4.1 Article

Molecular analysis of the gut contents of Harmonia axyridis (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) as a method for detecting intra-guild predation by this species on aphidophagous predators other than coccinellids

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENTOMOLOGY
卷 110, 期 4, 页码 567-576

出版社

CZECH ACAD SCI, INST ENTOMOLOGY
DOI: 10.14411/eje.2013.077

关键词

Coleoptera; Coccinellidae; Harmonia axyridis; Neuroptera; Chrysopidae; Chrysoperla carnea; Diptera; Syrphidae; Episyrphus balteatus; intraguild predation; gut-content analysis

资金

  1. Research Foundation - Flanders (FWO Vlaanderen)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several studies have demonstrated that the invasive ladybird Harmonia axyridis is a strong intra-guild predator of native species of ladybird. Laboratory studies have shown that H. axyridis can be an intra-guild predator of aphid predators other than coccinellids, including the hoverfly Episyrphus balteatus and lacewing Chrysoperla carnea. However, little is known about the effect of intra-guild predation (IGP) by H. axyridis on hoverfly and lacewing populations in the field. In the present study molecular analyses were used to detect the DNA of E. balteatus and C. carnea in the gut contents of H. axyridis. Primers for the syrphid and chrysopid prey were designed and feeding experiments performed to determine how long prey DNA remains detectable in the guts of this ladybird. DNA detection was influenced by the life stage of the predator and species of prey. Meal size did not affect detection time, except when fourth instar individuals of H. axyridis were fed 10 eggs or one second instar of C. carnea. Predator weight, sex and morpho-type (melanic/non-melanic) did not influence DNA detection. The half-life of the time for which the DNA of the prey remained detectable was calculated for each predator-prey combination, and ranged from 8.9 to 52.4 h. This method can be used to study the ecological importance of IGP by H. axyridis on aphidophagous predators other than coccinellids in the field.

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

4.1
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