Could vectors’ fear of predators reduce the spread of plant diseases?

Tholt, Gergely; Kis, András; Medzihradszky, Anna; Szita, Éva; Tóth, Zoltán; Havelda, Zoltán; Samu, Ferenc

doi:10.1038/s41598-018-27103-y

Cited by 27 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This matches other studies where non‐consumptive effects of predators on reducing wheat dwarf virus prevalence was mediated by reduced aphid feeding in response to predators (Tholt et al. ). Our study shows predators have the strongest effects on pathogens when they suppress vector abundance even if vector movement increases.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Tri‐trophic interactions mediate the spread of a vector‐borne plant pathogen

Clark

Basu

Lee

et al. 2019

Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many insect herbivores are vectors that transmit plant pathogens as they forage. Within food webs, vectors interact with a range of host plants, other herbivores, and predators. Yet, few studies have examined how tri‐trophic interactions involving vectors affect the spread of pathogens. Here we assessed effects of food web structure on aphid vectors and the prevalence of an aphid‐borne persistent pathogen (Pea enation mosaic virus, PEMV) in pea plants. We experimentally manipulated ladybird predators, alternative host plants, and non‐vector herbivores and assessed responses of pea aphids and PEMV using structural equation models. We show that variation in bottom‐up, top‐down, and horizontal interactions mediated PEMV prevalence. Predators reduced PEMV prevalence by consuming aphids, but an alternative host plant (vetch) had the opposite effect by promoting aphid movement and abundance. Non‐vector herbivores (pea leaf weevil) increased PEMV susceptibility in peas. In turn, weevils offset the positive effects of predators on PEMV, but increased the negative effects of vetch. Our results show that tri‐trophic interactions within insect and plant food webs can mediate vector biology with synergistic and opposing effects on pathogens. Continuing to assess how community‐wide interactions affect vectors will aid in our understanding of vector‐borne pathosystems.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Tri‐trophic interactions mediate the spread of a vector‐borne plant pathogen

Clark

Basu

Lee

et al. 2019

Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Direct damage caused by the feeding is negligible; however, P. alienus can cause significant losses in cereals by being the only vector of the Wheat Dwarf Virus (WDV) (Nygren et al, 2015). As WDV is a phloem related circulative, non-propagative virus, its inoculation and transmission depends on the phloem feeding of its vector (Tholt et al, 2018). Since phloem is embedded deep in leaf tissues, and the withdrawal of mouth parts from here requires more time than from more superficial tissues (Tholt et al, 2018; Zhao et al, 2010), phloem feeding makes these vector insects highly vulnerable to predators.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consuming alternative prey does not influence the DNA detectability half-life of pest prey in spider gut contents

Fülöp

Szita

Gerstenbrand

et al. 2019

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundKey natural enemy-pest interactions can be mapped in agricultural food webs by analysing predator gut content for the presence of a focal pest species. For this, PCR-based approaches are the most widely used methods providing the incidence of consumption of a focal pest in field sampled predators. To interpret such data the rate of prey DNA decay in the predators’ gut, described by DNA detectability half-life (t1/2), is needed. DNA decay may depend on the presence of alternative prey in the gut of generalist predators, but this effect has not been investigated in one of the major predatory arthropod groups, spiders.MethodsIn a laboratory feeding experiment, we determined t1/2 of the key cereal pest virus vector leafhopper Psammotettix alienus in the digestive tracts of its natural enemy, the spider Tibellus oblongus. We followed the fate of prey DNA in spiders which received only the focal prey as food, or as an alternative prey treatment they also received a meal of fruit flies after leafhopper consumption. After these feeding treatments, spiders were starved for variable time intervals prior to testing for leafhopper DNA in order to establish t1/2.ResultsWe created a PCR protocol that detects P. alienus DNA in its spider predator. The protocol was further calibrated to the digestion speed of the spider by establishing DNA decay rate. Detectability limit was reached at 14 days, where c. 10% of the animals tested positive. The calculated t1/2 = 5 days value of P. alienus DNA did not differ statistically between the treatment groups which received only the leafhopper prey or which also received fruit fly. The PCR protocol was validated in a field with known P. alienus infestation. In this applicability trial, we showed that 12.5% of field collected spiders were positive for the leafhopper DNA. We conclude that in our model system the presence of alternative prey did not influence the t1/2 estimate of a pest species, which makes laboratory protocols more straightforward for the calibration of future field data.

show abstract

“…Fifty‐four per cent of studies (32 of 59) aimed to assess the strength of pest responses, which is a critical step in the inclusion of enemy‐risk effects in the design and implementation of biocontrol programs. Many of these studies incorporated other aspects relevant to pest management, such as variation in spatial scale (Lee et al ., 2014), ability to transmit plant pathogens (Tholt et al ., 2018), interactions with trap cropping (Lee et al ., 2011) and plant defence (Thaler et al ., 2014). Of the 27 remaining studies, about half documented demographic consequences for pests, and half documented the levels of pest damage.…”

Section: Literature Review Of Biological Control Enemy‐risk Effect Stmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bugs scaring bugs: enemy‐risk effects in biological control systems

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Enemy‐risk effects, often referred to as non‐consumptive effects (NCEs), are an important feature of predator–prey ecology, but their significance has had little impact on the conceptual underpinning or practice of biological control. We provide an overview of enemy‐risk effects in predator–prey interactions, discuss ways in which risk effects may impact biocontrol programs and suggest avenues for further integration of natural enemy ecology and integrated pest management. Enemy‐risk effects can have important influences on different stages of biological control programs, including natural enemy selection, efficacy testing and quantification of non‐target impacts. Enemy‐risk effects can also shape the interactions of biological control with other pest management practices. Biocontrol systems also provide community ecologists with some of the richest examples of behaviourally mediated trophic cascades and demonstrations of how enemy‐risk effects play out among species with no shared evolutionary history, important topics for invasion biology and conservation. We conclude that the longstanding use of ecological theory by biocontrol practitioners should be expanded to incorporate enemy‐risk effects, and that community ecologists will find many opportunities to study enemy‐risk effects in biocontrol settings.

show abstract

Could vectors’ fear of predators reduce the spread of plant diseases?

Cited by 27 publications

References 46 publications

Tri‐trophic interactions mediate the spread of a vector‐borne plant pathogen

Tri‐trophic interactions mediate the spread of a vector‐borne plant pathogen

Consuming alternative prey does not influence the DNA detectability half-life of pest prey in spider gut contents

Bugs scaring bugs: enemy‐risk effects in biological control systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About