An order-specific monoclonal antibody to Diptera reveals the impact of alternative prey on spider feeding behavior in a complex food web

Harwood, James D.; Bostrom, Mark R.; Hladilek, Erin E.; Wise, David H.; Obrycki, John J.

doi:10.1016/j.biocontrol.2007.02.008

Cited by 40 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…At least two wells of each negative control (of each lady beetle species) were included on each plate, and the standard deviation of this control series was calculated for each beetle species on each plate. A sample was considered positive for fructose if the difference in the optical density of the sample exceeded that of its no-anthrone control difference by a threshold value (specifically, three times the standard deviation of the starved beetle control series for each plate, e.g., Lee et al 2006;Harwood et al 2007).…”

Section: Sampling and Lady Beetle Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sugar feeding by coccinellids under field conditions: the effects of sugar sprays in soybean

Seagraves

Kajita

Weber³

et al. 2010

BioControl

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sucrose was applied weekly throughout the growing season at three US locations (South Dakota [SD], Maryland [MD], and Kentucky [KY]), and coccinellids and aphids (Aphis glycines Matsumura [Hemiptera: Aphididae]) were sampled 24 h later.Total coccinellid densities were 50-77% greater in sugar-sprayed soybean than in untreated plots. Coccinella septempuncata L., Hippodamia convergens Guérin-Méneville, and Harmonia axyridis Pallas were more abundant where sugar was applied. Coleomegilla maculata (DeGeer) was found in equally low numbers in all treatments. Aphid densities were similar in both treatments, and only reached economically threatening levels in SD. Coccinellids digested sugar meals within 1 h of consumption (measured using the cold anthrone test). Despite this narrow window of detection, field-collected coccinellids frequently tested positive for fructose. Under natural conditions, sugar is commonly ingested by coccinellids and sugar sprays increase coccinellid densities and their consumption of sugar. Sugar sprays did not enhance biological control of aphids in this experiment.

show abstract

Section: Sampling and Lady Beetle Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sugar feeding by coccinellids under field conditions: the effects of sugar sprays in soybean

Seagraves

Kajita

Weber³

et al. 2010

BioControl

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…By comparing rates of predation derived from molecular gut-content assays with the observed proportion of the target prey in the field, the hypothesis that generalist predators are capturing prey at random can be tested. Such tests have been carried out but are so far restricted to only a few combinations of predators and prey; linyphiid spiders and Collembolans by Agusti et al (2003), linyphiid spiders and aphids, dipterans, Collembolans (Harwood et al 2004(Harwood et al , 2007, carabid beetles and earthworms by King et al (2010), coccinellid larvae and dipterans (Moser et al 2011), carabid beetles and slugs (Hatteland et al 2011). Therefore, there is a clear need for more data on other taxa.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Under certain conditions, they have the potential to maintain pest populations below economic thresholds and thus provide an important ecosystem service to the agricultural sector acting as biological control agents (Chiverton 1986;Ö stman et al 2001. In addition to specific pests, generalist predators may consume alternative food items including other herbivores, decomposers such as earthworms and Collembola (Juen and Traugott 2007; King et al 2010;Kuusk and Ekbom 2010), Dipterans (Harwood et al 2007), and other natural enemies (Harwood et al 2009). By comparing rates of predation derived from molecular gut-content assays with the observed proportion of the target prey in the field, the hypothesis that generalist predators are capturing prey at random can be tested.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Feeding habits of lycosid spiders in field habitats

Kuusk

Ekbom

2012

J Pest Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Generalist arthropod predators are potential drivers of population dynamics in a wide variety of ecosystems but their feeding habits are often difficult to reveal as they are small, mobile, and live among dense vegetation or in soils. DNA-based gut-content analysis is a powerful tool that enables studies on arthropod predator-prey interactions. We studied lycosid spiders (Pardosa spp.) in agroecosystems to see if they consumed cereal aphids (Rhopalosiphum padi) and Collembolans at random, i.e., in proportion to their abundance in the field. We also tested if consumption of the target prey items was affected by the presence of alternative food. Spiders were captured in farmers' fields and their gut-contents screened by PCR with R. padi and Collembola primers. On all sampling occasions, concurrent assessments of total prey availability were carried out. Spider predation rates on R. padi always exceeded 50 %. Spiders also tested positive for Collembola but to a lower and more varying degree. In general, Pardosa did not consume R. padi and Collembolans in relation to their abundance in the field. Aphid predation was much higher than expected whereas consumption of Collembolans was considerably lower. The presence of alternative prey influenced consumption of the aphid. It was concluded that prey consumption by Pardosa spiders generally cannot be assumed to simply mirror prey availability. The spatial distribution of the target prey needs to be considered as well as the abundance, composition, and nutritional content of potential alternative food items.

show abstract

“…The major advantage of this over other approaches to study predation is that it allows rapid and precise assessment of predation with minimal disturbance to the study site, thus revealing predator's prey choice with little ambiguity (see Sunderland 1988;Luck et al 1988 for reviews). For instance, Harwood et al (2004Harwood et al ( , 2007aHarwood et al ( , 2007b combined predator gut content assays with population monitoring to highlight non-random patterns of prey selection in diVerent communities of generalist predators. Winder et al (2005) used predator gut analysis to investigate populationlevel, spatial associations between carabid beetle predators and their prey.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Contemporary assays of stomach content include monoclonal antibody (mAb)-based, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA), which detect species-speciWc proteins (and sometimes life-stage-speciWc proteins) (Greenstone and Morgan 1989;Hagler et al 1991Hagler et al , 1993Hagler et al , 1994Symondson and Liddell 1996;Greenstone 1996;Fournier et al 2006;Harwood et al 2007a), and polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based assays, which detect species-speciWc DNA (all life stages) (Agustí et al 1999(Agustí et al , 2003Harper et al 2005;de León et al 2006;Harwood et al 2007b). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying the predator complex of Homalodisca vitripennis (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae): a comparative study of the efficacy of an ELISA and PCR gut content assay

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A growing number of ecologists are using molecular gut content assays to qualitatively measure predation. The two most popular gut content assays are immunoassays employing pest-specific monoclonal antibodies (mAb) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays employing pest-specific DNA. Here, we present results from the first study to simultaneously use both methods to identify predators of the glassy winged sharpshooter (GWSS), Homalodisca vitripennis (Germar) (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae). A total of 1,229 arthropod predators, representing 30 taxa, were collected from urban landscapes in central California and assayed first by means of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) using a GWSS egg-specific mAb and then by PCR using a GWSS-specific DNA marker that amplifies a 197-base pair fragment of its cytochrome oxidase gene (subunit I). The gut content analyses revealed that GWSS remains were present in 15.5% of the predators examined, with 18% of the spiders and 11% of the insect predators testing positive. Common spider predators included members of the Salticidae, Clubionidae, Anyphaenidae, Miturgidae, and Corinnidae families. Common insect predators included lacewings (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae), praying mantis (Mantodea: Mantidae), ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), assassin bugs (Hemiptera: Reduviidae), and damsel bugs (Hemiptera: Nabidae). Comparison of the two assays indicated that they were not equally effective at detecting GWSS remains in predator guts. The advantages of combining the attributes of both types of assays to more precisely assess field predation and the pros and cons of each assay for mass-screening predators are discussed.

show abstract

An order-specific monoclonal antibody to Diptera reveals the impact of alternative prey on spider feeding behavior in a complex food web

Cited by 40 publications

References 55 publications

Sugar feeding by coccinellids under field conditions: the effects of sugar sprays in soybean

Sugar feeding by coccinellids under field conditions: the effects of sugar sprays in soybean

Feeding habits of lycosid spiders in field habitats

Identifying the predator complex of Homalodisca vitripennis (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae): a comparative study of the efficacy of an ELISA and PCR gut content assay

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About