Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T14:01:08.252Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of natural enemies on wing induction in Aphis fabae and Megoura viciae (Hemiptera: Aphididae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 December 2007

G. Kunert ,
K. Schmoock-Ortlepp ,
U. Reissmann ,
S. Creutzburg  and
W.W. Weisser
G. Kunert*
Affiliation:
Institute of Ecology, Friedrich–Schiller University, Jena, Germany Max-Planck-Institute for Chemical Ecology, Hans-Knöll-Str. 8, 07745 Jena, Germany
K. Schmoock-Ortlepp
Affiliation:
Institute of Ecology, Friedrich–Schiller University, Jena, Germany
U. Reissmann
Affiliation:
Institute of Ecology, Friedrich–Schiller University, Jena, Germany
S. Creutzburg
Affiliation:
Institute of Ecology, Friedrich–Schiller University, Jena, Germany
W.W. Weisser
Affiliation:
Institute of Ecology, Friedrich–Schiller University, Jena, Germany
*
*Author for correspondence Fax: +49 3641 571302 E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Previous studies have shown that the aphid species, Aphis fabae Scopoli and Megoura viciae Buckton, do not produce winged offspring in the presence of natural enemies, in contrast to results for the pea aphid (Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris)) and the cotton aphid (Aphis gossypii Glover); but these studies did not involve exposing aphids directly to natural enemies. We exposed colonies of both A. fabae and M. viciae to foraging lacewing (Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens)) larvae and found that the predators did not induce winged morphs among offspring compared to unexposed controls. Colonies of A. fabae responded to an increase in aphid density with increasing winged morph production, while such response was not found for M. viciae. We suggest that different aphid species differ in their susceptibility to natural enemy attack, as well as in their sensitivity to contact.

Keywords

aphid polyphenismpredator–prey interactionChrysoperla carneadensity effects
Type
Research Paper
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 98 , Issue 1 , February 2008 , pp. 59 - 62
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Crawley, M.J. (2002) Statistical Computing. 761 pp. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Dixon, A.F.G. (1998) Aphid Ecology. 300 pp. London, Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Dixon, A.F.G. & Agarwala, B.K. (1999) Ladybird-induced life-history changes in aphids. Proceedings of the Royal Society London Series B 266, 1549–1553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodek, I. & Honěk, A. (1996) Ecology of Coccinellidae. 464 pp. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kawada, K. (1987) Polymorphism and morph determination, pp. 299–314. in Minks, A.K. & Harrewijn, P. Eds Aphids, Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. Vol. A. Amsterdam, Elsevier.Google Scholar
Kunert, G. & Weisser, W.W. (2003) The interplay between density- and trait-mediated effects in predator-prey interactions: a case study in aphid wing polymorphism. Oecologia 135, 304–312.Google Scholar
Kunert, G., Otto, S., Röse, U.S.R., Gershenzon, J. & Weisser, W.W. (2005) Alarm pheromone mediates production of winged dispersal morphs in aphids. Ecology Letters 8, 596–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lees, A.D. (1967) The production of the apterous and alate forms in the aphid Megoura viciae Buckton, with special reference to the role of crowding. Journal of Insect Physiology 13, 289–318.Google Scholar
Mondor, E.B., Rosenheim, J.A. & Addicott, J.F. (2005) Predator-induced transgenerational phenotypic plasticity in the cotton aphid. Oecologia 142, 104–108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nault, L.R., Montgomery, M.E. & Bowers, W.S. (1976) Ant-aphid association – role of aphid alarm pheromone. Science 192, 1349–1351.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
New, T.R. (1988) Neuroptera. pp. 249–258. in Minks, A.K. & Harrewijn, P. Eds Aphids, Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. Vol. B. Amsterdam, Elsevier.Google Scholar
Shaw, M.J.P. (1970) Effects of population density on alienicolae of Aphis fabae Scop. II. The effects of crowding on the expression of migratory urge among alatae in the laboratory. Annals of Applied Biology 65, 197–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sloggett, J.J. & Weisser, W.W. (2002) Parasitoids induce production of the dispersal morph in the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum. Oikos 98, 323–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Venables, W.N., Smith, D.M. & R Development Core Team (2002) An Introduction to R. 156 pp. Bristol, Network Theory Ltd.Google Scholar
Weisser, W.W. (2001) Predation and the evolution of dispersal. pp. 261–280in Woiwod, I.P., Reynolds, D.R. & Thomas, C.D. Eds Insect Movement: Mechanisms and Consequences. Oxon, CABI Publishing.Google Scholar
Weisser, W.W., Braendle, C. & Minoretti, N. (1999) Predator-induced morphological shift in the pea aphid. Proceedings of the Royal Society London Series B 266, 1175–1182.Google Scholar