4.0 Article

Aphid facultative symbionts reduce survival of the predatory lady beetle Hippodamia convergens

期刊

BMC ECOLOGY
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1472-6785-14-5

关键词

Symbiosis; Mutualism; Symbiont-conferred protection; Serratia symbiotica; Hamiltonella defensa; Pea aphid; Acyrthosiphon pisum; Predation; Defensive mutualism; Protective symbiosis

类别

资金

  1. Emory NIH-IRACDA FIRST program
  2. Emory SIRE program
  3. NSF National Science Foundation [IOS-1025853]
  4. Emory SURE program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Non-essential facultative endosymbionts can provide their hosts with protection from parasites, pathogens, and predators. For example, two facultative bacterial symbionts of the pea aphid (Acyrthosiphon pisum), Serratia symbiotica and Hamiltonella defensa, protect their hosts from parasitism by two species of parasitoid wasp. Previous studies have not explored whether facultative symbionts also play a defensive role against predation in this system. We tested whether feeding on aphids harboring different facultative symbionts affected the fitness of an aphid predator, the lady beetle Hippodamia convergens. Results: While these aphid faculative symbionts did not deter lady beetle feeding, they did decrease survival of lady beetle larvae. Lady beetle larvae fed a diet of aphids with facultative symbionts had significantly reduced survival from egg hatching to pupation and therefore had reduced survival to adult emergence. Additionally, lady beetle adults fed aphids with facultative symbionts were significantly heavier than those fed facultative symbiont-free aphids, though development time was not significantly different. Conclusions: Aphids reproduce clonally and are often found in large groups. Thus, aphid symbionts, by reducing the fitness of the aphid predator H. convergens, may indirectly defend their hosts' clonal descendants against predation. These findings highlight the often far-reaching effects that symbionts can have in ecological systems.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据