Next Article in Journal
Genomic-Phenomic Reciprocal Illumination: Desyopone hereon gen. et sp. nov., an Exceptional Aneuretine-like Fossil Ant from Ethiopian Amber (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Ponerinae)
Next Article in Special Issue
Potential of Marava arachidis, a Newly Recorded Earwig Species in Egypt as a Biological Control Agent of Rhipicephalus annulatus Tick in Laboratory
Previous Article in Journal
Net-Winged Midge Genus Blepharicera Macquart (Diptera: Blephariceridae) in China: The First DNA Barcode Database with Descriptions of Four New Species and Notes on Distribution
Previous Article in Special Issue
Efficacy of the Applied Natural Enemies on the Survival of Colorado Potato Beetle Adults
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Communication

The Influence of Host Aphids on the Performance of Aphelinus asychis

1
College of Plant Protection, Shandong Agricultural University, Tai’an 271018, China
2
School of Life Science, Institutes of Life Science and Green Development, Hebei University, Baoding 071002, China
3
Rural Energy and Environment Agency, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Beijing 100125, China
4
Jinxiang County Agriculture and Rural Bureau, Jining 272200, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Insects 2022, 13(9), 795; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects13090795
Submission received: 25 July 2022 / Revised: 24 August 2022 / Accepted: 30 August 2022 / Published: 31 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Natural Enemies Interactions in Pest Control)

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Biological control is one of the most environmentally friendly and economically sound alternatives to chemical insecticides in many agricultural systems. How to improve the biological performance and mass-rearing methods of natural enemies has become the main factor restricting the application of biological control. Aphelinus asychis Walker is an important aphid parasitic wasp and has been successfully used to control several pest aphids in greenhouses and fields. In this study, we compared the biological performance and stress tolerance of A. asychis, which was reared on different aphids. The findings in this study will be useful for mass-rearing and releasing of A. asychis to control many pest aphids in greenhouses and fields.

Abstract

The aphid parasitoid Aphelinus asychis Walker is an important biological control agent against many aphid species. In this study, we examined whether the rearing host aphid species (the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum and the grain aphid, Sitobion avenae) affect the performance of A. asychis. We found that A. pisum-reared A. asychis showed a significantly larger body size (body length and hind tibia length) and shorter developmental time than S. avenae-reared A. asychis. There was no difference in the sex ratio between them. The longevity of A. pisum-reared A. asychis was also significantly longer than that of S. aveane-reared A. asychis. Furthermore, A. pisum-reared A. asychis presented stronger parasitic capacity and starvation resistance than S. aveane-reared A. asychi. In addition, host aphid alteration experiments showed that A. asychis only takes two generations to adapt to its new host. Taken together, these results revealed that A. pisum is a better alternative host aphid for mass-rearing and releasing of A. asychis. The body size plasticity of A. asychis is also discussed.

1. Introduction

Aphids are among the most damaging agricultural pests of many economic plants due to their direct feeding and transmission of plant viruses [1,2]. In China, from 2006 to 2015, cereal aphids’ (the grain aphid, Sitobion avenae Fabricius, the greenbugs, Schizaphis graminum Rondani and the bird cherry-oat aphid, Rhopalosiphum padi Linnaeus) infestation in wheat caused around 930,000 tons of yield loss and USD 0.41 billion of economic loss every year [3]. Currently, management of pest aphids mainly relies on chemical insecticide applications [1,4]. However, due to the intensive use of insecticides, many aphid species have developed high resistance to various insecticides [4,5,6]. High insecticide resistance results in heavier insecticide application, leading to insecticide pollution and residues in the environment [7,8,9,10,11]. With increasing attention to the adverse effects of insecticides, a need for environmentally friendly management has arisen [7,10].
Parasitoids of aphids are one of the most important biological control agents, and some species are currently commercially available for aphid pest management [12]. However, many factors influence the fitness of parasitoids, thereby restricting their applications. Host quality is one of the most important factors that influence the fitness of parasitoid wasps [13,14,15,16]. “Adult size-fitness hypothesis” shows that body size is positively correlated with the fitness of hymenopteran parasitoids, suggesting that larger parasitoid wasps have more advantages, such as longer longevity and stronger competitiveness [17]. For example, Drosophila hydei-reared larger Trichopria drosophilae survived much longer than that reared on the smaller common fruit fly (Drosophila melanogaster-reared) in survival experiments [16]. Fitness evaluations of fly, whitefly and corn borers parasitoids on different hosts were conducted to figure out which host is more suitable for mass-rearing and releasing of these parasitoids [13,14,16,18]. In aphid parasitoids, S. avenae is one of the most common host aphids used for mass-rearing aphid parasitoids [19,20]. However, there is little information on the comparison between the fitness of the aphid parasitoids emerging from S. avenae and other aphid species.
Aphelinus asychis Walker (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) is an endoparasitoid of aphids that are spread worldwide. They can parasitize and prey on more than 40 aphid species [21]. In the United States, A. asychis has been successfully used to control the Russian wheat aphid Diuraphis noxia in the field [22,23]. It has been reported that 20 females of A. asychis can parasitize 4655 S. graminum during their entire lifespan [24]. Additionally, they feed by probing the aphid nymphs with the ovipositor, which also killed a total of 608 S. graminum [24]. Recently, we established a system of A. asychis using S. avenae as its host aphid to control M. persicae in chili pepper and cabbage [20]. In previous studies, A. asychis could successfully parasitize the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris) and finish its development [25,26]. However, whether A. pisum is a suitable host for mass-rearing A. asychis, or whether A. asychis reared on a larger host aphid (A. pisum) could be more advantageous for further biological control has never been examined.
The purpose of the current study was to compare the fitness-related traits of A. asychis reared on two different host aphids, S. avenae and A. pisum. Firstly, we determined the body size, developmental times, eclosion ratio, sex ratio and longevity of A. asychis reared on S. avenae (hereafter, SA-reared A. asychis) and A. pisum (hereafter, AP-reared A. asychis). Secondly, the parasitism of A. asychis on S. avenae, A. pisum and M. persicae was evaluated. Finally, we compared the starvation and thermal tolerance between S. avenae and A. pisum-reared A. asychis.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Insect Rearing

Adult A. asychis was originally collected from S. avenae on a winter wheat field in Shaanxi province, China. The laboratory colony of A. asychis was established using S. avenae, which is maintained on wheat (“Lumai 21”), and A. pisum, which is reared on broad beans (Vicia faba L., var. “Jingxuancandou”, Jinnong, Taigu, Shaanxi, China). The green peach aphid (Myzus persicae) colony was established on chili pepper (Capsicum annuum L., var. “Lingxiudajiao F1”). All of these insect colonies and plants were maintained in an air-conditioned insectary (Photoperiod: 16 h L:8 h D; Temperature: 25 ± 1 °C and humidity: 65 ± 5%).

2.2. Effects of Aphid Species on Some Life-History Traits of A. asychis

Two hundred of the second- or third-instar aphid (S. avenae or A. pisum) nymphs were placed on corresponding host plants and allowed to settle for 6 h. Then, the plant–aphid complex was transferred into a nylon mesh-covered plastic cage (Length × Width × Height: 19 × 16 × 28 cm). Five pairs (five females and five males) of two-day-old A. asychis were introduced into this plastic cage and allowed to parasitize for 24 h. Twenty-four hours later, the A. asychis were removed and all aphids were kept reared until mummification. The mummies were counted and separately transferred into 200 μL PCR tubes with small breathing holes. The mummies were kept under the rearing conditions described above and checked daily. The emergence date of the adult A. asychis was recorded. Males and females were discriminated and counted under a microscope. After they were frozen to death at −20 °C, the body length and hind tibia length of at least 30 A. asychis were measured under a microscope (Olympus SZX10 SZX2-ILLT).
The newly emerged A. asychis was introduced into the above-described plastic cage with one hundred second or third-instar aphids (S. avenae or A. pisum) and their corresponding host plants. The aphids and their corresponding host plants were changed daily. The longevity of thirty A. asychis females was checked daily from the first day of the experiment until their death.

2.3. Effects of Aphid Species on Parasitism of A. asychis on M. pericae

To determine the parasitic capacity of A. asychis, two pairs of two-day-old A. asychis were introduced into a plastic cage with two hundred of second or third-instar aphids (S. avenae, A. pisum or M. persicae) and their corresponding host plants, as described above. A. asychis was allowed to parasitize for 10 h and then was removed. The aphids were continuously maintained on their host plants until mummification. Mummies were counted and separately transferred into the above-described PCR tubes for adult emergence. The mummies were checked daily, and the number of emerged adults was recorded. Five biological replicates were conducted in this experiment.

2.4. The Starvation and Thermal Tolerance of A. asychis

Fifty newly emerged female adults of A. asychis (S. avenae and A. pisum) were separately transferred into a PCR tube, as described above. For starvation tolerance experiments, all of the PCR tubes containing A. asychis were kept under rearing conditions without access to aphid, water or plant. In this experiment, each female was treated as a biological replicate. For the thermal tolerance experiment, PCR tubes with A. asychis were placed into an electronic incubator at two high temperatures (37 and 39 °C) for 1 h, respectively [27,28]. One hour later, the number of surviving adults was recorded. Each treatment had three biological replicates, and the per biological replicate contained 30 female adults.

2.5. The Body Size Plasticity Analysis of A. asychis

To investigate the adaptation of A. asychis to a novel host, five pairs of two-day-old A. asychis emerging from S. avenae were introduced into a plastic cage as described above, with 200 second or third-instar nymphs of A. pisum and broad bean seedlings. Twenty-four hours later, these parasitoids were removed and the A. pisum was continuously reared until mummification. All mummies were collected and separated into 200 μL PCR tubes with small holes. Mummies were checked daily, and newly emerged adults were considered F1. The body length and hind tibia length of F1 adults were measured as described above. The number of days it took A. asychis to parasitize emerging adults was calculated as development time. Then, five pairs of two-day-old F1 A. asychis were introduced into an above-described plastic cage with 200 second or third-instar nymphs of A. pisum and broad bean seedlings. The experiment was conducted as described above, and F1’s offspring was F2. In order to obtain enough adults, 25 pairs of A. asychis and 1000 aphids per generation were used in this experiment. For each generation, we analyzed the body size and development time of at least 30 adults.

2.6. Statistical Analysis

In this study, all of these data were analyzed and visualized using GraphPad v9 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA). The differences in body size (body length and hind tibia length), developmental time, sex ratio, parasitism, eclosion ratio, starvation tolerance and thermal tolerance between A. pisum and S. avenae-reared A. asychis were analyzed using Student’s t-test. The longevity of thirty A. asychis females was analyzed using the survival curve based on log-rank in GraphPad. Differences in body size (body length and hind tibia) among different generations in the body size plasticity experiment were determined through one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with separation of means via Fisher’s protected least significant difference (LSD) test at p < 0.05. As data on development time are not normally distributed, we used the nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA test with Dunn’s multiple comparisons test to determine the differences between generations. All figures are presented with Mean ± SE.

3. Results

3.1. Effects of Aphid Species on Life-History Parameters of A. asychis

The body length and hind tibia length of both females (body length: t = 5.58, df = 58, p < 0.001; hind tibia length: t = 10.85, df = 58, p < 0.001; Table 1) and males (body length: t = 3.819, df = 70, p = 0.0003; hind tibia length: t = 5.120, df = 70, p < 0.001; Table 1) in AP-reared A. asychis were significantly longer than for SA-reared A. asychis. AP-reared A. asychis had shorter developmental time than the SA-reared A. asychis (t = 16.06, df = 75, p < 0.001; Table 1). There was no difference in the sex ratio between A. asychis released from A. pisum and S. avenae (t = 0.87, df = 8, p = 0.41; Table 1).
A. asychis females that emerged from A. pisum lived longer than those that emerged from S. avenae2 = 27.47, df = 1, p < 0.001; Figure 1).

3.2. Effects of Aphid Species on Parasitic Capacity of A. asychis

The parasitism capacity and eclosion ratio of AP-reared A. asychis and SA-reared A. asychis on the S. avenae aphid was similar (Parasitism: t = 2.673, df = 4, p = 0.0557; Eclosion: t = 0.8007, df = 4, p = 0.4682; Figure 2). When provided with M. persicae and A. pisum, AP-reared A. asychis parasitized more aphids than that of the SA-reared A. asychis (A. pisum: t = 1.319, df = 4, p = 0.2575; M. persicae: t = 2.706, df = 8, p = 0.0268). There was no difference in the eclosion ratio (A. pisum: t = 9.552, df = 4, p < 0.001; M. persicae: t = 0.1349, df = 8, p = 0.896; Figure 2).

3.3. Effects of Aphid Species on the Starvation and Thermal Tolerance of A. asychis

The starvation tolerance of AP-reared A. asychis was much stronger than that of SA-reared A. asychis (t = 5.552, df = 65, p < 0.001; Figure 3). The thermal tolerance of A. asychis released from A. pisum and S. avenae was similar at 37 and 39 °C (37 °C: t = 2.376, df = 4, p = 0.0763; 39 °C: t = 0.3104, df = 4, p = 0.7718; Figure 3).

3.4. The Body Size Plasticity of A. asychis

The body and hind tibia length of the F1 generation was longer than that of the F0 (Female body length: F = 11.82, df = 116, p = 0.0496; Female hind tibia length: F = 49.05, df = 116, p < 0.0001; Male body length: F = 5.253, df = 119, p = 0.0649; Male hind tibia length: F = 16.18, df = 119, p = 0.0314), and smaller than the >F10 generation (Female body length: F = 11.82, df = 116, p = 0.0072; Female hind tibia length: F = 49.05, df = 116, p = 0.0002; Male body length: df = 119, F = 5.253, p = 0.0312; Male hind tibia length: F = 16.18, df = 119, p < 0.0001;) (Table 2). Furthermore, the developmental times of F1, F2 and >F10 generations were significantly shorter than that of the F0 generation (F1: H = 77.98, df = 116, p < 0.0001; F2: H = 77.98, df = 116, p < 0.0001; >F10: H = 77.98, df = 116, p < 0.0001; Table 2).

4. Discussion

With the attention of biological control, numerous studies have been conducted to investigate how to improve the biological performance and mass-rearing methods of natural enemies [13,29,30,31]. Host insects have been identified as an important factor influencing the biological performance of natural enemies [15,18,32,33,34]. For example, the superworm, Zophobas morio pupae-reared Dastarcus helophoroides presented a better biological performance than that of the yellow mealworm beetle, Tenebrio molitor pupae-reared D. helophoroides [35]. Similarly, the body size of Lysiphlebus testaceipes and L. fabarum released from the fourth instar of aphid nymphs (S. g for L. testaceipes and the black bean aphid, Aphis fabae for L. fabarum) were significantly larger than those released from second-instar aphid nymphs [36,37]. Accordingly, since A. pisum is bigger than S. avenae, we found that A. asychis emerging from A. pisum were significantly larger than those emerging from S. avenae. Notably, when we transferred SA-reared A. asychis to A. pisum, we found that it only takes two generations to adapt to the new host aphids. In another Aphidius species, A. ervi, Henry et al. [38] observed that when provided with large, good-quality aphids (A. pisum), fitness increased after a single generation on the novel host. Meanwhile, when provided with low-quality aphids (foxglove aphids, Aulacorthum solani Kaltenbach), it took more than 40 generations [38]. All of these results indicated that host insects’ body size is correlated with the body size of parasitoids, and parasitoids such as A. asychis can adapt to a new host aphid rapidly, thereby improving their performance on new host aphids.
In insects, individuals with a larger body size usually have longer life spans, higher mating success rates and stronger parasitic capacity [16,32,33,39,40,41]. In this study, we found that the longevity of A. pisum-reared larger A. asychis was longer than that of S. avenae-reared smaller A. asychis. Furthermore, A. pisum-reared larger A. asychis also parasitized more M. persicae and A. pisum than S. avenae-reared smaller A. asychis, while the parasitic capacity of A. asychis on S. avenae was not affected by host aphids. In another aphid parasitoid, L. testaceipes, Vieira et al. [37] observed that the egg load was greater in larger females compared to that of smaller females. On the contrary, B. tabaci-reared smaller E. formosa parasitized more B. tabaci nymphs than T. vaporariorum-reared larger E. formosa [42]. This result is also in agreement with those of another two studies in A. figuensis and E. formosa, the parasitism rate of A. gifuensis and E. formosa on their natal hosts was significantly higher than on newly provided alternate hosts [43,44]. In addition, host plant is another factor that influences the fitness of aphids, and subsequently influences the parasitoid performance [45,46,47]. For example, the body size and development times of A. gifuensis emerging from S. avenae were significantly influenced by different wheat cultivars [19]. A parallel study also found that plant-mediated differences in the body size of M. persicae subsequently influenced the suitability of its parasitoid, Aphelinus varipes [47]. All of these results suggested that the longevity of parasitic wasps is positively correlated with their body size. Furthermore, the parasitic capacity was influenced not only by the body size, but also by their rearing experience.
In addition to the longevity and parasitic capacity, thermal tolerance and starvation resistance of insects are also correlated with their body size [16,28,29,48]. Previous studies showed that females of both A. gifuensis and A. asychis had a larger body size and were more tolerant to high temperatures than male A. asychis [16,28,29,49]. Chen et al. [16] found that the survival rates of D. hydei-reared larger T. drosophilae were higher than those of D. melanogaster-reared smaller T. drosophilae at higher temperatures (25 and 37 °C) and starvation treatments. However, in stressful conditions, it was suggested that the bigger size might be a disadvantage [50]. Ismail et al. [50] observed that after cold stress, the small females of Aphidius ervi produced more eggs at emergence than the large females. In this study, we found that the thermal tolerance of A. asychis was not influenced by host aphids, whereas the starvation tolerance was. In Notonecta maculate, a positive relationship was found between body size and starvation resistance [48]. In parasitoids, the adult body size is often correlated with its nutrient reservation [51,52,53]. Thus, we speculated that A. asychis individuals accumulated more nutrients, such as lipids, when developing in A. pisum than in S. avenae, thereby leading to stronger starvation tolerance. In this study, all of these results were generated from three sets of highly artificial constant temperature regimes. However, in the field, ambient temperatures fluctuate over time. Even daily temperature fluctuations can be very wide. Milosavljević et al. [54] and McCalla et al. [55] reported that temperature fluctuations significantly influenced the life-history parameters of Diaphorencyrtus aligarhensis and Tamarixia radiata, which are parasitoids of the Asian citrus psyllid, Diaphorina citri Kuwayama. Thus, there are still substantive uncertainties to be considered, such as the interaction of cyclic temperatures with the life-history parameters and thermal tolerance of A. asychis. Our future studies will focus on the impact of constant and fluctuating temperatures on the life-history parameters and thermal performance of A. asychis, and whether host aphids influence the performance of A. asychis at fluctuating temperatures.
In summary, our study found that A. pisum-reared larger A. scychis has many advantages, such as longer longevity, stronger parasitic capacity and greater starvation tolerance than S. avenae-reared smaller A. asychis. Thus, A. pisum can be a better alternative host aphid for mass-rearing and releasing A. asychis to control many pest aphids.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Z.-W.K. and Y.-Y.X.; funding acquisition, Z.-W.K., H.-P.Z. and Y.-Y.X.; investigation, Z.-X.L., M.-Q.J., C.Z., Z.-Z.C. and Y.-B.Y.; methodology, Z.-X.L., Z.-W.K., M.-Q.J. and Z.-Z.C.; software, Z.-W.K., Y.-B.Y., C.Z. and Z.-X.L.; visualization, Z.-W.K., Z.-X.L., Z.-Z.C. and H.-P.Z.; supervision, Z.-W.K. and Y.-Y.X.; writing—original draft preparation, Z.-X.L., H.-P.Z. and Z.-W.K.; writing—review and editing, Z.-W.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Science Foundation of Shandong Province, grant number ZR2021QC053; Hebei Natural Science Foundation (C2022201042); Shandong Modern Agricultural Industry Technology System, grant number SDAIT-04-08 and SDAIT-19-04.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available in the article.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Tong-Xian Liu (Guizhou University), Xiang Liu (Northwest A&F University) and all members of the Laboratory of Insect Eco-Physiology, Shandong Agricultural University for their assistances in plant and insect rearing. We also extend our thanks to Hongru Kou (Chinese Academy of Science) for the English language corrections and kind comments on this manuscript. We also appreciate the constructive comments from two anonymous reviewers which greatly improved the quality of our paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Van Emden, H.F.; Harrington, R. Aphids as Crop Pests; CAB Press: Wallingford, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  2. Mathers, T.C.; Chen, Y.Z.; Kaithakottil, G.; Legeai, F.; Mugford, S.T.; Baa-Puyoulet, P.; Bretaudeau, A.; Clavijo, B.; Colella, S.; Collin, O.; et al. Rapid transcriptional plasticity of duplicated gene clusters enables a clonally reproducing aphid to colonise diverse plant species. Genome Biol. 2017, 18, 27. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  3. Liu, W.C.; Liu, Z.D.; Huang, C.; Lu, M.H.; Liu, J.; Yang, Q.P. Statistics and analysis of crop yield losses caused by main diseases and insect pests in recent 10 years. Plant Prot. 2016, 42, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bass, C.; Puinean, A.M.; Zimmer, C.T.; Denholm, I.; Field, L.M.; Foster, S.P.; Gutbros, O.; Nauen, R.; Slater, R.; Williamson, M.S. The evolution of insecticide resistance in the peach potato aphid, Myzus persicae. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2014, 51, 41–51. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  5. Voudouris, C.C.; Williaamson, M.S.; Skouras, P.J.; Kati, A.N.; Sahinoglou, A.J.; Margaritopoulos, J.T. Evolution of imidacloprid resistance in Myzus persicae in Greece and susceptibility data for spirotetramat. Pest Manag. Sci. 2017, 73, 1804–1812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Simon, J.C.; Peccoud, J. Rapid evolution of aphid pests in agricultural environments. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 2018, 26, 17–24. [Google Scholar]
  7. Kapoor, U.; Srivastava, M.K.; Srivastava, L.P. Toxicological impact of technical imidacloprid on ovarian morphology, hormones and antioxidant enzymes in female rats. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2011, 49, 3086–3089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Blacquière, T.; Smagghe, G.; van Gestel, C.A.M.; Mommaerts, V. Neonicotinoids in bees: A review on concentrations, side-effects and risk assessment. Ecotoxicology 2012, 21, 973–992. [Google Scholar]
  9. Braak, N.; Neve, R.; Jones, A.K.; Gibbs, M.; Breuker, C.J. The effects of insecticides on butterflies—A review. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 242, 507–518. [Google Scholar]
  10. Kang, Z.W.; Liu, F.H.; Pang, R.P.; Tian, H.G.; Liu, T.X. Effect of sublethal doses of imidacloprid on the biological performance of aphid endoparasitoid Aphidius gifuensis (Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae) and influence on its related gene expression. Front. Physiol. 2018, 9, 1729. [Google Scholar]
  11. Samidurai, J.; Subramanian, M.; Venugopal, D. Levels of organochlorine pesticide residues in fresh water fishes of three bird sanctuaries in Tamil Nadu, India. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2019, 26, 1983–1993. [Google Scholar]
  12. Boivin, G.; Hance, T.; Brodeur, J. Aphid parasitoids in biological control. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2012, 92, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Powell, W.; Pickett, J.A. Manipulation of parasitoids for aphid pest management: Progress and prospects. Pest Manag. Sci. 2003, 59, 149–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Brewer, M.J.; Elliott, E.C. Biological control of cereal aphids in north America and mediating effects of host plant and habitat manipulations. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2004, 49, 219–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zang, L.S.; Wang, S.; Zhang, F.; Deesneux, N. Biological control with Trichogramma in China: History, present status and perspectives. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2021, 66, 24.1–24.22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Chen, J.N.; Zhou, S.C.; Wang, Y.; Shi, M.; Chen, X.X.; Huang, J.H. Biocontrol characteristics of the fruit fly pupal parasitoid Trichopria drosophilae (Hymenoptera: Diapriidae) emerging from different hosts. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 13323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Boycheva Woltering, S.; Romeis, J.; Collatz, J. Influence of the rearing host on biological parameters of Trichopria drosophilae, a potential biological control agent of Drosophila suzukii. Insects 2019, 10, 183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Gao, S.K.; Tang, Y.L.; Wei, K.; Wang, X.Y.; Yang, Z.Q.; Zhang, Y.L. Relationships between body size and parasitic fitness and offspring performance of Sclerodermus pupariae Yang et Yao (Hymenoptera: Bethylidae). PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0156831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Pan, M.Z.; Cao, H.H.; Liu, T.X. Effects of winter wheat cultivars on the life history traits and olfactory response of Aphidius gifuensis. BioControl 2014, 59, 539–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wang, S.Y.; Chi, H.; Liu, T.X. Demography and parasitic effectiveness of Aphelinus asychis reared from Sitobion avenae as a biological control agent of Myzus persicae reared on chili pepper and cabbage. Biol. Control 2016, 92, 111–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Shirley, X.A.; Woolley, J.B.; Hopper, K.R. Revision of the asychis species group of Aphelinus (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae). J. Hymenopt. Res. 2017, 54, 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Brewer, M.J.; Nelson, D.J.; Ahern, R.G.; Donahue, J.D.; Prokrym, D.R. Recovery and range expansion of parasitoids (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae and Braconidae) released for biological control of Diuraphis noxia (Homoptera: Aphididae) in Wyoming. Environ. Entomol. 2001, 30, 578–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Michels, G.J.; Whitaker-Deerberg, R.L. Recovery of Aphelinus asychis, an imported parasitoid of Russian wheat aphid, in the Texas panhandle. Southwest. Entomol. 1993, 18, 11–17. [Google Scholar]
  24. Cate, R.H.; Archer, T.L.; Eikenbary, R.D.; Starks, K.J.; Morrison, R.D. Parasitization of the greenbug by Aphelinus asychis and the effect of feeding by the parasitoid on aphid mortality. Environ. Entomol. 1973, 2, 549–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Jia, Y.J.; Wang, B.; Liu, T.X. Unsuccessful host stinging by Aphelinus asychis (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) impacts population parameters of the pea aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2020, 113, 1211–1220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Gerling, D.; Roitberg, B.D.; Mackauer, M. Instar-specific defense of the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum: Influence on oviposition success of the parasite Aphelinus asychis (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae). J. Insect Behav. 1990, 3, 501–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Liu, X.; Kang, Z.W.; Yu, X.L.; Li, F.; Liu, T.X.; Li, Q. Role of TRP channels and HSPs in thermal stress response in the aphid parasitoid Aphelinus asychis (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae). J. Integr. Agric. 2020, 19, 1530–1542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Liu, X.; Fu, Z.X.; Kang, Z.W.; Li, H.; Liu, T.X.; Wang, D. Identification and characterization of antioxidant enzyme genes in parasitoid Aphelinus asychis (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) and expression profiling analysis under temperature stress. Insects 2022, 13, 447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. López-Arriaga, F.; Gordillo, V.; Cancino, J.; Montoya, P. Irradiation of early immature Anastrepha ludens stages for the rearing of Doryctobracon areolatus (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), a fruit fly parasitoid. Bull. Entomol. Res. 2020, 110, 630–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Khanzada, M.S.; Wang, S.; Huang, N.X.; Pang, H.; Tan, X.L.; Khanzada, S.R. Optimization of microencapsulated artificial diets for mass rearing of the predacious big eyed bug. Geocoris pallidipennis. Entomol. Gen. 2019, 39, 353–363. [Google Scholar]
  31. Calvo, F.J.; Knapp, M.; van Houten, Y.M.; Hoogerbrugge, H.; Belda, J.E. Amblyseius swirskii: What made this predatory mite such a successful biocontrol agent? Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2015, 65, 419–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Cohen, J.E.; Jonsson, T.; Muller, C.B.; Godfray, H.C.J.; Savage, V.M. Body sizes of hosts and parasitoids in individual feeding relationships. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2005, 102, 684–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Song, L.W.; Wen, X.Y.; Zang, L.S.; Ruan, C.C.; Shi, S.S.; Shao, X.W.; Zhang, F. Parasitism and suitability of different egg ages of the Leguminivora glycinivorella (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) for three indigenous Trichogramma species. J. Econ. Entomol. 2015, 108, 933–939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Tian, J.C.; Wang, Z.C.; Wang, G.R.; Zhong, L.Q.; Zheng, X.S.; Xu, H.X.; Zang, L.S.; Lu, Z.X. The effects of temperature and host age on the fecundity of four Trichogramma species, egg parasitoids of the Cnaphalocrocis medinalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2017, 110, 949–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Shi, H.; Zhou, J.Y.; Chen, Y.S.; Wang, Q.Z.; Pan, Y.L.; Zhang, J.T.; Liu, X.P. A comparison of fitness-related traits in the coleopteran parasitoid Dastarcus helophoroides (coleoptera: Bothrideridae) reared on two factitious hosts. J. Econ. Entomol. 2020, 13, 2634–2640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ameri, M.; Rasekh, A.; Michaud, J.P. Body size affects host defensive behavior and progeny fitness in a parasitoid wasp, Lysiphlebus fabarum. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2014, 150, 259–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Vieira, L.J.P.; Franco, G.M.; Sampaio, M.V. Host Preference and fitness of Lysiphlebus testaceipes (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) in different instars of the aphid Schizaphis graminum. Neotrop. Entomol. 2019, 48, 391–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Henry, L.; Roitberg, B.D.; Gillespie, D.R. Host-range evolution in Aphidius parasitoids: Fidelity, virulence and fitness trade-offs on an ancestral host. Evolution 2008, 62, 689–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wang, X.G.; Kacar, G.; Biondi, A.; Daane, K.M. Life-history and host preference of Trichopria drosophilae, a pupal parasitoid of spotted wing. Drosophila. BioControl 2016, 61, 387–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Sagarra, L.A.; Vincent, C.; Stewart, R.K. Body size as an indicator of parasitoid quality in male and female Anagyrus kamali (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae). Bull. Entomol. Res. 2001, 91, 363–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Jervis, M.A.; Ferns, P.N.; Heimpel, G.E. Body size and the timing of egg production in parasitoid wasps: A comparative analysis. Oikos 2003, 102, 164–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Dai, P.; Ruan, C.C.; Zang, L.S.; Wan, F.H.; Liu, L.Z. Effects of rearing host species on the host-feeding capacity and parasitism of the whitefly parasitoid Encarsia formosa. J. Insect Sci. 2014, 14, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Pan, M.Z.; Liu, T.X. Suitability of three aphid species for Aphidius gifuensis (Hymenoptera: Braconidae): Parasitoid performance varies with hosts of origin. Biol. Control 2014, 69, 90–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. He, Y.Y.; Liu, Y.C.; Wang, K.; Zhang, Y.J.; Wu, Q.J.; Wang, S.L. Development and fitness of the parasitoid, Encarsia formosa (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae), on the B and Q of the sweetpotato whitefly (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2019, 112, 2597–2603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Albittar, L.; Ismail, M.; Bragard, C.; Hance, T. Host plants and aphid hosts influence the selection behaviour of three aphid parasitoids (Hymenoptera: Braconidae: Aphidiinae). Eur. J. Entomol. 2016, 113, 516–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hopkinson, J.; Zalucki, M.P.; Murray, D.A.H. Host selection and parasitism behavior of Lysiphlebus testaceipes: Role of plant, aphid species and instar. Biol. Control 2013, 64, 283–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ali, M.Y.; Lu, Z.Z.; Ali, A.; Amir, M.B.; Ahmed, M.A.; Shahid, S.; Liu, T.X.; Pan, M.Z. Effects of plant-mediated differences in aphid size on suitability of its parasitoid, Aphelinus varipes (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2022, 115, 74–80. [Google Scholar]
  48. Gergs, A.; Jager, T. Body size-mediated starvation resistance in an insect predator. J. Anim. Ecol. 2014, 83, 758–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kang, Z.W.; Liu, F.H.; Liu, X.; Yu, W.B.; Tan, X.L.; Zhang, S.Z.; Tian, H.G.; Liu, T.X. The potential coordination of the heat-shock proteins and antioxidant enzyme genes of Aphidius gifuensis in response to thermal stress. Front. Physiol. 2017, 8, 976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ismail, M.; Vernon, P.; Hance, T.; Pierre, J.; van Baaren, J. What are the possible benefits of small size for energy-constrained ectotherms in cold stress conditions? Oikos 2012, 121, 2072–2080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kishani Farahani, H.; Ashouri, A.; Zibaee, A.; Abroon, P.; Alford, L. The effect of host nutritional quality on multiple components of Trichogramma brassicae fitness. Bull. Entomol. Res. 2016, 106, 633–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kant, R.; Minor, M.A.; Trewick, S.A.; Sandanayaka, W.R.M. Body size and fitness relation in male and female Diaeretiella rapae. BioControl 2012, 57, 759–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. López, O.P.; Hénaut, Y.; Cancino, J.; Lambin, M.; Cruz-López, L.; Rojas, J.C. Is host size an indicator of quality in the mass-reared parasitoid Diachasmimorpha longicaudata (Hymenoptera: Braconidae)? Fla. Entomol. 2009, 92, 441–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Milosavljević, I.; McCalla, K.; Ratkowsky, D.; Hoddle, M.S. Effects of constant and fluctuating temperatures on development rates and longevity of Diaphorencyrtus aligarhensis (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2019, 112, 1062–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. McCalla, K.; Keçeci, M.; Milosavljević, I.; Ratkowsky, D.; Hoddle, M.S. The influence of temperature variation on life history parameters and thermal performance curves of Tamarixia radiata (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae), a parasitoid of the Asian citrus psyllid (Hemiptera: Liviidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2019, 112, 1560–1574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Percent survival of A. asychis emerging from A. pisum (AP-reared A. asychis) and S. avenae (SA-reared A. asychis) at 25 °C. *** means p < 0.001.
Figure 1. Percent survival of A. asychis emerging from A. pisum (AP-reared A. asychis) and S. avenae (SA-reared A. asychis) at 25 °C. *** means p < 0.001.
Insects 13 00795 g001
Figure 2. Parasitism of A. asychis emerging from A. pisum (AP-reared A. asychis) and S. avenae (SA-reared A. asychis). (A) Mean number of aphids parasitized within 10 h by A. asychis reared on nymphs of A. pisum or S. avenae (n = 3); (B) Eclosion rate of A. asychis reared on nymphs of A. pisum or S. avenae from A. pisum and S. avenae (n = 3); (C) Mean number of M. persicae parasitized within 10 h by A. asychis reared on nymphs of A. pisum or S. avenae (n = 5); (D) Eclosion rate of A. asychis reared on nymphs of A. pisum or S. avenae from M. persicae (n = 5). Mean ± SE, Student’s t-test. * means p < 0.05, *** means p < 0.001, and ns means no significant difference.
Figure 2. Parasitism of A. asychis emerging from A. pisum (AP-reared A. asychis) and S. avenae (SA-reared A. asychis). (A) Mean number of aphids parasitized within 10 h by A. asychis reared on nymphs of A. pisum or S. avenae (n = 3); (B) Eclosion rate of A. asychis reared on nymphs of A. pisum or S. avenae from A. pisum and S. avenae (n = 3); (C) Mean number of M. persicae parasitized within 10 h by A. asychis reared on nymphs of A. pisum or S. avenae (n = 5); (D) Eclosion rate of A. asychis reared on nymphs of A. pisum or S. avenae from M. persicae (n = 5). Mean ± SE, Student’s t-test. * means p < 0.05, *** means p < 0.001, and ns means no significant difference.
Insects 13 00795 g002
Figure 3. Starvation (A) and thermal tolerance (B) of A. asychis reared on nymphs of A. pisum (AP-reared A. asychis) or S. avenae (SA-reared A. asychis). Mean ± SE, Student’s t-test. Starvation: n ≥ 30; thermal tolerance: n = 3 (per replicates 30 female adults). *** means p < 0.001, and ns means no significant difference.
Figure 3. Starvation (A) and thermal tolerance (B) of A. asychis reared on nymphs of A. pisum (AP-reared A. asychis) or S. avenae (SA-reared A. asychis). Mean ± SE, Student’s t-test. Starvation: n ≥ 30; thermal tolerance: n = 3 (per replicates 30 female adults). *** means p < 0.001, and ns means no significant difference.
Insects 13 00795 g003
Table 1. Body length, hind tibia length, developmental times and sex ratio of A. asychis that were reared on A. pisum and S. avenae.
Table 1. Body length, hind tibia length, developmental times and sex ratio of A. asychis that were reared on A. pisum and S. avenae.
HostBody Length (mm)Hind Tibia Length (mm)Developmental Times (Days)Sex Ratio
FemaleMaleFemaleMale
A. pisum1.22 ± 0.02 a0.93 ± 0.02 a0.43 ± 0.01 a0.36 ± 0.01 a12.70 ± 0.14 b0.56 ± 0.06 a
S. avenae1.06 ± 0.02 b0.83 ± 0.02 b0.32 ± 0.01 b0.32 ± 0.01 b16.00 ± 0.15 a0.62 ± 0.04 a
Different letters indicate significant difference between S. avenae and A. pisum-reared A. asychis (p < 0.05).
Table 2. Body size and developmental plasticity of A. asychis transferred from S. avenae to A. pisum.
Table 2. Body size and developmental plasticity of A. asychis transferred from S. avenae to A. pisum.
Host GenerationBody Length (mm)Hind Tibia Length (mm)Developmental Time (Days)
FemaleMaleFemaleMale
F0 (Parental)1.06 ± 0.02 c0.83 ± 0.02 b0.32 ± 0.01 c0.32 ± 0.01 c16.00 ± 0.15 a
F11.13 ± 0.02 b0.82 ± 0.03 b0.39 ± 0.01 b0.28 ± 0.01 b12.03 ± 0.19 c
F21.15 ± 0.02 ab0.92 ± 0.03 ab0.41 ± 0.1 ab0.35 ± 0.01 a12.77 ± 0.10 b
>F10 *1.22 ± 0.02 a0.93 ± 0.02 a0.43 ± 0.01 a0.36 ± 0.01 a12.70 ± 0.14 b
* >F10 Means: A. asychis has been continuously reared on A. pisum over 10 generations. Different letters indicate significant differences among the different generations (p < 0.05).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Li, Z.-X.; Ji, M.-Q.; Zhang, C.; Yang, Y.-B.; Chen, Z.-Z.; Zhao, H.-P.; Xu, Y.-Y.; Kang, Z.-W. The Influence of Host Aphids on the Performance of Aphelinus asychis. Insects 2022, 13, 795. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects13090795

AMA Style

Li Z-X, Ji M-Q, Zhang C, Yang Y-B, Chen Z-Z, Zhao H-P, Xu Y-Y, Kang Z-W. The Influence of Host Aphids on the Performance of Aphelinus asychis. Insects. 2022; 13(9):795. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects13090795

Chicago/Turabian Style

Li, Zhen-Xiang, Meng-Qi Ji, Chi Zhang, Yi-Bing Yang, Zhen-Zhen Chen, Hai-Peng Zhao, Yong-Yu Xu, and Zhi-Wei Kang. 2022. "The Influence of Host Aphids on the Performance of Aphelinus asychis" Insects 13, no. 9: 795. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects13090795

APA Style

Li, Z. -X., Ji, M. -Q., Zhang, C., Yang, Y. -B., Chen, Z. -Z., Zhao, H. -P., Xu, Y. -Y., & Kang, Z. -W. (2022). The Influence of Host Aphids on the Performance of Aphelinus asychis. Insects, 13(9), 795. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects13090795

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop