A protein‐based approach to mark arthropods for mark‐capture type research

Abstract

A series of studies was conducted to test methods for marking a wide variety of arthropods with inexpensive proteins for mark-capture dispersal research. The markers tested included egg albumin protein in chicken egg whites and casein protein in bovine milk. The first study qualified the effectiveness of the two marks on more than 50 arthropod species inhabiting cotton via two application procedures. The application methods included: (1) a topical plus residue protein application, and (2) a residue-only protein application. Both protein marks, regardless of the method of application, were readily retained on the arthropod assemblage over the duration of the study. The second study determined how rapidly insects acquire chicken egg albumin protein after contact exposure to cotton tissue sprayed with an egg whites solution. Under laboratory conditions, the vast majority of adult Hippodamia convergens Guérin-Méneville (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) and Lygus hesperus Knight (Heteroptera: Miridae) acquired the mark after 5 min, and immature Trichoplusia ni (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) acquired the marker after 40 min. The third study determined how rapidly H. convergens and L. hesperus acquire bovine casein protein after contact exposure to either alfalfa, Medicago sativa L. (Fabaceae), or lesquerella, Lesquerella fendleri (Watson) (Brassicaceae), plants sprayed with a bovine milk solution. These insects rapidly acquired the casein mark from the plant residue under field conditions. A final study determined how long H. convergens retain casein protein after 24-h exposure to alfalfa and lesquerella plants containing a 7-day-old residue of bovine milk. Approximately 95% of the H. convergens maintained the casein mark for 2 days after removal from each type of plant.

Plant Water Stress Effects on the Net Dispersal Rate of the Insect Vector <I>Homalodisca vitripennis</I> (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae) and Movement of Its Egg Parasitoid, <I>Gonatocerus ashmeadi</I> (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae)

“…Because the cuticle is shed during molting, nymphs lose the marker between instars. However, because individuals can reacquire the marker from the plant (Hagler and Jones 2010), and plants were sprayed at 30-d intervals, it is unlikely that molting had a signiÞcant contribution to the overall number of nonmarked individuals.…”

“…A buffer zone of two rows between plots was used to avoid marker drift to adjacent plots. Although insects can acquire the protein markers via direct contact with sprays and residual contact by walking on the surface of a treated plant part, the goal was to mark as many individuals as possible topically as they were resting on the plant (Hagler and Jones 2010). To minimize insect disturbance, markers were applied during the early morning periods (5:30 Ð 8:30 a.m.) when H. vitripennis were less active.…”

“…QuantiÞcation of movement of H. vitripennis and G. ashmeadi was achieved through the combination of a markÐ capture technique by using multiple immunomarkers (Hagler and Jones 2010) and manipulation of irrigation levels in the orchard thereby inducing movement of marked H. vitripennis individuals within the spatially heterogeneous habitat. To our knowledge, the study reported herein is the Þrst on quantitative population change of a winged arthropod under Þeld conditions by using the numbers of individuals entering and leaving patches.…”

Use of a Highly Sensitive Immunomarking System to Characterize Face Fly (Diptera: Muscidae) Dispersal From Cow Pats

“…Previous markÐre-leaseÐrecapture work with insects of medical and veterinary concern has almost exclusively used ßuores-cent powders (Reisen and Lothrop 1995, Walton et al 1999, La Corte Dos Santos et al 2004, Maciel-deFreitas et al 2007, Casanova et al 2009). However, the development of immunomarking procedures offers a potential new method for studies in medical and veterinary environments (Jones et al 2006, Hagler and Jones 2010, Jones et al 2011. These new markers are cost-effective, highly sensitive, well suited to markÐ capture studies, and improve information on the potential impact of insect pest dispersal (Cameron et al 2009).…”

Administering and Detecting Protein Marks on Arthropods for Dispersal Research

“…Specifically, they showed that different water sources, additives (surfactants), and even the type of ELISA plate used affected (either positively or negatively) the assay. Moreover, that study and subsequent studies 37,39,40 showed that the three protein mark detection assays vary in efficacy. The egg white marker was retained longer than the milk marker, which was retained longer than soy milk marker.…”