Find research datasets worth reusing

opennotspecifiedOct 2020View details →

FIGURES 7–10 in Thysanoptera host-plant associations, with an account of species living on Tamarix, and a new species of Lissothrips (Phlaeothripidae)

FIGURES 7–10. Lissothrips hemingi sp.n.: (7) Abdominal tergites IV-VII (male); (8) Prostenum; (9) Head and fore leg (female); (10) Abdominal tergites IX and tube (female).

opencc-zeroOct 2019View details →

Angiosperm to Gymnosperm host-plant switch entails shifts in microbiota of the Welwitschia bug, Probergrothius angolensis (Distant, 1902)

Adaptation of herbivorous insects to new host plants is key to their evolutionary success in diverse environments. Many insects are associated with mutualistic gut bacteria that contribute to the host's nutrition and can thereby facilitate dietary switching in polyphagous insects. However, how gut microbial communities differ between populations of the same species that feed on different host plants remains poorly understood. Most species of Pyrrhocoridae (Hemiptera: Heteroptera) are specialist seed-feeders on plants in the family Malvaceae, however populations of one species, Probergrothius angolensis, has switched to the very distantly related Welwitschia mirabilis plant in the Namib Desert. We first compared development and survival of laboratory populations of Pr. angolensis with two other pyrrhocorids on seeds of Welwitschia and found only Pr. angolensis capable of successfully completing its development. We then collected Pr. angolensis in Namibia from Malvaceae and Welwitschia host plants, respectively, to assess their bacterial and fungal community profiles using high-throughput amplicon sequencing. Comparison with long-term lab reared insects indicated stable associations of Pr. angolensis with core bacteria (Commensalibacter, Enterococcus, Bartonella, and Klebsiella), but not fungi or yeasts. Phylogenetic analyses of core bacteria revealed relationships to other insect-associated bacteria, but also found new taxa indicating potential host-specialized nutritional roles. Importantly, the microbial community profiles of bugs feeding on Welwitschia vs. Malvaceae revealed stark and consistent differences in the relative abundance of core bacterial taxa that correlate with the host-plant switch; a result we were able to recreate through feeding experiments. Thus, a dynamic gut microbiota may provide a means for insect adaptation to new host plants in new environments when food plants are extremely divergent.

opencc-zeroDec 2011View details →

Data from: Bottom-up effects of host-plant species diversity and top-down effects of ants interactively increase plant performance

While plant diversity is well known to increase primary productivity, whether these bottom-up effects are enhanced by reciprocal top-down effects from the third trophic level is unknown. We studied whether pine tree species diversity, aphid-tending ants and their interaction determined plant performance and arthropod community structure. Plant diversity had a positive effect on aphids, but only in the presence of mutualistic ants, leading to threefold greater number of both groups in the tri-specific cultures than in monocultures. Plant diversity increased ant abundance not only by increasing aphid number, but also by increasing ant recruitment per aphid. The positive effect of diversity on ants in turn cascaded down to increase plant performance; diversity increased plant growth (but not biomass), and this effect was stronger in the presence of ants. Consequently, bottom-up effects of diversity within the same genus and guild of plants and top-down effects from the third trophic level (predatory ants) interactively increased plant performance.

opencc-zeroMay 2020View details →

Host-plant choices determined by reproductive interference between closely related butterflies

A number of empirical studies have concluded that reproductive interference, RI, contributes to parapatric species distributions or sexual exclusion. However, the possibility that divergent host-plant use in phytophagous insects is due to sexual exclusion has seldom been considered. Here we present evidence that RI is responsible for different host-plant use by two Pierid butterfly species, Pieris napi and P. melete . When a novel host species was introduced about 50 years ago, two Pierid butterfly species at first used both the ancestral host species and the novel one. Subsequently, P. napi shifted to use only the novel host, while P. melete shifted to specialize on the ancestral host. To explain these patterns, we investigated whether the two host species differ in suitability for larval growth and survival. Additionally, we tested whether RI occurred between the two species using large outdoor field cages. Courtship of females by conspecific and heterospecific males reduces the number of eggs laid by approximately half. However, RI is asymmetric and would generate selection on P. melete females to evolve to avoid the more suitable host species preferred by P. napi . Thus, our study suggests that sexual exclusion can explain the shift in host use by these two butterfly species.

opencc-zeroDec 2013View details →

Data from: Bumble bee nest abundance, foraging distance, and host-plant reproduction: implications for management and conservation

Recent reports of global declines in pollinator species imply an urgent need to assess the abundance of native pollinators and density-dependent benefits for linked plants. In this study, we investigated (1) pollinator nest distributions and estimated colony abundances, (2) the relationship between abundances of foraging workers and the number of nests they represent, (3) pollinator foraging ranges, and (4) the relationship between pollinator abundance and plant reproduction. We examined these questions in an alpine ecosystem in the Colorado Rocky Mountains, focusing on four alpine bumble bee species (Bombus balteatus, B. flavifrons, B. bifarius, and B. sylvicola), and two host plants that differ in their degrees of pollinator specialization (Trifolium dasyphyllum and T. parryi). Using microsatellites, we found that estimated colony abundances among Bombus species ranged from ~18 to 78 colonies/0.01 km2. The long-tongued species B. balteatus was most common, especially high above treeline, but the subalpine species B. bifarius was unexpectedly abundant for this elevation range. Nests detected among sampled foragers of each species were correlated with the number of foragers caught. Foraging ranges were smaller than expected for all Bombus species, ranging from 25 to 110 m. Fruit set for the specialized plant, Trifolium parryi, was positively related to the abundance of its Bombus pollinator. In contrast, fruit set for the generalized plant, T. dasyphyllum, was related to abundance of all Bombus species. Because forager abundance was related to nest abundance of each Bombus species and was an equally effective predictor of plant fecundity, forager inventories are probably suitable for assessing the health of outcrossing plant populations. However, nest abundance, rather than forager abundance, better reflects demographic and genetic health in populations of eusocial pollinators such as bumble bees. Development of models incorporating the parameters we have measured here (nest abundance, forager abundance, and foraging distance) could increase the usefulness of foraging worker inventories in monitoring, managing, and conserving pollinator populations.

FIGURE 6 in First descriptions of immatures for Megistops (Boheman) (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae, Galerucinae) in a new host-plant family, with notes on life history and redescription of M. vandepolli Duvivier *

FIGURE 6. Megistops vandepolli, scanning electron micrographs. Egg: A, ventrolateral view; B, C, chorion sculpture; D, egg on leaf covered by excrements. Larva: E, head and thorax (lateral); F, mouth parts (ventral); G, antenna; H, detail of pulvillus; I, leg; J, detail of tarsungulus and pulvillus.

FIGURE 4 in First descriptions of immatures for Megistops (Boheman) (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae, Galerucinae) in a new host-plant family, with notes on life history and redescription of M. vandepolli Duvivier *

FIGURE 4. Megistops vandepolli, immature stages. Larva: A, dorsal; B, ventral. Pupae: C, ventral; D, dorsal. Bars = 1 mm.

FIGURE 1. Megistops vandepolli, adult scanning electron micrographs. A in First descriptions of immatures for Megistops (Boheman) (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae, Galerucinae) in a new host-plant family, with notes on life history and redescription of M. vandepolli Duvivier *

FIGURE 1. Megistops vandepolli, adult scanning electron micrographs. A, head; B, antenna; C, maxilla; D, prosternum; E, posterior leg; F, apical spur of hind tibia.

FIGURE 3. Megistops vandepolli, female. A in First descriptions of immatures for Megistops (Boheman) (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae, Galerucinae) in a new host-plant family, with notes on life history and redescription of M. vandepolli Duvivier *

FIGURE 3. Megistops vandepolli, female. A, female genitalia (ventral); B, detail of bursa teeth; C, tergum VIII; D, vaginal palpi (dorsal); E, tignum (ventral); F, spermatheca. Bars: B = 0.025 mm; other Figs = 0.125 mm.

FIGURE 2 in First descriptions of immatures for Megistops (Boheman) (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae, Galerucinae) in a new host-plant family, with notes on life history and redescription of M. vandepolli Duvivier *

FIGURE 2. Megistops vandepolli, adult. Mandibles: A, frontal view; B, dorsal view. C, elytra (lateral); D, posterior wing. Male genitalia, aedeagus: E, ventral; F, lateral; G, detail of teeth of internal sac. Urosternite V: H, male; I, female. Bars: A, B = 0.15mm; C = 0.5mm; D = 1 mm; E, F = 0.125mm; G = 0.025mm; H, I = 0.25mm.

FIGURE 7. Biological aspects. A in First descriptions of immatures for Megistops (Boheman) (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae, Galerucinae) in a new host-plant family, with notes on life history and redescription of M. vandepolli Duvivier *

FIGURE 7. Biological aspects. A, host plant Buddleja stachyoides, general view; B, damage of larvae with some larvae inside the leaf; C, detail of adult and larvae damage; D, adult; E, adult ovipositing; F, egg (not visible) covered by excretory material; G, larva; H, pupal chamber with pupae; I, pupa.

FIGURE 5. Megistops vandepolli, larva. A in First descriptions of immatures for Megistops (Boheman) (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae, Galerucinae) in a new host-plant family, with notes on life history and redescription of M. vandepolli Duvivier *

FIGURE 5. Megistops vandepolli, larva. A, head (dorsal); B, labrum; C, epipharynx. Mandible: D, dorsal; E, ventral; F, apex of maxilla (ventral). Bars = 0.025 mm, except Fig. A = 0.5 mm.

FIGURES 67–79. Neohydatothrips plynopygus, N. poeta, N in Identification and host-plant associations of Australian Sericothripinae (Thysanoptera, Thripidae)

FIGURES 67–79. Neohydatothrips plynopygus, N. poeta, N. samayunkur & Sericothrips staphylinus. (67–69) N. plynopygus, (67) Male sternites; (68) Antenna; (69) Meso & metanota. (70–72) N. poeta, (70) Head; (71) Metasternum; (72) Tergites. (73–76) N. samayunkur, (73) Female; (74) Head & pronotum; (75) Meso & metanota; (76) Sternites. (77–79) S. staphylinus, (77) Meso & metanota; (78) Tergites; (79) Larva II tergal setae.

FIGURES 37–45. Neohydatothrips barrowi & N in Identification and host-plant associations of Australian Sericothripinae (Thysanoptera, Thripidae)

FIGURES 37–45. Neohydatothrips barrowi & N. bellisi. (37–40) N. barrowi, (37) Head, ventral view; (38) Pro, meso & metanota; (39) Metasternum; (40) Sternites. (41–45) N. bellisi, (41) Female; (42) Meso & metanota; (43) Metasternum; (44) Head; (45) Forewing.

FIGURES 1–7 in Identification and host-plant associations of Australian Sericothripinae (Thysanoptera, Thripidae)

FIGURES 1–7. Hydatothrips aliceae. (1) Head & pronotum; (2) Forewing; (3) Meso & metanotum; (4) Sternites; (5) Tergites; (6) Metasternum; (7) Female.

FIGURES 27–36. Hydatothrips latisensibilis & H in Identification and host-plant associations of Australian Sericothripinae (Thysanoptera, Thripidae)

FIGURES 27–36. Hydatothrips latisensibilis & H. williamsi. (27–30) H. latisensibilis, (27) Head, pro, meso & metanota; (28) Tergites; (29) Male sternites; (30) Terminal antennal segments, ventral and lateral views. (31–36) H. williamsi, (31) Head; (32) Meso & metanota; (33) Tergites; (34) Tergites I–III; (35) Sternites; (36) Metasternum.

FIGURES 56–66. Neohydatothrips haydni & N in Identification and host-plant associations of Australian Sericothripinae (Thysanoptera, Thripidae)

FIGURES 56–66. Neohydatothrips haydni & N. katherinae. (56–62) N. haydni, (56) Head; (57) Forewing apex; (58) Tergites; (59) Pronotum; (60) Larva II tergal setae. (61) Meso & metanota; (62) Sternites. (63–66) N. katherinae, (63) Pronotum; (64) Meso & metanota; (65) Male sternites; (66) Head, ventral view.

FIGURES 8–14 in Identification and host-plant associations of Australian Sericothripinae (Thysanoptera, Thripidae)

FIGURES 8–14. Hydatothrips argenticinctus. (8) Female; (9) Head & pronotum; (10) Tergites; (11) Sternites; (12) Meso & metanotum; (13) Metasternum; (14) Forewing.

FIGURES 15–26. Hydatothrips bhattii & H in Identification and host-plant associations of Australian Sericothripinae (Thysanoptera, Thripidae)

FIGURES 15–26. Hydatothrips bhattii & H. haschemi. (15–19) H. bhattii, (15) Head; (16) Meso & metanota; (17) Sternites; (18) Metasternum; (19) Tergites. (20–26) H. haschemi, (20) Head & pronotum; (21) Pro, meso & metanota; (22) Tergites; (23) Sternites; (24) Male sternites; (25) Antenna; (26) Forewing apex.

FIGURES 46–55. Neohydatothrips diana & N in Identification and host-plant associations of Australian Sericothripinae (Thysanoptera, Thripidae)

FIGURES 46–55. Neohydatothrips diana & N. gracilipes. (46–51) N. diana, (46) Head; (47) Meso & metanota; (48) Tergites; (49) Metasternum; (50) Meso & metanota; (51) Forewing apex. (52–55) N. gracilipes, (52) Head & pronotum (53) Sternites; (54) Larva II tergal setae; (55) Meso & metanota.