Adaptation of Defensive Strategies by the Pea Aphid Mediates Predation Risk from the Predatory Lady Beetle.

Li-Peng Fan, Fang Ouyang, Jian-Wei Su, Feng Ge
Author Information
  1. Li-Peng Fan: State Key Laboratory of Integrated Management of Pest Insects and Rodents, Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beichen West Road, Chaoyang, Beijing, 100101, People's Republic of China.
  2. Fang Ouyang: State Key Laboratory of Integrated Management of Pest Insects and Rodents, Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beichen West Road, Chaoyang, Beijing, 100101, People's Republic of China.
  3. Jian-Wei Su: State Key Laboratory of Integrated Management of Pest Insects and Rodents, Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beichen West Road, Chaoyang, Beijing, 100101, People's Republic of China.
  4. Feng Ge: State Key Laboratory of Integrated Management of Pest Insects and Rodents, Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beichen West Road, Chaoyang, Beijing, 100101, People's Republic of China. gef@ioz.ac.cn.

Abstract

Within a species, individual animals adopt various defensive strategies to resist natural enemies, but the defensive strategies that are adopted in response to variations in predation risk are poorly understood. Here, we assessed consecutive foraging processes on cohorts of two biotypes (green and red) of the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum, by the predatory lady beetle Propylea japonica, to investigate the adaptive mechanism underlying the defensive strategy. We observed the behavioral responses of individuals (continue feeding or escape, i.e., walk away or drop off from initial feeding site), simultaneously quantified the amount of alarm pheromone, (E)-β-farnesene (EβF) released from cohorts using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS), and recorded the foraging times of predators in intervals. The results indicated that: (1) the anti-predator responses differed markedly between biotypes and among the stages of the consecutive foraging processes. (2) Few green cohorts tended to release EβF during the first foraging; those that did released only a low dose that did not increase the number of escapes. However, the amount of EβF rose rapidly following the second foraging process, which caused an intense escape response. In contrast, more red cohorts released greater amounts of EβF, which caused more individuals to escape from their innate feeding sites during the first foraging. During the second foraging, more red individuals tended to escape without releasing EβF in greater quantities. (3) The foraging time was effectively shortened in each biotype cohort that adopted diverse defensive strategies. This study of the defensive strategies of the pea aphid may contribute to understanding the intraspecific differences in aphid defense mechanisms.

Keywords

References

  1. Oecologia. 1998 Jun;115(1-2):287-292 [PMID: 28308464]
  2. J Econ Entomol. 2006 Oct;99(5):1636-40 [PMID: 17066793]
  3. J Chem Ecol. 2013 Jun;39(6):773-82 [PMID: 23686467]
  4. Vitam Horm. 2010;83:215-39 [PMID: 20831948]
  5. Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2012 Mar;42(3):155-63 [PMID: 22178597]
  6. J Anim Ecol. 2015 Jan;84(1):90-101 [PMID: 24942327]
  7. J Chem Ecol. 2008 Sep;34(9):1149-52 [PMID: 18704588]
  8. Naturwissenschaften. 2011 Sep;98(9):731-8 [PMID: 21739131]
  9. PLoS One. 2015 Nov 30;10 (11):e0143728 [PMID: 26618776]
  10. Oecologia. 2014 Nov;176(3):669-76 [PMID: 25234373]
  11. Plant J. 2006 Feb;45(4):540-60 [PMID: 16441348]
  12. J Evol Biol. 2013 Mar;26(3):545-52 [PMID: 23294477]
  13. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 May 5;106(18):7495-500 [PMID: 19380742]
  14. Sci Rep. 2016 Aug 17;6:31552 [PMID: 27530318]
  15. J Insect Sci. 2016 Sep 16;16(1): [PMID: 27638950]
  16. J Chem Ecol. 2011 Oct;37(10):1055-62 [PMID: 21870158]
  17. J Chem Ecol. 2008 Sep;34(9):1146-8 [PMID: 18704587]
  18. Bull Entomol Res. 2011 Dec;101(6):659-66 [PMID: 21205398]
  19. Proc Biol Sci. 2004 Aug 7;271 Suppl 5:S341-3 [PMID: 15504012]
  20. J Chem Ecol. 2004 Apr;30(4):741-55 [PMID: 15260221]
  21. Oecologia. 1998 Jun;115(1-2):245-252 [PMID: 28308458]
  22. Proc Biol Sci. 2006 Nov 22;273(1603):2887-91 [PMID: 17015368]
  23. PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e55900 [PMID: 23409081]
  24. Oecologia. 1990 Jul;83(4):473-478 [PMID: 28313180]
  25. Ecol Entomol. 2014 Apr 1;39(2):263-266 [PMID: 24791058]
  26. Proc Biol Sci. 2005 Sep 7;272(1574):1803-8 [PMID: 16096092]
  27. J Chem Ecol. 2013 Oct;39(10):1254-62 [PMID: 24158268]
  28. Naturwissenschaften. 2005 Feb;92(2):69-72 [PMID: 15586262]
  29. J Integr Plant Biol. 2015 Sep;57(9):770-82 [PMID: 25644472]
  30. J Chem Ecol. 2017 Feb;43(2):164-171 [PMID: 28097605]
  31. Oecologia. 2005 Jan;142(1):104-8 [PMID: 15372226]

Grants

  1. 2017YFD0200400/National Key Research and Development Plan
  2. 31572059/National Nature Science Fund of China

MeSH Term

Animals
Aphids
Coleoptera
Escape Reaction
Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry
Pheromones
Predatory Behavior
Risk
Sesquiterpenes

Chemicals

Pheromones
Sesquiterpenes
beta-farnesene

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0foragingdefensiveEβFstrategiescohortsaphidescaperedindividualsfeedingreleasedadoptedresponseriskconsecutiveprocessesbiotypesgreenpeastrategyresponsesamountpheromoneE-β-farnesenetendedfirstsecondcausedgreaterDefensivePeaPredationWithinspeciesindividualanimalsadoptvariousresistnaturalenemiesvariationspredationpoorlyunderstoodassessedtwoAcyrthosiphonpisumpredatoryladybeetlePropyleajaponicainvestigateadaptivemechanismunderlyingobservedbehavioralcontinueiewalkawaydropinitialsitesimultaneouslyquantifiedalarmusinggaschromatography-massspectrometryGC-MSrecordedtimespredatorsintervalsresultsindicatedthat:1anti-predatordifferedmarkedlyamongstages2releaselowdoseincreasenumberescapesHoweverroserapidlyfollowingprocessintensecontrastamountsinnatesiteswithoutreleasingquantities3timeeffectivelyshortenedbiotypecohortdiversestudymaycontributeunderstandingintraspecificdifferencesdefensemechanismsAdaptationStrategiesAphidMediatesRiskPredatoryLadyBeetleAlarmNaturalenemy

Similar Articles

Cited By