Low-Intensity White Light Optimises Development, Reproduction, and Predation of Cryptolaemus montrouzieri on Dactylopius opuntiae: Implications for Mass Rearing and Biological Control
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15377/2409-9813.2026.13.6Keywords:
Cryptolaemus montrouzieri, Age-stage two-sex life table, Light spectrum and intensity, Biological control mass rearing, Dactylopius opuntiae (cactus cochineal)Abstract
Cryptolaemus montrouzieri (Mulsant) is an important predator of Dactylopius opuntiae (Cockerell) and widely used in biological control programs. This study assessed the effects of light color (white, blue, and yellow) and intensity (230–690 lux) on the development, survival, and reproduction of C. montrouzieri under laboratory conditions (25 ± 1 °C, 66 ± 5% RH, 16:8 h light:dark). Pre-adult developmental times were shortest under white (230-350 lux) (35.0 days for females, 34.4-34.5 days for males) and longest under blue-690 lux (females (56.3 days), males (55.6 days)). Pre-adult survival was highest under white-230 lux (0.8) and lowest under yellow-690 lux (0.3), with the highest female proportion (0.4) under white-230 lux. Adult longevity ranged from 92.2 days (white-690 lux) to 197.9 days (blue-690 lux) for females and from 91.2 days (white-690 lux) to 196.4 days (blue-460 lux) for males. Fecundity peaked under white-230 lux (221.4 eggs/female) and was lowest under yellow-690 lux (81.9 eggs/female). Population growth parameters were maximal under white-230 lux (intrinsic rate r = 0.049 d⁻¹; net reproductive rate R0 = 87.4 offspring/female). Predation was highest under white-230 lux (8,926 eggs, 8,739 first-instar nymphs, 7,405 second-instar nymphs, and 349 adult females per individual). Morphometric traits and body weight were highest under white light-230 lux, with adults measuring 5.7 × 3.4 mm and fourth-instar larvae measuring 8.6 × 3.9 mm; body weight was likewise highest under white-230 lux for adults (5.7 mg) and fourth-instar larvae (3.7 mg), compared to 5.3 mg and 3.4 mg, respectively, under blue-690 lux. Overall, low-intensity white light (230–350 lux) optimizes development, survival, reproduction, and predation efficiency of C. montrouzieri, supporting improved mass-rearing and biological control applications.
References
[1] Tobe S, Pratt G. The influence of substrate concentrations on the rate of insect juvenile hormone biosynthesis by corpora allata of the desert locust in vitro. Biochem J. 1974; 144: 107-13. https://doi.org/10.1042/bj1440107
[2] Dudt J, Shure D. The influence of light and nutrients on foliar phenolics and insect herbivory. Ecology. 1994; 75: 86-98. https://doi.org/10.2307/1939385
[3] Omkar, Mishra G, Singh K. Effects of different wavelengths of light on the life attributes of two aphidophagous ladybirds (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Eur J Entomol. 2005; 102: 33-7. https://doi.org/10.14411/eje.2005.005
[4] Huynh MP, Pereira AE, Geisert RW, Vella MG, Coudron TA, Shelby KS, et al. Characterization of thermal and time exposure to improve artificial diet for western corn rootworm larvae. Insects. 2021; 12: 783. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12090783
[5] Parra JRP, Coelho Jr A. Insect rearing techniques for biological control programs, a component of sustainable agriculture in Brazil. Insects. 2022; 13(1): 105. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects13010105
[6] Charvalakis GA, Stavenga DG, Visser ME, Spoelstra K, Hut RA. Intensity and colour of artificial light at night affect insect attraction in a taxon-dependent manner. Insect Conserv Divers. 2025; 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1111/icad.12855
[7] Henneberry T, Clayton T. Time of emergence, mating, sperm movement, and transfer of ejaculatory duct secretory fluid by Heliothis virescens (F.) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) under reversed light-dark cycle laboratory conditions. Ann Entomol Soc Am. 1984; 77: 301-5. https://doi.org/10.1093/aesa/77.3.301
[8] Tan X, Zhao J, Zhang F, Wang S. Light dependency of life traits, reproduction, locomotion, and predation in the polyphagous ladybird Hippodamia variegata. Entomol Exp Appl. 2014; 152(3): 200-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/eea.12217
[9] Pathak S. Effects of different photoperiods and wavelengths of light on the life-history traits of an aphidophagous ladybird, Coelophora saucia (Mulsant). J Appl Entomol. 2006; 130: 45-50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0418.2005.01016.x
[10] Wang S, Tan X-L, Guo X-J, Zhang F. Effect of temperature and photoperiod on the development, reproduction, and predation of the predatory ladybird Cheilomenes sexmaculata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). J Econ Entomol. 2013a; 106: 2621-9. https://doi.org/10.1603/EC13095
[11] Wang S, Tan X, Michaud J, Zhang F. Light intensity and wavelength influence development, reproduction and locomotor activity in the predatory flower bug Orius sauteri (Poppius) (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae). BioControl. 2013b; 58: 667-74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-013-9522-2
[12] Franzmann BA. Hippodamia variegata (Goeze) (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), a predacious ladybird new in Australia. Aust J Entomol. 2002; 41: 375-7. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-6055.2002.00318.x
[13] Kontodimas D, Stathas G. Phenology, fecundity and life table parameters of the predator Hippodamia variegata reared on Dysaphis crataegi. BioControl. 2005; 50: 223-33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-004-0455-7
[14] Lunau K, Wacht S. Innate flower recognition in the hoverfly Eristalis tenax L. Mitt Dt Ges Allg Angew Entomol. 1997; 11: 481-4.
[15] Sakai T, Isono K, Tomaru M, Fukatami A, Oguma Y. Light wavelength dependency of mating activity in the Drosophila melanogaster species subgroup. Genes Genet Syst. 2002; 77: 187-95. https://doi.org/10.1266/ggs.77.187
[16] Mondor EB, Warren JL. Unconditioned and conditioned responses to colour in the predatory coccinellid, Harmonia axyridis (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Eur J Entomol. 2000; 97: 463-7. https://doi.org/10.14411/eje.2000.071
[17] Omkar, Mishra G. Ovipositional orientation of an aphidophagous ladybird beetle, Propylea dissecta (Mulsant). Insect Sci Appl. 2003; 23: 211-9. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742758400023614
[18] Omkar, Mishra G, Srivastava S, Gupta AK. Ovipositional rhythmicity in ladybirds (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae): a laboratory study. Biol Rhythm Res. 2004; 35(4-5): 277-87. https://doi.org/10.1080/09291010400003487
[19] Pervez A, Omkar S. Prey-dependent life attributes of an aphidophagous ladybird beetle, Propylea dissecta (Mulsant). Biocontrol Sci Technol. 2004a; 14: 385-96. https://doi.org/10.1080/09583150410001683547
[20] Pervez A, Omkar, Richmond AS. The influence of age on reproductive performance of a predatory ladybird beetle, Propylea dissecta. J Insect Sci. 2004; 4(22): 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1673/031.004.2201
[21] Danks HV. Insect Dormancy: An Ecological Perspective. Biological Survey of Canada (Terrestrial Arthropods), National Museum of Natural Sciences, Ottawa. 1987; 439 pp.
[22] Muller HJ. Dormanz bei Arthropoden. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Jena, Stuttgart, New York. 1992; 289 pp.
[23] Wang S, Michaud J, Zhang R, Zhang F, Liu S. Seasonal cycles of assortative mating and reproductive behaviour in polymorphic populations of Harmonia axyridis in China. Ecol Entomol. 2009; 34: 483-94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2311.2008.01075.x
[24] Clausen CP. Introduced parasites and predators of arthropod pests and weeds: a world review. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, USA. 1978.
[25] Baskaran RKM, Lakshmi LG, Uthamasamy S. Comparative biology and predatory potential of Australian ladybird beetle (Cryptolaemus montrouzieri) on Planococcus citri and Dactylopius tomentosus. Indian J Agric Sci. 1999; 69: 605-6.
[26] Solangi GS, Lohar MK, Abro GH, Buriro AS. Biology and release of exotic predator Cryptolaemus montrouzieri Mulsant on mealybug Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley at Tandojam. Sarhad J Agric. 2012; 28: 429-35.
[27] Mendel Z, Protasov A, Golan O, Bensimon D, Kolodny O, Suma P. Navigating challenges in the management of Dactylopius opuntiae (Cockerell): Transitioning from 'introduction biological control' to a preemptive strategy of artificial seeding of a natural enemy. Biol Control. 2024; 196: 105582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2024.105582
[28] Torres JB, Giorgi JA. Management of the false carmine cochineal Dactylopius opuntiae (Cockerell): perspective from Pernambuco state, Brazil. Phytoparasitica. 2018; 46(3): 331-40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12600-018-0664-8
[29] Protasov A, Mendel Z, Spodek M, Carvalho CJ. Management of the Opuntia cochineal scale insect, Dactylopius opuntiae (Cockerell) in Israel. Alon Hanotea. 2017; 71: 48-51.
[30] Harbi A, Abbes K, Rahmouni R, Chermiti B. Life table and population growth parameters of Cryptolaemus montrouzieri on Dactylopius opuntiae and Phenacoccus solenopsis: Insights for biological control. Phytoparasitica. 2025; 53(1): 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12600-024-01222-x
[31] El Aalaoui M, Bouharroud R, Sbaghi M, El Bouhssini M, Hilali L, Dari K. First study of the biology of Cryptolaemus montrouzieri and its potential to feed on the mealybug Dactylopius opuntiae (Hemiptera: Dactylopiidae) under laboratory conditions in Morocco. Arch Phytopathol Plant Prot. 2019; 52(13-14): 1112-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/03235408.2019.1691904
[32] Omkar, Mishra G. Preference-performance of a generalist predatory ladybird: a laboratory study. Biol Control. 2005; 34(2): 187-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2005.05.007
[33] Khan HAA, Sayyed AH, Akram W, Razald S, Ali M. Predatory potential of Chrysoperla carnea and Cryptolaemus montrouzieri larvae on different stages of the mealybug, Phenacoccus solenopsis: A threat to cotton in South Asia. J Insect Sci. 2012; 12(1): 147. https://doi.org/10.1673/031.012.14701
[34] Aldama-Aguilera C, Llanderal-Cázares C. Grana cochinilla: comparación de métodos de producción en penca cortada. Agro Ciencia. 2003; 37(1): 11-9.
[35] Seyfollahi F, Esfandiari M, Mossadegh MS, Rasekh A. Life table parameters of the coccinellid Hyperaspis polita, a native predator in Iran, feeding on the invasive mealybug Phenacoccus solenopsis. J Asia-Pac Entomol. 2016; 19(3): 835-840.
[36] Chi HSIN, Liu HSI. Two new methods for the study of insect population ecology. Bull Inst Zool Acad Sin. 1985; 24(2): 225-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aspen.2016.07.008
[37] Chi H. Life-table analysis incorporating both sexes and variable development rates among individuals. Environ Entomol. 1988; 17(1): 26-34. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/17.1.26
[38] Chi H. TWOSEX-MSChart: a computer program for the age-stage, two-sex life table analysis. National Chung Hsing University, Taichung, Taiwan. 2021. Available at: http://140.120.197.173/Ecology/Download/Twosex-MSChart.zip (accessed 5 April 2021).
[39] Goodman D. Optimal life histories, optimal notation, and the value of reproductive value. Am Nat. 1982; 119(6): 803-23. https://doi.org/10.1086/283956
[40] Efron B, Tibshirani RJ. An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman and Hall, New York. 1993; 456 pp. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-4541-9
[41] Nash TR, Chow ES, Law AD, Fu SD, Fuszara E, Bilska A, et al. Daily blue-light exposure shortens lifespan and causes brain neurodegeneration in Drosophila. NPJ Aging Mech Dis. 2019; 5: 8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41514-019-0038-6
[42] Aksit T, Cakmak I, Ozer G. Effect of temperature and photoperiod on development and fecundity of an acarophagous ladybird beetle, Stethorus gilvifrons. Phytoparasitica. 2007; 35: 357-66. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02980698
[43] Hori M, Shibuya K, Sato M, Saito Y. Lethal effects of short-wavelength visible light on insects. Sci Rep. 2014; 4: 7383. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep07383
[44] Shibuya K, Onodera S, Hori M. Toxic wavelength of blue light changes as insects grow. PLoS One. 2018; 13: e0199266. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199266
[45] Stark WS, Walker KD, Eidel JM. Ultraviolet and blue light induced damage to the Drosophila retina: microspectrophotometry and electrophysiology. Curr Eye Res. 1985; 4: 1059-75. https://doi.org/10.3109/02713688509003351
[46] Bahşi ŞÜ, Tunç İ. The response of a southern strain of Orius majusculus (Reuter) (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae) to photoperiod and light intensity: biological effects and diapause induction. Biol Control. 2012; 63: 157-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2012.06.007
[47] Dixon AFG. Insect Predator-Prey Dynamics, Ladybird Beetles and Biological Control. Cambridge University Press, New York. 2000; 257 pp.
[48] Waite M. New strategies to improve the efficiency of the biological control agent, Orius insidiosus (Say), in greenhouse ornamental crops. Department of Environmental Biology, University of Guelph; 2012. http://hdl.handle.net/10214/5080
[49] Külheim C, Agren J, Jansson S. Rapid regulation of light harvesting and plant fitness in the field. Science. 2002; 297: 91-3. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1072359
[50] Massa G, Kim H, Wheeler R, Mitchell C. Plant productivity in response to LED lighting. HortScience. 2008; 43: 1951-6. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.43.7.1951
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Mohamed El-Aalaoui, Mohamed Sbaghi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
All the published articles are licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (CC BY-NC 4.0) which permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the work is properly cited.
