Mutualistic interaction of aphids and ants in pepper, Capsicum annuum and Capsicum frutenscens (Solanaceae)

Abstract

Introduction: Adequate biological identification is fundamental for establishing integrated pest management programs and identifying the trophic and mutualist relationships that can affect pest population dynamics. Aphids are the main pest of pepper Capsicum spp. (Solanaceae) crops in Southwestern Colombia, due to their role as vectors of viruses. However, the identification of aphid species is complex, limiting the investigations performed to address their interactions with other organisms. Ants and aphids present a facultative mutualistic relationship, that promotes the growth of hemipteran colonies, for this reason, the study of the ecological mutualistic association between aphids and ants is important. Objective: The main objective was to discriminate the aphid species present in commercial crops of Capsicum spp., and to identify the ant community that attends the aphid colonies and its effects on the size of the aphid colonies. Methods: Aphid species, and their ant mutualist, were collected from Capsicum annuum and Capsicum frutescens, in the Cauca valley, Southwestern Colombia. We use the DNA barcoding approach to identify aphid species, and the ants were identified by morphology‐based taxonomy. To evaluate the effect of ant care on the size and structure of aphid colonies, generalized linear models were calculated using as the response variables the total number of aphids for each colony and the proportion of nymphs. Results: The aphid species that attack pepper crops, are: Aphis gossypii and Myzus persicae (Hemiptera: Aphididae), with A. gossypii being the species that interacts with ants (19 ant species). A. gossypii colonies attended by ants had larger sizes and more nymphs per colony, than those not attended. Conclusions: Although the aphid-ant interaction is not species-specific, it is necessary to consider its role in the propagation of viral diseases in peppers and to determine how this interaction may affect regional biological control strategies.

Aphidophagous predators in commercial Capsicum cultivars and characterization of their trophic network using stomach content analysis

“…In our case, A. gossypii represented about 25% of the DNA reads characterized in the stomach contents of adult Coccinellidae predators, while M. persicae represented less than 3%. The high percentage of A. gossypii readings may be due to the recent consumption of aphids of this species and its high availability in the crop area where the adult predator was collected; in a study by Duque‐Gamboa et al (2021), almost 97% of the aphids sampled in Capsicum crops ( C. annuum and C. frutescens ) located in south‐western Colombia were identified as A. gossypii , while M. persicae represented less than 3%. Similarly, when analysing the stomach contents of larval predators, both Coccinellidae and Syrphidae, A. gossypii was the prey that represented the highest proportion of DNA reads, around 50% in each case.…”

“…These prey, predated by the larval stages of H. convergens , C. sanguinea and P. clavatus , correspond to species associated with the cultivated area or its immediate surroundings, due to the limited displacement capacity of the larvae of these species. The high percentage of A. gossypii DNA readings in the stomach contents can be attributed to the consumption of a large number of individuals or to the recent consumption of A. gossypii specimens since it is the most abundant aphid in the crop (Duque‐Gamboa et al, 2021) and a generalist predator takes advantage of this abundant resource.…”

“…The diet of the larvae of H. converges and C. sanguinea was significantly different from that of their adult stages. The larvae had a less extensive prey repertoire than that of their adult counterparts, whose prey are often sampled as part of the entomofauna of the chilli farming system (Duque-Gamboa et al, 2021;Quijano, 2017). Among these prey, the aphids that attack Capsicum stage (Golizadeh & Jafari-Behi, 2012;Obrycki & Tauber, 1982;Wipperfürth et al, 1987;Zarpas et al, 2007).…”