Differences in acceptability of herb plants and oilseed rape for slugs (A. lusitanicus, A. rufus and D. reticulatum) in food choice tests
More details
Hide details
Institute of Plant Protection – National Research Institute Władysława Węgorka 20, 60-318 Poznań, Poland
Department of Mathematical and Statistical Methods Poznań University of Life Sciences, Wojska Polskiego 28, 60-637 Poznań, Poland
Jan Kozłowski
Institute of Plant Protection – National Research Institute Władysława Węgorka 20, 60-318 Poznań, Poland
Journal of Plant Protection Research 2008;48(4):461–474
The following slug species, Arion lusitanicus, Arion rufus, and Deroceras reticulatum were included in laboratory-based multi-choice food tests consisting of 19 herb plants and oilseed rape. Rates of damage to plants at the growth stage of 2–4 leaves were estimated for each slug species and all tested herb plants using oilseed rape as a reference. The following indices were calculated: acceptability index (A.I.), palatability index (P.I.) and consumption index (C.I.). Based on the obtained results four groups of plants were designated: unacceptable, lowly acceptable, moderately acceptable and highly acceptable. Brassica napus, Ocimum basilicum and Coriandrum sativum were accepted by all three examined slugs while Potentilla anserina and Chamaenerion angustifolium were rejected. The acceptance degree for remaining plants varied according to slug species.
The authors have declared that no conflict of interests exist.
Bailey S.E.R., Wedgewood M.A. 1991. Complementary video and acoustic recordings of foraging by two pest species of slug on non-toxic and molluscicidal baits. Ann. Appl. Biol. 119: 147–153.
Barone M., Frank T. 1999. Effects of plant extracts on the feeding behaviour of the slug Arion lusitanicus. Ann. Appl. Biol. 134: 341–345.
Briner T., Frank T. 1998. The palatability of 78 wildflower strip plants to the slug Arion lusitanicus. Ann. Appl. Biol. 133: 123–133.
Byrne J., Jones P. 1996. Responses to glucosinolate content in oilseed rape varieties by crop pest (Deroceras reticulatum) and non-pest slug species (Limax pseudoflavus). Ann. Appl. Biol. 128: 78–79.
Cates R.G. 1975. The interface between slugs and wild ginger. Some evolutionary aspects. Ecology 56: 391–400.
Clark S.J., Dodds C.J., Henderson I.F., Martin A.P. 1997. A bioassay for screening materials influencing feeding in the field slug Deroceras reticulatum (Müller) (Mollusca, Pulmonata). Ann. Appl. Biol. 130: 379–385.
Cook R.T., Bailey S.E.R., Mccrohan C.R. 1996. Slug preferences for winter wheat cultivars and common agricultural weeds. J. Appl. Ecol. 33: 866–872.
Cook R.T., Bailey S.E.R., Mccrohan C.R. 1997. The potential for common weeds to reduce slug damage to winter wheat: laboratory and field studies. J. Appl. Ecol. 34: 79–87.
Dirzo R. 1980. Experimental studies on slug-plant interactions. I. The acceptability of thirty plant species to the slug Agriolimax caruanae. J. Ecol. 68: 981–998.
Duval D.M. 1971. A note on the acceptability of various weeds as food for Agriolimax reticulatus (Müller). J. Conch. 27: 249–251.
Duval D.M. 1973. A note on the acceptability of various weeds as food for Arion hortensis Férrusac. J. Conch. 28: 37–39.
Frank T. 1998. Slug damage and numbers of the slug pests, Arion lusitanicus and Deroceras reticulatum, in oilseed rape grown beside sown wildflower strips. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 67: 67–78.
Frank T., Friedli J. 1999. Laboratory food choice trials to explore the potential of common weeds to reduce slug feeding on oilseed rape. Biol. Agric. Hortic. 17: 19–29.
Glen D.M., Spaull A.M., Mowat D.J., Green D.B., Jackson A.W. 1993. Crop monitoring to assess the risk of slug damage to winter wheat in the United Kingdom. Ann. Appl. Biol. 122: 161–172.
Grime J.P., Macpherson-Stewart S.F., Dearman R.S. 1968. An investigation of leaf palatability using the snail Cepaea nemoralis L. J. Ecol. 56: 405–420.
Hanley M.E., Fenner M., Edwards P.J. 1995. The effect of seedling age on the likelihood of herbivory by the slug Deroceras reticulatum. Funct. Ecol. 9: 754–759.
Henderson I.F., Parker K.A. 1986. Problems in developing chemical control of slugs. Aspects Appl. Biol. 13: 341–347.
Homeida A.M., Cooke R.G. 1982. Pharmacological aspects of metaldehyde poisoning in mice. J. Veter. Pharmacol. Therap. 5: 77–81.
Jennings T.J., Barkham P.J. 1975. Food of slugs in mixed deciduous woodlands. Oikos 26: 211–221.
Keller M., Kollmann J., Edwards P.J. 1999. Palatability of weeds from different European origins to the slugs Deroceras reticulatum Müller and Arion lusitanicus Mabille. Acta Oecol. 20 (2): 109–118.
Kozłowska M., Kozłowski J. 2002. Miary oceny preferencji pokarmowej ślimaków wobec różnych gatunków roślin. Colloq. Biometr. 32: 287–297.
Kozłowska M., Kozłowski J. 2004. Consumption growth as a measure of comparisons of results from no-choice test and test with multiple choice. J. Plant Protection Res. 44: 251–258.
Kozłowski J. 1999. Ślimaki (Gastropoda: Stylommatophora) – niedoceniane szkodniki roślin uprawnych w Polsce. Post. Nauk Rol. 6: 39–50.
Kozłowski J., Kałuski T. 2004. Preferences of Deroceras reticulatum (Müller), Arion lusitanicus Mabille and Arion rufus (Linnaeus) for various weed and herb species and winter oilseed rape. (II group plants). Folia Malacol. 12 (3): 61–68.
Kozłowski J., Kozłowska M. 2000. Weeds as a supplementary or alternative food for Arion lusitanicus Mabille (Gastropoda: Stylommatophora). J. Conch. 37 (1): 75–79.
Kozłowski J., Kozłowska M. 2002. Assessment of plant damages and intensity of Deroceras reticulatum (Müller) occurrence in winter oilseed rape and winter wheat. J. Plant Protection Res. 42: 229–237.
Kozłowski J., Kozłowska M. 2003. Evaluation of food preferences and tolerance of slugs Deroceras reticulatum, Arion lusitanicus and Arion rufus (I group of plants) with preferences to various herbs. J. Plant Protection Res. 43: 381–392.
Kozłowski J., Kozłowska M. 2004. Food preferences of Deroceras reticulatum, Arion lusitanicus and Arion rufus for various medicinal herbs and oilseed rape. J. Plant Protection Res. 44: 239–250.
Martin T.J., Kelly J.R. 1986. The effects of changing agriculture on slugs as pests of cereals. p. 411–424. In: “Proceedings of the British Crop Protection Conference-Pests and Diseases” 2. BCPC, Farnham, Surrey, UK.
Mesch H. 1996. Was hilft gegen Schnecken im Raps? Top Agrar 8: 52–53.
Moens R., Couvreur R., Cors F. 1992. Influence de la teneur en glucosinolates des variétés de colza d’hiver sur les dégâts de limaces. Bull. Rech. Agron. Gembl. 27: 289–307.
Moens R., Glen D.M. 2002. Agriolimacidae, Arionidae and Milacidae as pests in west European oilseed rape. p. 425–439. In: “Molluscs as Crop Pests” (G.M. Barker, ed.). CABI Publishing, Wallingford UK.
Molgaard P. 1986. Food plant preferences by slugs and snails: a simple method to evaluate the relative palatability of the food plants. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 14: 113–121.
Pallant D. 1972. The food of the grey field slug [(Agriolimax reticulatus (Müller)] in grassland. J. Anim. Ecol. 41: 761–769.
Port C.M., Port G.R. 1986. The biology and behaviour of slugs in relation to crop damage and control. Agr. Zool. Rev. 1: 225–299.
Purves G., Bannon J.W. 1992. Non-target effects of repeated methiocarb slug pellet application on carabid beetle (Coleoptera, Carabidae) activity in winter-sown cereals. Ann. Appl. Biol. 121: 215–223.
Rathcke B. 1985. Slugs as generalist herbivores: Tests of three hypotheses on plant choices. Ecology 66: 828–836.
Spaull A.M., Eldon S. 1990. Is it possible to limit slug damage using choice of winter wheat cultivars? p. 703–708. In: “Proceedings of the Brighton Crop Protection Conference-Pests and Disease” 2. BCPC, Farnham, Surrey, UK.
Webbe G., Lambert J.D.H. 1983. Plants that kill snails and prospects for disease control. Nature 302, p. 754.
Whelan R.J. 1982. Response of slugs to unacceptable food items. J. Appl. Ecol. 19: 79–87.