4.5 Article

Effect of Cardinium Infection on the Probing Behavior of Bemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) MED

期刊

JOURNAL OF INSECT SCIENCE
卷 21, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/jisesa/ieab040

关键词

eletropenetrography; phloem sap ingestion; whitefly; endosymbiont; insect behavior

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31572064]
  2. Taishan Mountain Scholar Constructive Engineering Foundation of Shandong [tsqn20161040]
  3. First-class grassland science discipline program in Shandong Province, China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Facultative endosymbionts can influence the growth, physiology, and behavior of their arthropod hosts. In the invasive whitefly Bemisia tabaci Mediterranean, the facultative endosymbiont Candidatus Cardinium hertigii alters stylet probing behavior, resulting in differences in sustained ingestion of plant phloem. These findings offer insights into the fitness costs of Cardinium-infected B. tabaci.
Facultative endosymbionts can affect the growth, physiology, and behavior of their arthropod hosts.There are several endosymbionts in the invasive whitefly Bemisia tabaci Mediterranean (MED, Q biotype) that influence host fitness by altering stylet probing behavior. We investigated the probing behavior of B. tabaci MED infected with the facultative endosymbiont Candidatus Cardinium hertigii (Cardinium (Sphingobacteriales: Flexibacteraceae)). We generated genetically similar Cardinium-infected (C*(+)) and uninfected (C-) clonal sublines and analyzed the probing behavior of newly emerged adult on cotton (Malvales: Malvaceae), Gossypium hirsutum L., using electropenetrography (EPG). The C- subline demonstrated a longer duration of E2 (2.81-fold) and more events of E2 (2.22-fold) than the C*(+) subline, indicating a greater level of sustained ingestion of plant phloem.These findings provide insight into the fitness costs (fitness of a particular genotype is lower than the average fitness of the population) of the Cardinium-infected B. tabaci.

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

4.5
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