The effects of host plant species on adult oviposition and larval performance of the aphid predator Aphidoletes aphidimyza

Abstract

1. Although preference-performance relationships in insects are typically studied in a bi-trophic context, it is well known that host plants can affect both the preference and performance of natural enemies of herbivorous insects.2. This study presents evidence from field and laboratory studies that two species of milkweeds, the putatively less defended Asclepias incarnata and the putatively more defended Asclepias syriaca, differentially affect adult oviposition and larval performance in Aphidoletes aphidimyza, an aphid-feeding predatory midge, independent of aphid density.3. Host plant species affected predatory fly larvae abundance by a factor of 50 in the field and a factor of 8 in the laboratory. Larval and adult emergence rates in our laboratory studies provided strong evidence for reduced performance on A. syriaca. Oviposition in choice and no-choice settings provided some evidence for preference for A. incarnata, and a potentially suppressive effect of A. syriaca.4. The results provide limited support for the hypothesis that natural selection can lead to positive correlations between adult oviposition preferences and larval performance upon various food sources, even when predatory insects oviposit onto host plants of their herbivorous prey.5. Preference and performance are not perfectly aligned in this system, however, because ovipositing females do not reject A. syriaca entirely. Potential explanations for mismatches between preference and performance in this system include the neural constraints associated with being a generalist, adaptive time-limited foraging strategies, and unique evolutionary histories of laboratory colonies compared with wild insects.

Diet breadth of the aphid predatorChrysoperla rufilabrisBurmeister (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae)

“…Some aphid species can sequester secondary metabolites from their host plants and thus affect the survival and development of their natural enemies (Helms et al , 2004; Desneux et al , 2009; Erb and Robert, 2016; Mohl et al , 2020; Monticelli et al , 2021). To test this possibility, we evaluated the performance of Chr.…”

“…In fact, A. fabae and R. padi are considered a poor feeding resource to other aphid predators that have been termed 'generalists' such as coccinellid beetles (Rana et al, 2002;Toft, 2005). Some aphid species can sequester secondary metabolites from their host plants and thus affect the survival and development of their natural enemies (Helms et al, 2004;Desneux et al, 2009;Erb and Robert, 2016;Mohl et al, 2020;Monticelli et al, 2021). To test this possibility, we evaluated the performance of Chr.…”

Oviposition selection, prey preference and release strategies enhance the combined aphid control effects of Aphidoletes aphidimyza and Aphidius gifuensis

“…(Hypocreales: Clavicipitaceae) and chooses to lay its eggs where the fungus is absent. Second, there may be differences in honeydew produced by different states of aphids Mohl et al (2020). found that honeydew quality directly affects the health of A. aphidimyza adults or has a repellent effect on their foraging behavior.…”