Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Modeling reproductive fitness of predator, Hippodamia variegata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) using support vector machine (SVM) on three nitrogen treatments

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Neural Computing and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Protein and carbohydrate content in the diet of the predator Hippodamia variegata Goeze (variegated ladybug) directly influences reproduction fitness by affecting foraging efficiency. The effect of three varied qualities of Aphis gossypii Glover (cotton aphid) prey on daily H. variegata feeding and daily egg production (DEP) were estimated using the support vector machine (SVM). The SVM can predict predator reproductive behavior as a function of the relationship between foraging and prey nutritional composition. We used the total number and weight of aphids consumed, volume of protein, lipid, carbohydrate, and glycogen, and total energy received by the ladybug after feeding on one prey item as input variables. Aphid quality varied as nitrogen (N) fertilization levels were 110, 160, and 210 ppm on the Cucumis sativus L. (cucumber) host plants. The model estimated female beetles consumed more aphids and nutrients on C. sativus plants with N levels of 160 ppm compared to lower (110 ppm) N levels and had higher reproductive transformation efficiencies. Transformation rates of aphid feeding to egg production in females exposed to the 160 ppm treatment were 65% greater, had lower nutrient and energy requirements, and achieved a 29.4% higher DEP than those exposed to high (210 ppm) N levels. The SVM predicted nutrient compositions of A. gossypii exposed to 160 ppm N were balanced such that H. variegata exhibited greater reproduction efficiency than the other N treatments for first 30 d from the start of reproduction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

ANN:

Artificial neural network

Avg:

Average

Carb:

Carbohydrate

Const:

Constant

DEP:

Daily egg production, \(\hat{y}\)

GA:

Genetic algorithm

Gly:

Glycogen

Lip:

Lipid

MAPE:

Mean absolute percent error

N:

Nitrogen

P:

Protein

Poly:

Polynomial

Q p :

Number aphids consumed/eggs produced

R 2 :

Coefficient of determination

R:

Reproduction

RBF:

Radial basis function

RMSE:

Root mean squared error

TC:

Total daily aphid consumption

TE:

Total energy

SVM:

Support vector machine

V :

Variance

TCw:

Consumed aphid weight

References

  1. Obrycki JJ, Orr CJ (1990) Suitability of three prey species for nearctic populations of Coccinella septempunctata, Hippodamia variegata, and Propylea quatuordecimpunctata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). J Econ Entomol 83:1292–1297

    Google Scholar 

  2. Michaud JP (2000) Development and reproduction of ladybeetles (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) on the citrus aphids Aphis spiraecola Patch and Toxoptera citricida (Kirkaldy) (Homoptera: Aphididae). Biol Control 18:287–297

    Google Scholar 

  3. Schmidt JM et al (2012) The nutritional content of prey affects the foraging of a generalist arthropod predator. PLoS ONE 7:e49223

    Google Scholar 

  4. Jensen K et al (2012) Optimal foraging for specific nutrients in predatory beetles. Proc R Soc B 279:2212–2218

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hosseini A et al (2019) Life history responses of Hippodamia variegata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) to changes in the nutritional content of its prey, Aphis gossypii (Hemiptera: Aphididae), mediated by nitrogen fertilization. Biol Control 130:27–33

    Google Scholar 

  6. Dmitriew C, Rowe L (2011) The effects of larval nutrition on reproductive performance in a food-limited adult environment. PLoS ONE 6(3):e17399

    Google Scholar 

  7. Lee KP, Simpson SJ, Clissold FJ, Brooks R, Ballard JW, Taylor PW et al (2008) Lifespan and reproduction in Drosophila: new insights from nutritional geometry. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:2498–2503

    Google Scholar 

  8. Carey J et al (2003) Life history response of Mediterranean fruit flies to dietary restriction. Aging Cell 1:140–148

    Google Scholar 

  9. Jensen K et al (2015) Sex-specific effects of protein and carbohydrate intake on reproduction but not lifespan in Drosophila melanogaster. Aging Cell 14:605–615

    Google Scholar 

  10. Tu M-P, Tatar M (2003) Juvenile diet restriction and the aging and reproduction of adult Drosophila melanogaster. Aging Cell 2(6):327–333

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kouloussis NA et al (2017) Age related assessment of sugar and protein intake of Ceratitis capitata in ad libitum conditions and modeling its relation to reproduction. Front Physiol 8:271

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hunt J et al (2004) High-quality male field crickets invest heavily in sexual display but die young. Lett Nat 432:1024–1027

    Google Scholar 

  13. Maklakov AA et al (2008) Sex-specific fitness effects of nutrient intake on reproduction and lifespan. Curr Biol 18:1062–1066

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kessler A (1971) Relation between egg production and food consumption in species of the genus Pardosa (Lycosidae, Araneae) under experimental conditions of food-abundance and food-shortage. Oecologia 8(1):93–109

    Google Scholar 

  15. Toft S, Li D, Mayntz D (2010) A specialized araneophagic predator’s short-term nutrient utilization depends on the macronutrient content of prey rather than on prey taxonomic affiliation. Physiol Entomol 35(4):317–327

    Google Scholar 

  16. Wilder SM, Rypstra AL (2008) Diet quality affects mating behaviour and egg production in a wolf spider. Anim Behav 76:438–444

    Google Scholar 

  17. Jensen K et al (2011) Nutrient regulation in a predator, the wolf spider Pardosa prativaga. Anim Behav 81:993–999

    Google Scholar 

  18. Chen Y, Olson DM, Ruberson JR (2010) Effects of nitrogen fertilization on tritrophic interactions. Arthropod Plant Interact 4:81–94

    Google Scholar 

  19. Aqueel MA, Leather SR (2011) Effect of nitrogen fertilizer on the growth and survival of Rhopalosiphum padi (L.) and Sitobion avenae (F.) (Homoptera: Aphididae) on different wheat cultivars. Crop Prot 30(2):216–221

    Google Scholar 

  20. Aqueel MA, Leather SR (2012) Nitrogen fertiliser affects the functional response and prey consumption of Harmonia axyridis (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) feeding on cereal aphids. Ann Appl Biol 160:6–15

    Google Scholar 

  21. Couture JJ, Servi JS, Lindroth RL (2010) Increased nitrogen availability influences predator–prey interactions by altering host-plant quality. Chemoecology 20:277–284

    Google Scholar 

  22. Han P et al (2015) Effect of plant nitrogen and water status on the foraging behavior and fitness of an omnivorous arthropod. Ecol Evol 5:5468–5477

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. Hosseini A et al (2018) Nitrogen fertilization increases the nutritional quality of Aphis gossypiim (Hemiptera: Aphididae) as prey for Hippodamia variegata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) and alters predator foraging behavior. J Econ Entomol 111:2059–2068

    Google Scholar 

  24. Michaud JP (2005) On the assessment of prey suitability in aphidophagous Coccinellidae. Eur J Entomol 102:385–390

    Google Scholar 

  25. Aqueel MA et al (2013) Effect of plant nutrition on aphid size, prey consumption, and life history characteristics of green lacewing. Insect Sci 21:74–82

    Google Scholar 

  26. De Clercq P, Mohaghegh J, Tirry L (2000) Effect of host plant on the functional response of the predator Podisus nigrispinus (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae). Biol Control 18:65–70

    Google Scholar 

  27. Wu ZH, Zhou ZR, Pang BP (2010) Influence of five host plants of Aphis gossypii Glover on some population parameters of Hippodamia variegata (Goeze). J Pest Sci 83:77–83

    Google Scholar 

  28. Chen Y (2008) Support vector machines and fuzzy systems. In: Maimon O, Rokach L (eds) Soft computing for knowledge discovery and data mining. Springer, Boston, pp 205–223

    Google Scholar 

  29. Zadeh LA (1993) Fuzzy logic, neural networks and soft computing. In: Natke HG, Tomlinson GR, Yao JTP (eds) Safety evaluation based on identification approaches related to time-variant and nonlinear structures. Vieweg+Teubner Verlag, Wiesbaden, pp 320–321

    Google Scholar 

  30. Rohani A, Mamarabadi M (2018) Free alignment classification of dikarya fungi using some machine learning methods. Neural Comput Appl 1–22

  31. Vapnik V (1995) The nature of statistical learning theory. Springer-Verlag, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Sadeghi R et al (2012) Use of support vector machines (SVMs) to predict distribution of an invasive water fern Azolla filiculoides (Lam.) in Anzali wetland, southern Caspian Sea, Iran. Ecol Model 244:117–126

    Google Scholar 

  33. Honěk A (1985) Habitat preferences of aphidophagous coccinellids [Coleoptera]. Entomophaga 30:253–264

    Google Scholar 

  34. Farhadi R, Allahyari H, Juliano SA (2010) Functional response of larval and adult stages of Hippodamia variegata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) to different densities of Aphis fabae (Hemiptera: Aphididae). Environ Entomol 39:1586–1592

    Google Scholar 

  35. Madadi H et al (2011) Assessment of the biological control capability of Hippodamia varigata (Col: Coccinellidae) using functional response experiments. J Pest Sci 84:447–455

    Google Scholar 

  36. Skouras PJ et al (2015) Development, growth, feeding and reproduction of Ceratomegilla undecimnotata, Hippodamia variegata and Coccinella septempunctata fed on the tobacco aphid, Myzus persicae nicotianae. Phytoparasitica 43:159–169

    Google Scholar 

  37. Holland JH (1975) Adaption in natural and artificial system. The MIT Press, Massachusetts

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. Raikar RV et al (2016) Prediction of contraction scour using ANN and GA. Flow Meas Instrum 50:26–34

    Google Scholar 

  39. Gholipoor M, Rohani A, Torani S (2013) Optimization of traits to increasing barley grain yield using an artificial neural network. Int J Plant Prod 7:1–18

    Google Scholar 

  40. Esmaeilpour-Troujeni M, Rohani A, Khojastehpour M (2021) Optimization of rapeseed production using exergy analysis methodology. Sustain Energy Technol Assess 43:100959

    Google Scholar 

  41. Rahimi M, Abbaspour-Fard MH, Rohani A (2021) Machine learning approaches to rediscovery and optimization of hydrogen storage on porous bio-derived carbon. J Clean Prod 329:129714

    Google Scholar 

  42. Rahimi M, Pourramezan M-R, Rohani A (2022) Modeling and classifying the in-operando effects of wear and metal contaminations of lubricating oil on diesel engine: a machine learning approach. Expert Syst Appl 203:117494

    Google Scholar 

  43. McCall J (2005) Genetic algorithms for modelling and optimisation. J Comput Appl Math 184:205–222

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Inc SI (2004) SAS/STAT user’s guide, version 9.1, vols 1 and 2. SAS Institute Inc., Cary

  45. Simpson SJ, Raubenheimer D (2005) Obesity: the protein leverage hypothesis. Obes Rev 6(2):133–142

    Google Scholar 

  46. Martinez-Cordero C et al (2012) Testing the protein leverage hypothesis in a free-living human population. Appetite 59:312–315

    Google Scholar 

  47. Jensen K et al (2013) Balancing of specific nutrients and subsequent growth and body composition in the slug Arion lusitanicus. Physiol Behav 122:84–92

    Google Scholar 

  48. Ruohonen K, Simpson S, Raubenheimer D (2007) A new approach to diet optimisation: a re-analysis using European whitefish (Coregonus lavaretus). Aquaculture 267:147–156

    Google Scholar 

  49. Raubenheimer D, Simpson SJ, Mayntz D (2009) Nutrition, ecology and nutritional ecology: toward an integrated framework. Funct Ecol 23(1):4–16

    Google Scholar 

  50. Brown HD (1974) Defensive behaviour of the wheat aphid, Schizaphis graminum (Rondani) (Hemiptera: Aphididae), against Coccinellidae. J Entomol Ser A Gen Entomol 48(2):157–165

    Google Scholar 

  51. Wu G-M et al (2010) Altruistic defence behaviours in aphids. BMC Evol Biol 10(1):19

    Google Scholar 

  52. Glendinning JI (2007) How do predators cope with chemically defended foods? Biol Bull 213(3):252–266

    Google Scholar 

  53. Rafter JL et al (2017) Impact of consuming ‘toxic’ monarch caterpillars on adult Chinese mantid mass gain and fecundity. Insects 8(1):23

    Google Scholar 

  54. Skelhorn J, Rowe C (2007) Predators’ toxin burdens influence their strategic decisions to eat toxic prey. Curr Biol 17(17):1479–1483

    Google Scholar 

  55. Barrett ELB et al (2009) Separate and combined effects of nutrition during juvenile and sexual development on female life-history trajectories: the thrifty phenotype in a cockroach. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 276(1671):3257–3264

    Google Scholar 

  56. Plesnar-Bielak A et al (2017) Larval and adult nutrition effects on reproductive traits in the red flour beetle. J Zool 302(2):79–87

    Google Scholar 

  57. Aguila JR, Hoshizaki DK, Gibbs AG (2012) Contribution of larval nutrition to adult reproduction in Drosophila melanogaster. J Exp Biol 216:399–406

    Google Scholar 

  58. Bressendorff B, Toft S (2011) Dome-shaped functional response induced by nutrient imbalance of prey. Biol Lett 7:517–520

    Google Scholar 

  59. Hunt J, Brooks R, Jennions MD (2005) Female mate choice as a condition-dependent life-history trait. Am Nat 166:79–92

    Google Scholar 

  60. Mueller P, Diamond J (2001) Metabolic rate and environmental productivity: well-provisioned animals evolved to run and idle fast. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:12550–12554

    Google Scholar 

  61. Forsman A (1996) Body size and net energy gain in gape-limited predators: a model. J Herpetol 30:307–319

    Google Scholar 

  62. Koemel NA, Barnes CL, Wilder SM (2019) Metabolic and behavioral responses of predators to prey nutrient content. J Insect Physiol 116:25–31

    Google Scholar 

  63. Jensen K et al (2010) Metabolic consequences of feeding and fasting on nutritionally different diets in the wolf spider Pardosa prativaga. J Insect Physiol 56(9):1095–1100

    Google Scholar 

  64. Hall DG (2001) Notes on the yellow sugarcane aphid Sipha flava (Homoptera: Aphididae) and the lady beetle Diomus terminatus (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) in Florida. J Am Soc Sugar Cane Technol 21:21–29

    Google Scholar 

  65. van Lenteren JC (2003) Need for quality control of mass-produced biological control agents. In: van Lenteren JC (ed) Quality control and production of biological control agents: theory and testing procedures. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, pp 1–18

    Google Scholar 

  66. Simpson SJ, Raubenheimer D (1995) The geometric analysis of feeding and nutrition: a user’s guide. J Insect Physiol 41(7):545–553

    Google Scholar 

  67. Mayntz D et al (2009) Balancing of protein and lipid intake by a mammalian carnivore, the mink, Mustela vison. Anim Behav 77(2):349–355

    Google Scholar 

  68. Raubenheimer D et al (2007) Nutrient-specific compensation following diapause in a predator: implications for intraguild predation. Ecology 88:2598–2608

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the Ferdowsi University of Mashhad for Grant No. P3/33503 which provided financial support for this research. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Plant Protection, College of Agriculture, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

    Afsane Hosseini & Mojtaba Hosseini

  2. Department of Biosystems Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

    Abbas Rohani

  3. USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Hardwood Tree Improvement and Regeneration Center (HTIRC), PFEN226C, Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue University, 715 West State Street, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA

    Shaneka Lawson

Authors
  1. Afsane Hosseini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mojtaba Hosseini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Abbas Rohani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shaneka Lawson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abbas Rohani.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have declared no conflicts of interest for this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hosseini, A., Hosseini, M., Rohani, A. et al. Modeling reproductive fitness of predator, Hippodamia variegata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) using support vector machine (SVM) on three nitrogen treatments. Neural Comput & Applic 35, 24333–24346 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-023-09020-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-023-09020-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation