Entomopathogenic fungi stimulate transgenerational wing induction in pea aphids, Acyrthosiphon pisum (Hemiptera: Aphididae)
Entomopathogenic fungi stimulate transgenerational wing induction in pea aphids, Acyrthosiphon pisum (Hemiptera: Aphididae)
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1365-2311.2011.01336.x
复制
发表时间：
2012-02-01
影响因子：
2.2
通讯作者：
Weisser, Wolfgang W.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hatano, Eduardo;Baverstock, Jason;Weisser, Wolfgang W.
1.蚜虫的天敌不仅包括捕食性天敌和寄生性天敌，还包括病原性天敌。蚜虫翅的形成是由非生物条件引起的，但也受到与节肢动物天敌的生物相互作用的影响。翅诱导通过与节肢动物天敌的相互作用是介导的增加，他们的身体接触时，报警（伪拥挤）。病原真菌不会触发蚜虫的这种报警行为，因此不会发生伪拥挤。我们假设，虽然病原真菌会刺激母体诱导的翅膀形成，但其机制是不同的，并受到病原体特异性的影响。我们使用两种昆虫病原真菌新蚜虫潘多拉（Pandora neoaphidis）和球孢白僵菌（Beauveria bassiana）对豌豆蚜虫Acyrthosiphon pisum Harris进行了测试，这两种真菌分别是蚜虫专家和多面手。我们首先证明，豌豆蚜虫感染的病原体和蚕豆植株上保持在组产生了较高比例的翅型比未感染的控制蚜虫。然后，我们表明，当保持隔离，蚜虫感染的病原体也产生了较高比例的有翼的后代比对照蚜虫。新蚜虫拟单胞菌与B无差异。在两个实验中，它们对翅诱导的影响。与捕食者和寄生蜂对豌豆蚜翅诱导的影响不同，病原体的影响与其他蚜虫的物理接触无关，这表明生理线索诱导受感染蚜虫翅的形成。这是可能的，蚜虫受益于翅膀诱导逃离感染补丁，而病原体可能通过分散受益。翼诱导的可能机制进行了讨论。
1. Aphid natural enemies include not only predators and parasitoids but also pathogens, of which fungi are the most studied for biological control. While wing formation in aphids is induced by abiotic conditions, it is also affected by biotic interactions with their arthropod natural enemies. Wing induction via interactions with arthropod natural enemies is mediated by the increase in their physical contact when alarmed (pseudo-crowding). Pathogenic fungi do not trigger this alarm behaviour in aphids and, therefore, no pseudo-crowding occurs.2. We hypothesise that, while pathogenic fungi will stimulate maternally induced wing formation, the mechanism is different and is influenced by pathogen specificity. We tested this hypothesis using two entomopathogenic fungi, Pandora neoaphidis and Beauveria bassiana, an aphid specialist and a generalist respectively, on the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum Harris.3. We first demonstrate that pea aphids infected with either pathogen and maintained in groups on broad bean plants produced a higher proportion of winged morphs than uninfected control aphids. We then show that, when maintained in isolation, aphids infected with either pathogen also produced higher proportions of winged offspring than control aphids. There was no difference between P. neoaphidis and B. bassiana in their effects on wing induction in either experiment.4. Unlike the effect of predators and parasitoids on pea aphid wing induction, the effect of pathogens is independent of physical contact with other aphids, suggesting that physiological cues induce wing formation in infected aphids. It is possible that aphids benefit from wing induction by escaping infected patches whilst pathogens may benefit through dispersion. Possible mechanisms of wing induction are discussed.