) plants in the municipality of Central Bahia, Brazil. Florida Entomologist 96:268−69 doi: 10.1653/024.096.0143 CrossRef Google Scholar
[35]	Damascena JG, Leite GLD, Silva FWS, Soares MA, Guañabens REM, et al. 2017. Spatial distribution of phytophagous insects, natural enemies, and pollinators on Leucaena leucocephala (Fabales: Fabaceae) trees in the Cerrado. Florida Entomologist 100:558−65 doi: 10.1653/024.100.0311 CrossRef Google Scholar
[36]	Leite GLD, Picanço M, Zanuncio JC, Moreira MD, Jham GN. 2011. Hosting capacity of horticultural plants for insect pests in Brazil. Chilean Journal of Agricultural Research 71:383−89 doi: 10.4067/S0718-58392011000300006 CrossRef Google Scholar
[37]	Fernandes FS, Ramalho FS, Malaquias JB, Godoy WAC, Santos BDB. 2015. Interspecific associations between Cycloneda sanguinea and two aphid species (Aphis gossypii and Hyadaphis foeniculi) in sole-crop and fennel-cotton intercropping systems. Plos ONE 10:e0131449 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0131449 CrossRef Google Scholar
[38]	Fernandes MED, Zanuncio JC, Plata-Rueda A, Soares WS, Coelho RR, Fernandes FL. 2019. Quantification of prey consumption by the predators Chauliognathus flavipes (Coleoptera: Cantharidae), Cycloneda sanguinea (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), and Orius insidiosus (Heteroptera: Anthocoridae). Florida Entomologist 102:231−33 doi: 10.1653/024.102.0138 CrossRef Google Scholar
[39]	Leite GLD, Veloso RVS, Zanuncio JC, Almeida CIM, Ferreira PSF, Fernandes GW, Soares MA. 2012a. Habitat complexity and Caryocar brasiliense herbivores (Insecta; Arachnida; Araneae). Florida Entomologist 95:819−30 doi: 10.1653/024.095.0402 CrossRef Google Scholar
[40]	Gonthier DJ, Ennis KK, Philpott SM, Vandermeer J, Perfecto I. 2013. Ants defend coffee from berry borer colonization. BioControl 58:815−20 doi: 10.1007/s10526-013-9541-z CrossRef Google Scholar
[41]	Fagundes R, Dáttilo W, Ribeiro SP, Rico-Gray V, Jordano P, Del-Claro K. 2017. Differences among ant species in plant protection are related to production of extrafloral nectar and degree of leaf herbivory. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 122:71−83 doi: 10.1093/biolinnean/blx059 CrossRef Google Scholar
[42]	Dassou AG, Vodouhé SD, Bokonon-Ganta A, Goergen G, Chailleux A, Dansi A, Carval D, Tixier P. 2019. Associated cultivated plants in tomato cropping systems structure arthropod communities and increase the Helicoverpa armigera regulation. Bulletin of Entomological Research 109:733−40 doi: 10.1017/S0007485319000117 CrossRef Google Scholar
[43]	Sanchez A. 2015. Fidelity and promiscuity in an ant-plant mutualism: A case study of Triplaris and Pseudomyrmex. PLoS ONE 10:e0143535 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0143535 CrossRef Google Scholar
[44]	Novgorodova TA. 2015. Organization of honeydew collection by foragers of different species of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): Effect of colony size and species specificity. European Journal of Entomology 112:688−97 doi: 10.14411/eje.2015.077 CrossRef Google Scholar
[45]	Sanchez JA, López-Gallego E, La-Spina M. 2020. The impact of ant mutualistic and antagonistic interactions on the population dynamics of sap-sucking hemipterans in pear orchards. Pest Management Science 76:1422−34 doi: 10.1002/ps.5655 CrossRef Google Scholar
[46]	Karami-Jamour T, Mirmoayedi A, Zamani A, Khajehzadeh Y. 2018. The impact of ant attendance on protecting Aphis gossypii against two aphidophagous predators and it's role on the intraguild predation between them. Journal of Insect Behavior 31:222−39 doi: 10.1007/s10905-018-9688-7 CrossRef Google Scholar
[47]	Tong HJ, Ao Y, Li ZH, Wang Y, Jiang MX. 2019. Invasion biology of the cotton mealybug, Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley: Current knowledge and future directions. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 18:758−70 doi: 10.1016/S2095-3119(18)61972-0 CrossRef Google Scholar
[48]	Sagata K, Gibb H. 2016. The effect of temperature increases on an ant-Hemiptera-plant interaction. PLoS ONE 11:e0155131 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0155131 CrossRef Google Scholar

About this article

Cite this article

Demolin-Leite GL. 2024. A preliminary study on the occurrence and significance of phytophagous arthropods and natural enemies on Sapindus saponaria saplings. Technology in Agronomy 4: e004 doi: 10.48130/tia-0024-0001

Demolin-Leite GL. 2024. A preliminary study on the occurrence and significance of phytophagous arthropods and natural enemies on Sapindus saponaria saplings. Technology in Agronomy 4: e004 doi: 10.48130/tia-0024-0001

Tables(3)

Download PDF

Article Metrics

Article views(2329) PDF downloads(311)

Other Articles By Authors

on this site
- Germano Leão Demolin-Leite
on Google Scholar
- Germano Leão Demolin-Leite

HTML

Introduction

Sapindus saponaria (Sapindaceae) is widely distributed throughout the Americas^[1], attaining heights of up to eight meters^[2]. In Brazil, it is ubiquitously present across all regions^[3]. Renowned for its ecological significance, this species is extensively employed for the reclamation of degraded ecosystems globally^[4−6]. Additionally, the fruits of S. saponaria find utility in Brazilian folk medicine, primarily for their saponin content, while its seeds and wood are utilized in the creation of jewelry and baskets, respectively^[2,7]. Despite the economic importance of this plant, the knowledge about its associated arthropods remains largely deficient. A recent discovery in China identified a novel species, Leptopulvinaria sapinda (Hemiptera: Coccidae), as an assailant of S. saponaria^[8]. However, comprehensive insights into the arthropod fauna associated with this plant are still lacking. Notably, insects and mites pose potential threats to S. saponaria saplings, and the mitigating influence of spiders on defoliation caused by beetles is recognized. The intricate interactions between the plant and its arthropod inhabitants warrant further investigation to elucidate the ecological dynamics and potential implications for the sustainability of S. saponaria populations.

The aim of this investigation was to assess the population dynamics of phytophagous insects, mites, and natural enemies associated with 48 S. saponaria saplings over a two-year period. The quantification and comparison of these arthropod species were conducted utilizing the Importance Index-Production Unknown (% I.I.-P.U.), a metric derived as a percentage from the Importance Index (I.I.)^[9,10]. This methodology enabled the classification and ranking of the arthropods based on their relative importance to the studied S. saponaria saplings, providing a quantitative basis for evaluating their ecological significance within the examined timeframe.

Materials and methods

This research was undertaken at the 'Instituto de Ciências Agrárias da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (ICA/UFMG)', Brazil, spanning the period from April 2015 to March 2017. For comprehensive information regarding climate classification, latitude, longitude, altitude, and soil characteristics, please refer to the supplementary details provided in Alvares et al.^[11] & Silva et al.^[12].

Comprehensive information pertaining to seedling production, the substrate employed, field planting procedures, fertilization practices, irrigation protocols, and other relevant details can be found in Silva et al.^[12]. The quantification of defoliation percentage caused by insects, the assignment of damage scores resulting from sap-sucking insects and mites, and the evaluation of arthropod populations are elaborated upon in the study by Demolin-Leite^[10].

Each replication are the total individuals collected on 12 leaves (three heights and four sides of the sapling) for 24 months. The distribution type (aggregated, random, or regular) for the lost source (LS) or solution source (SS) was defined by the Chi-square test using the R-package 'IIProductionUnknown'^[13] (Supplemental Table S1 & S2). The data were subjected to simple regression analysis, and the parameters were all significant (p < 0.05) using the R-package 'IIProductionUnknown'^[13] (Supplemental Table S3). Simple equations were selected by observing the criteria: (1) data distribution in the figures (linear or quadratic response), (2) the parameters used in these regressions were the most significant (p < 0.05), (3) p < 0.05 and F of the Analysis of Variance of these regressions, and iv) the coefficient of determination of these equations (R²). Only L.S. and SS with p < 0.05 were shown in Supplemental Table S1−S3. The data above were used in the Percentage of Importance Index-Production Unknown (% I.I.-P.U.).

Percentage of Importance Index-Production Unknown (% I.I.-P.U.)^[10] is:

% I.I.-P.U. = [(ks₁ × c₁ × ds₁)/Σ(ks₁ × c₁ × ds₁) + (ks₂ × c₂ × ds₂) + (ks_n × c_n × ds_n)] × 100^[9],

where, i) the key source (ks) is: ks = damage (non-percentage) (Da.)/total n of the LS on the samples or ks = reduction of the total n. of LS (RLS)/total n. of the SS on the samples^[10]. Where Da. or RLS = R² × (1 − P), when it is of the first degree, or (R² × (1 − P)) × (β₂/β₁), when it is of the second degree, where R² = determination coefficient and P = significance of ANOVA, β₁ = regression coefficient, and β₂ = regression coefficient (variable²), of the simple regression equation of the loss source (LS) or solution source (SS)^[10].

When it is not possible to separate the Da. between two or more LS, there should be a division of the Da. among the LS as a proportion of their respective 'total n'. Da. = 0 when Da. was non-significant for damage or non-detected by LS in the system^[10]. When an SS operates in more than one LS, that caused damage, its ks are summed. RLS = 0 when Da. by LS or RLS was non-significant for damage by LS or reduced LS by SS in the system^[10].

ii) c (constancy) = Σ of occurrence of L.S. or S.S. on samples, where absence = 0 or presence = 1^[9].

iii) ds (distribution source) = 1 − P of the chi-square test of LS or SS on the samples^[9]. Counts (non-frequency) of L.S. or S.S. are used to perform the chi-square test.

These data, above, are obtained, by R-package 'IIProductionUnknown'^[13].

Percentage of RLS per SS (% RLSSS) = (R.L.S.S.S./total n of the LS – abundance or damage) × 100, where RLSSS = RLS × total n of the SS, with the R.L.S. not being summed in this case^[10]. These data, above, are obtained, by R-package 'IIProductionUnknown'^[13].

Results

Loss source
LS	n	Da.	ks	c	ds	n. II.	Σ n. II.	% II.
Liriomyza sp. (mines)	478	0.8600	0.0018	27	1.00	0.0486	0.091	53.49
Bemisia sp.	2333	0.8800	0.0004	32	1.00	0.0121	0.091	13.29
Phaneropterinae	51	0.0206	0.0004	27	0.93	0.0102	0.091	11.21
Tetranychus sp.	709	0.9600	0.0014	6	1.00	0.0081	0.091	8.95
T. collaris	17	0.0069	0.0004	14	0.74	0.0042	0.091	4.61
S. anchoralis	5	0.0020	0.0004	3	1.00	0.0012	0.091	1.33
Charidotis sp.	4	0.0016	0.0004	2	1.00	0.0008	0.091	0.89
Alagoasa sp.	5	0.0020	0.0004	5	0.36	0.0007	0.091	0.80
Cerotoma sp.	4	0.0016	0.0004	4	0.40	0.0006	0.091	0.71
Curculionidae	3	0.0012	0.0004	3	0.44	0.0005	0.091	0.59
Lordops sp.	3	0.0012	0.0004	3	0.44	0.0005	0.091	0.59
Walterianela sp.	2	0.0008	0.0004	1	1.00	0.0004	0.091	0.44
Lepidoptera	2	0.0008	0.0004	2	0.49	0.0004	0.091	0.43
D. speciosa	2	0.0008	0.0004	2	0.49	0.0004	0.091	0.43
Lamprosoma sp.	2	0.0008	0.0004	2	0.49	0.0004	0.091	0.43
Eumolpus sp.	2	0.0008	0.0004	2	0.49	0.0004	0.091	0.43
Epitragus sp.	2	0.0008	0.0004	2	0.49	0.0004	0.091	0.43
Parasyphraea sp.	1	0.0004	0.0004	1	0.53	0.0002	0.091	0.23
Wanderbiltiana sp.	1	0.0004	0.0004	1	0.53	0.0002	0.091	0.23
Gryllidae	1	0.0004	0.0004	1	0.53	0.0002	0.091	0.23
Cephalocoema sp.	1	0.0004	0.0004	1	0.53	0.0002	0.091	0.23
A. reticulatum	11	0.0000	0.0000	2	1.00	0.0000	0.091	0.00
Anastrepha sp.	4	0.0000	0.0000	4	0.40	0.0000	0.091	0.00
B. hebe	10	0.0000	0.0000	7	0.99	0.0000	0.091	0.00
Euxesta sp.	3	0.0000	0.0000	3	0.44	0.0000	0.091	0.00
Fulgoridae	19	0.0000	0.0000	5	1.00	0.0000	0.091	0.00
Nasutitermes sp.	280	0.0000	0.0000	5	1.00	0.0000	0.091	0.00
P. torridus	1	0.0000	0.0000	1	0.53	0.0000	0.091	0.00
Pentatomidae	6	0.0000	0.0000	6	0.32	0.0000	0.091	0.00
Phenacoccus sp.	30	0.0000	0.0000	2	1.00	0.0000	0.091	0.00
Q. gigas	2	0.0000	0.0000	2	0.49	0.0000	0.091	0.00
T. spinipes	5	0.0000	0.0000	1	1.00	0.0000	0.091	0.00
I.I.-P.U. = ks × c × ds. ks = Da./total n of the L.S.. Da. = R² × (1 − P) when it is of the first degree, or (R² × (1 − P)) × (β₂/β₁) when it is of the second degree, where R² = determination coefficient and P = significance of ANOVA, β₁ = regression coefficient, and β₂ = regression coefficient (variable²), of the simple regression equation, or non-percentage of damage per L.S. c = Σ of occurrence of L.S. on each sample, 0 = absence or 1 = presence. ds = 1 − P of chi-square test of the L.S. Da. = 0 when Da. non-significant for damage or non-detected by L.S.

Solution source
SS	n	RLS.	ks	c	ds	n. II.	Σ n. II.	% II.
C. sanguinea	3	0.1231	0.0410	2	0.99	0.08	0.08	98.94
P. termitarius	121	0.0053	0.0000	20	1.00	0.00	0.08	1.06
A. rogersi	4	0.0000	0.0000	4	0.40	0.00	0.08	0.00
A. uncifera	3	0.0000	0.0000	3	0.44	0.00	0.08	0.00
Araneidae	31	0.0000	0.0000	18	1.00	0.00	0.08	0.00
Brachymyrmex sp.	184	0.0000	0.0000	21	1.00	0.00	0.08	0.00
Camponotus sp.	130	0.0000	0.0000	26	1.00	0.00	0.08	0.00
Chrysoperla sp.	3	0.0000	0.0000	2	0.99	0.00	0.08	0.00
Dolichopodidae	9	0.0000	0.0000	6	1.00	0.00	0.08	0.00
Ectatoma sp.	20	0.0000	0.0000	12	1.00	0.00	0.08	0.00
Leucauge sp.	13	0.0000	0.0000	4	1.00	0.00	0.08	0.00
M. religiosa	11	0.0000	0.0000	9	0.75	0.00	0.08	0.00
O. salticus	1	0.0000	0.0000	1	0.53	0.00	0.08	0.00
Oxyopidae	14	0.0000	0.0000	12	0.50	0.00	0.08	0.00
Pheidole sp.	272	0.0000	0.0000	23	1.00	0.00	0.08	0.00
Polybia sp.	6	0.0000	0.0000	4	1.00	0.00	0.08	0.00
Quemedice sp.	3	0.0000	0.0000	3	0.44	0.00	0.08	0.00
Salticidae	13	0.0000	0.0000	9	1.00	0.00	0.08	0.00
Syrphus sp.	2	0.0000	0.0000	2	0.49	0.00	0.08	0.00
T. angustula	2	0.0000	0.0000	1	1.00	0.00	0.08	0.00
Teudis sp.	3	0.0000	0.0000	3	0.44	0.00	0.08	0.00
Tmarus sp.	2	0.0000	0.0000	2	0.49	0.00	0.08	0.00
Uspachus sp.	4	0.0000	0.0000	4	0.40	0.00	0.08	0.00
I.I.-P.U. = ks × c × ds. ks = R.L.S./total n. of the SS.. R.L.S. = R² × (1 − P) when it is of the first degree, or (R² × (1 − P)) × (β₂/β₁) when it is of the second degree, where R² = determination coefficient and P = significance of ANOVA, β₁ = regression coefficient, and β₂ = regression coefficient (variable²), of the simple regression equation. c = Σ of occurrence of S.S. on each sample, 0 = absence or 1 = presence. ds = 1 − P of chi-square test of the SS. When a SS operates in more than one LS, that caused damage, its ks are summed. ES. = 0 when Da. by LS or ES non-significant for damage by LS or reduced LS by SS.

	LS.
% RLSSS - abundance
SS.	Liriomyza sp. (mines)	Bemisia sp.
C. sanguinea	/	0.02
Brachymyrmex sp.	/	−1.18
P. termitarius	0.13	/
Σ	0.13	−1.16
*T.Σ	−1.03	/
% RLSSS - damage
SS.	Bemisia sp.
Brachymyrmex sp.	−61.95
P. termitarius	2.92
Σ	−59.03
/ = L.S. was not reduced per S.S. % R.L.S.S.S. = (R.L.S.S.S./total n of the L.S. – abundance or damage) × 100, where R.L.S.S.S. = R.L.S. × total n of the S.S. R.L.S. = R² × (1 − P) when it is of the first degree, or (R² × (1 − P)) × (β₂/β₁) when it is of the second degree, where R² = determination coefficient and P = significance of ANOVA, β₁ = regression coefficient, and β₂ = regression coefficient (variable²), of the simple regression equation.

Discussion

The phytophagous arthropods, Liriomyza sp., Bemisia sp., Phaneropterinae, Tetranychus sp., T. collaris, and S. anchoralis, demonstrated the highest % I.I.-P.U. on S. saponaria saplings. Liriomyza sp. mines, known to diminish the photosynthetic area in various plants such as Solanum lycopersicon (Solanaceae), Phaseolus vulgaris (Fabaceae), and Terminalia argentea (Combretaceae)^[14−18]. Certain species of Aleyrodidae, exemplified by Bemisia tabaci, are recognized pests inflicting damage on crops including P. vulgaris, Glycine max, Acacia auriculiformis, A. mangium, and Platycyamus regnellii (Fabaceae); Capsicum annuum and S. lycopersicon (Solanaceae); Cucumis melo (Cucurbitaceae); and T. argentea^[10,19−25]. Aleyrodidae, in addition to causing fumagine, are implicated in virus transmission and the introduction of insect toxins^[10,19−25]. Certain species of Tettigoniidae have been documented as causing damage to the fruits of Musa spp. (Musaceae) and the leaves of grasses, A. mangim, A. auriculiformis, and T. argentea^{[10,12,18,26,27]}. Tetranychidae mites, recognized for puncturing the epidermis of leaves, are implicated in G. max, Caryocar brasiliense (Caryocaraceae), S. lycopersicum, and P. vulgaris^[28−33]. T. collaris is known to attack S. saponaria, Casuarina glauca (Casuarinaceae), A. auriculiformis, A. mangium, L. leucocephala, and T. argentea (Combretaceae)^{[12,18,27,34,35]}. Lastly, S. anchoralis has been reported to inflict damage on A. mangium and A. auriculiformis^[10,12,27].

Cycloneda sanguinea and P. termitarius exhibited the highest % I.I.-P.U., thereby diminishing both the numerical abundance and damage caused by Bemisia sp., as well as the population of Liriomyza sp. on S. saponaria saplings. Cycloneda sanguinea, recognized as a significant predator of sap-sucking insects, has demonstrated efficacy in mitigating pest populations on T. argentea saplings in degraded areas and various crops such as Gossypium hirsutum (Malvaceae), Foeniculum vulgare (Apiaceae), and Abelmoschus esculentus (Malvaceae), both in field conditions and laboratory bioassays^[23,36−38]. Tending ants, exemplified by P. termitarius, have been observed to reduce beetle and caterpillar attacks on leaves and fruits^[39−42]. Additionally, Cephalocoema sp. (Orthoptera: Proscopiidae), along with ants, serves as a bioindicator^[10,43]. The potential influence of these predators, particularly those at the apex of the trophic pyramid such as C. sanguinea, in controlling the abundance of herbivores like Bemisia sp. through top-down effects suggests a mechanism that could contribute to the survival of S. saponaria. However, the nuanced relationships between predators and herbivory in commercial crops of S. saponaria warrant further investigation. Contrary to expectations, a negative effect of P. termitarius on Bemisia sp. damage was observed on S. saponaria saplings, defying the anticipated mutualistic relationship between tending ants and sap-sucking insects (Hemiptera)^[44,45]. While Demolin-Leite^[10] did not identify correlations between this tending ant and Aleyrodidae or Aethalion reticulatum (Hemiptera: Aethalionidae) on A. auriculiformis saplings, an increase in the number (≈ 1%) and leaf damage (≈ 62%) caused by Bemisia sp. was noted in relation to the population of Brachymyrmex sp. on S. saponaria saplings, underscoring the complexity of interactions within this ecological system. Further studies are warranted to elucidate the underlying mechanisms governing these relationships. These outcomes can be attributed to the collaborative interactions between tending ants and sap-sucking insects, leading to an exacerbation of the damage inflicted upon these plants. Analogous findings were observed in the context of A. auriculiformis saplings, where the presence of tending ants, specifically Brachymyrmex sp. (e.g., A. reticulatum), and Cephalotes sp. (e.g., Aleyrodidae), resulted in a substantial increase (≈ 95%) in the populations of A. reticulatum and Aleyrodidae, accompanied by a corresponding rise (≈ 30%) in Aleyrodidae-induced damage to this plant^[10]. The detrimental impact of these interactions was reflected in a negative final balance on A. auriculiformis saplings, with a subsequent rise of approximately 57% in herbivorous insect populations within these saplings^[10], mirroring the observed trends in S. saponaria saplings. Particularly at elevated population densities, sap-sucking insects may establish associations with tending ants^[44,45], wherein these ants collectively and aggressively defend their resources, including phytophagous hemipterans^[44]. The lack of a positive effect of tending ants on the biological control of sap-sucking insects may be attributed to mutualistic relationships with these phytophagous insects^[46,47]. In agricultural systems, this dynamic can potentially exacerbate pest-related challenges^[48]. Although Brachymyrmex sp. initially does not pose a significant issue for S. saponaria saplings, the potential for this tending ant species to proliferate and increase sap-sucking insect populations (e.g., Bemisia sp.) exists, particularly under specific conditions such as monoculture, climate, soil variations, and favorable fertilization. This scenario may pose challenges for S. saponaria saplings, especially in the context of prospective commercial crops with monoculture practices.

Liriomyza sp., Bemisia sp., Phaneropterinae, Tetranychus sp., T. collaris, and S. anchoralis, exhibiting the highest % I.I.-P.U. on S. saponaria, pose a potential threat, indicating their capacity to induce losses in crops of this plant. In contrast, C. sanguinea and P. termitarius, characterized by the most substantial % I.I.-P.U., exhibit potential as agents capable of mitigating herbivorous insects on S. saponaria. Furthermore, an anticipated increase in the abundance of ladybeetles, particularly those with major ecological significance, could be expected in future commercial crops of S. saponaria. It is imperative to accord special attention to the association between Brachymyrmex sp. and Bemisia sp. in prospective S. saponaria commercial crops, as this tending ant species has demonstrated an ability to augment the population of the sap-sucking insect. The % I.I.-P.U. emerges as an effective tool for delineating sources of loss and potential solutions in this plant species within systems characterized by production unknown, such as degraded areas. This innovative index holds promise as a valuable tool in the realm of agricultural technology, particularly for monitoring and managing degraded areas.

Author contributions

The author confirms sole responsibility for the following: study conception and design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of results, and manuscript preparation.

Contents

Policies

Services

Partnerships

A preliminary study on the occurrence and significance of phytophagous arthropods and natural enemies on Sapindus saponaria saplings