Hostname: page-component-857557d7f7-9f75d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-24T02:53:01.681Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Consumption of flea beetles (Phyllotreta, Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) by spiders in field habitats detected by molecular analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 April 2014

Barbara Ekbom ,
Anna-Karin Kuusk ,
Gerard Malsher ,
Sandra Åström  and
Anna Cassel-Lundhagen
Barbara Ekbom*
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
Anna-Karin Kuusk
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden Swedish Board of Agriculture, 55182 Jönköping, Sweden
Gerard Malsher
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
Sandra Åström
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden Norwegian Institute for Nature Research – NINA, NO- 7485 Trondheim, Norway
Anna Cassel-Lundhagen
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
*
1 Corresponding author (e-mail: barbara.ekbom@slu.se).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Flea beetles, Phyllotreta Chevrolat (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) species, are often found in oilseed rape (OSR), Brassica napus Linnaeus (Brassicaceae). Among predators in the generalist predator complex present in agricultural fields, wolf spiders (Araneae: Lycosidae) are found on the ground and cobweb spiders (Araneae: Theridiidae) build webs in the foliage. We present group-specific primers developed for five flea beetle species within the genus Phyllotreta and study the incidence of predation of flea beetles by these spider groups using DNA-based gut-content analysis. Wolf spiders of the genus Pardosa Koch and the cobweb spider, Phylloneta impressa (Koch), were collected in three winter OSR fields. Flea beetle densities as well as the occurrence of predators and alternative prey were monitored. In total 19.4% of the collected Pardosa tested positive for flea beetle DNA in the polymerase chain reaction analyses, whereas 10% P. impressa were positive. Pardosa were more likely to be positive for flea beetle DNA when Pardosa activity density was low. Phylloneta impressa were more likely to be positive for flea beetle DNA if they were positive for pollen beetle DNA. Implications of these results for conservation biological control and future studies of food webs in OSR are discussed.

Information

Type
Behaviour & Ecology
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 146 , Issue 6 , December 2014 , pp. 639 - 651
Copyright
© Entomological Society of Canada 2014 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Subject editor: Keith Summerville

References

Birkhofer, K., Gavish-Regev, E., Endlweber, K., Lubin, Y.D., von Berg, K., Wise, D.H., et al. 2008. Cursorial spiders retard initial aphid population growth at low densities in winter wheat. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 98: 249–255.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boreau de Roincé, C., Lavigne, C., Richard, J.-M., Franck, P., Bouvier, J.-C., Garcin, A., et al. 2012. Predation by generalist predators on the codling moth versus a closely-related emerging pest the oriental fruit moth: a molecular analysis. Agricultural and Forest Entomology, 14: 260–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cassel-Lundhagen, A., Öberg, S., Högfeldt, C., and Ekbom, B. 2009. Species-specific primers for predation studies of the pollen beetle, Meligethes aeneus (Coleoptera, Nitidulidae). Molecular Ecology Resources, 9: 1132–1134.Google Scholar
Denno, R.F., Mitter, M.S., Langellotto, G.A., Gratton, C., and Finke, D.L. 2004. Interactions between a hunting spider and a web-builder: consequences of intraguild predation and cannibalism for prey suppression. Ecological Entomology, 29: 566–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dosdall, L.M. and Mason, P.G. 2010. Key pests and parasitoids of oilseed rape or Canola in North America and the importance of parasitoids in integrated management. In Biocontrol-based management of oilseed rape pests. Edited by I.H. Williams. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. Pp. 167–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekbom, B. 2010. Pests and their enemies in spring oilseed rape in Europe and challenges to integrated pest management. In Biocontrol-based management of oilseed rape pests. Edited by I.H. Williams. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. Pp. 151–166.Google Scholar
Folmer, O., Black, M., Hoeh, W., Lutz, R., and Vrijenhoek, R. 1994. DNA primers for amplification of mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I from diverse metazoan invertebrates. Molecular Marine Biology and Biotechnology, 3: 294–299.Google ScholarPubMed
Goujon, M., McWilliam, H., Li, W., Valentin, F., Squizzato, S., Paern, J., et al. 2010. A new bioinformatics analysis tools framework at EMBL-EBI. Nucleic Acids Research, 38: W695–W699. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkq313.Google Scholar
Greenstone, M.H., Szendrei, Z., Payton, M.E., Rowley, D.L., Coudron, T.C., and Weber, D.C. 2010. Choosing natural enemies for conservation biological control: use of the prey detectability half-life to rank key predators of Colorado potato beetle. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 136: 97–107.Google Scholar
Hall, T.A. 1999. BioEdit: a user friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT. Nucleic Acids Symposium Series, 41: 95–98.Google Scholar
Hosmer, D.W. and Lemeshow, S. 2000. Applied logistic regression, 2nd edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York, United States of America.Google Scholar
Hosseini, R., Keller, M.A., Schmidt, O., and Dong-Mei, L. 2011. Design and assessment of primers to detect insect pests of Brassica crops in the gut contents of arthropod predators. Munis Entomology & Zoology, 6: 477–492.Google Scholar
Jarman, S. 2004. Amplicon: software for designing PCR primers on aligned DNA sequences. Bioinformatics, 20: 1644–1645.Google Scholar
Juen, A., Hogendoorn, K., Ma, G., Schmidt, O., and Keller, M.A. 2012. Analysing the diets of invertebrate predators using terminal restriction fragments. Journal of Pest Science, 85: 89–100.Google Scholar
King, R.A., Read, D.S., Traugott, M., and Symondson, W.O.C. 2008. Molecular analysis of predation: a review of best practice for DNA-based approaches. Molecular Ecology, 17: 947–963.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuusk, A.-K. and Ekbom, B. 2010. Lycosid spiders and alternative food: feeding behavior and implications for biological control. Biological Control, 55: 20–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuusk, A.-K. and Ekbom, B. 2012. Feeding habits of lycosid spiders in field habitats. Journal of Pest Science, 85: 253–260.Google Scholar
Lancashire, P.D., Bleiholder, H., van den Boom, T., Langelüdekke, P., Stauss, R., Weber, E., et al. 1991. A uniform decimal code for growth stages of crops and weeds. Annals of Applied Biology, 119: 561–601.Google Scholar
Larkin, M.A., Blackshields, G., Brown, N.P., Chenna, R., McGettigan, P.A., McWilliam, H., et al. 2007. ClustalW and ClustalX version 2. Bioinformatics, 23: 2947–2948.Google Scholar
Ma, J., Li, D., Keller, M., Schmidt, O., and Feng, X. 2005. A DNA marker to identify predation of Plutella xylostella by Nabis kinbergii and Lycosa sp . Journal of Applied Entomology, 129: 330–335.Google Scholar
Öberg, S., Cassel-Lundhagen, A., and Ekbom, B. 2011. Pollen beetles are consumed by ground- and foliage-dwelling spiders in winter oilseed rape. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 138: 256–262.Google Scholar
Quan, X.Y., Wu, L.B., Zhou, Q.P., Yun, Y.L., Peng, Y., and Chen, J. 2011. Identification of predation by spiders on the diamondback moth Plutella xylostella . Bulletin of Insectology, 64: 223–227.Google Scholar
Samu, F., Toft, S., and Kiss, B. 1999. Factors influencing cannibalism in the wolf spider Pardosa agrestis . Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 45: 349–354.Google Scholar
Simon, C., Frati, F., Beckenbach, A., Crespi, B., Liu, H., and Flook, P. 1994. Evolution, weighting, and phylogenetic utility of mitochondrial gene sequences and a compilation of conserved polymerase chain reaction primers. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 87: 651–701.Google Scholar
Symondson, W.O.C. 2012. The molecular revolution: using polymerase chain reaction based methods to explore the role of predators in terrestrial food webs. In Biodiversity and insect pests: key issues for sustainable management. Edited by G.M. Gurr, S.D. Wratten, W.E. Snyder, and D.M.Y. Read. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., West Sussex, United Kingdom. Pp. 166–184.Google Scholar
Tian, J.C., Chen, Y., Li, Z.L., Li, K., Chen, M., Peng, Y.F., et al. 2012. Transgenic Cry 1 Ab Rice does not impact ecological fitness and predation of a generalist spider. PLos One, 7: e35164.Google Scholar
Topping, C.J. and Sunderland, K.D. 1992. Limitations to the use of pitfall traps in ecological studies exemplified by a study of spiders in a field of winter wheat. Journal of Applied Ecology, 29: 485–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toshova, T.B., Csonka, É., Subchev, M.A., and Tóth, M. 2009. The season activity of flea beetles in Bulgaria. Journal of Pest Science, 82: 295–303.Google Scholar
Wagner, J.D. and Wise, D.H. 1996. Cannibalism regulates densities of wolf spiders: evidence from field and laboratory experiments. Ecology, 77: 639–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, D.J., Allen-Williams, L.J., Warrington, S., Ferguson, A.W., and Williams, I.H. 2008. Implications for conservation biocontrol of spatio-temporal relationships between carabid beetles and coleopterous pests in winter oilseed rape. Agricultural and Forest Entomology, 10: 375–387.Google Scholar
Williams, I.H. 2010. The major insect pests of oilseed rape in Europe and their management: an overview. In Biocontrol-based management of oilseed rape pests. Edited by I.H. Williams. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. Pp. 1–33.Google Scholar