Tag Archives: Periphyllus testudinaceus

On rarity, apparency and the indisputable fact that most aphids are not pests

I am willing to bet that when most entomologists are out for a walk spend most of their time looking at the ground or the vegetation between the ground and head height. Lepidopterists and odonatologists may be the exceptions that prove the rule, but most of us spend a lot of time looking for things lurking in dung, hiding under stones or bark, scurrying around in the undergrowth or making holes in leaves 🙂

Tell-tale signs for an entomologist that something is or has been enjoying a meal

I’m an entomologist, I’m trained to look out for signs of insect infestations; curled leaves as in the above picture tell me that almost certainly an aphid and her offspring have been at work, sticky leaves alert me to the fact that there are aphids above me in the canopy of a tree. Leaves with holes tell me that a beetle or caterpillar has been at work. Leaves spun together with a silk web tell me a similar story. Plants with their stems and leaves stripped right back inform me that sawfly, lepidoptera and beetle larvae have been at work. A fancy spiral of brown or white on a leaf tells me that a leafminer has been, or is at work. In some cases the insect may not be there when I see the damage, the curled leaves caused by an aphid or psyllid infestation remain there until leaf fall, the chances of finding a caterpillar feeding on the very obviously shot-holed leaves of a plant are slim.  Like all sensible herbivores, the culprit will be in hiding closer to the stem, only sporadically popping out to feed.  On the other hand it may have fallen victim to a visually acute predator (bird) that was attracted to the leaf by the tell-tale feeding signs, or been eaten by a predatory insect or  have been parasitized by an ichneumonid wasp.  Plants are a lot less passive than people think. By producing the equivalent of an immune response they cause the insects to move to different feeding sites to make more holes effectively advertising their presence to potential predators.  Simultaneously, the plant sends out chemical signals telling insect predators and parasites that there is a meal or host available.  An herbivore’s lot is not an easy one.

The Covid-19 crisis means that I have been working from home in a hamlet on the Staffordshire/Shropshire border.  To keep myself reasonably sane and moderately physically healthy I have been treating myself to a lunchtime walk along the bridleways, footpaths and public roads within a 5 km radius of my house. As a result I have become much more familiar with the area. One of the things that has been very obvious, apparent even, is that some plants dominate the roadside verges, cow parsley Anthricus sylvestris being one that really stands

Cow parsley – very common and abundant, occurring in huge swathes around Forton and Sutton and in this case and in many other sites along my walks, backed by the equally apparent hawthorn (Crataegusus monogyna) hedge.

out from the crowd at this time of the year. Not only is it very apparent, but it provides a great source of nectar for the spring butterflies such as the Orange Tip and the assorted bumblebees, solitary bees and hoverflies, that despite the anthropogenic pressures put upon them, still manage to make an appearance.  Nettles, as I particularly noticed when having to social distance myself from the sweaty joggers and cyclists taking advantage of the virtually deserted country lanes, also play a prominent role in the roadside plant community. Also very common, but showing a much patchier distribution and occurring in clumps, including in my garden, is the ribwort plantain, Plantago lanceolata, which is yet another so called weed*, that is perfect for pollinators.

Ribwort plantain – common but patchy and clumped – this clump in my garden where it is safe from forks and herbicides.

Although both the cow parsley and plantain were buzzing with pollinators, they were, and still are at time of writing, singularly devoid of herbivores, including my favourite aphids. Conversely, the odd scattered bird cherries (Prunus  padus) and the solitary self-seeded wild cherry (Prunus avium) in my garden are proudly sporting the characteristic leaf rolls caused by the bird cherry aphid, Rhopaloisphum padi and the cherry black fly, Myzus cerasi respectively.

Note that both these trees were not growing near any of their relatives and were surrounded and overtopped by other plant species, so as far as humans are concerned not very apparent.

This got me to wondering why it was, that, the to me, and presumably other humans, the very obvious cow parsley and plantains, were not covered in plant feeding insects, while the less apparent cherries were heavily infested by their respective aphids.  After all, according to Richard Root, large swathes of monocultures are likely to be easily found and colonised by pests. Plant apparency was first defined by the British born, American based ecologist Paul Feeny in the mid-1970s.

“The susceptibility of an individual plant to discovery by its enemies may be influenced not only by its size, growth form and persistence, but also by the relative abundance of its species within the overall community. To denote the interaction of abundance, persistence and other plant characteristics which influence likelihood of discovery, I now prefer to describe “bound to be found” plants by the more convenient term “apparent”, meaning “visible, plainly seen, conspicuous, palpable, obvious” (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd, edition; Webster’s Concise English Dictionary). Plants which are “hard to find” by their enemies will be referred to as “unapparent”, the antonym of apparent (O.E.D. and Webster, loco cit.). The vulnerability of an individual plant to discovery by its enemies may then be referred to as its “apparency”, meaning “the quality of being apparent; visibility” (O.E.D. and Webster, loco cit.). Since animals, fungi and pathogens may use means other than vision to locate their host-plants, I shall consider apparency to mean “susceptibility to discovery” by whatever means enemies may employ” Feeny (1976).

So, even though cow parsley is highly visible and apparent to us humans, and their pollinators, because it is an annual and thus ephemeral within the landscape, it is not necessarily apparent to the herbivores that want to feed on it. Conversely, trees, such as bird cherry, although not necessarily apparent to us, are apparent to insect herbivores because they are large and long-lived. How does this affect the way in which plants avoid being found and eaten by insect herbivores?

Peter Price, another British born American based ecologist very neatly summarised Paul’s hypothesis as follows

Long-lived trees which are bound to be found by herbivores, invest heavily in costly chemical defence with broad-spectrum efficacy.   These quantitative defences are expensive but the cost is tolerable for a long-lived plant.  Short-lived plants are less easily detected by herbivores, and their best defence is being hard to find in patchy and ephemeral sites.  Low cost defences are effective against generalist herbviores should plants be found.  Instead of tannins and other digestibility reducers found as defences in long-lived plants, short-lived plants have evolved with mustard oils (glucosinolates) in crucifers, for example, alkaloids in the potato family, furanocoumarins in the carrot family (Price, 2003).

All I can say is that the quantitative defences of the trees don’t seem to be doing as good a job as the less expensive ones of the cow parsley, plantains and nettles.  As an aside, it turns out that although both cow parsley and plantain have a lot of medicinal uses, their chemistry does include some insecticides (Adler et al., 1995; Milovanovic et al., 1996). Cheap and cheerful seems to be the answer for an herbivore-free life in this case 🙂 Earlier I referred to cow parsley and plantains as being common.  What does that mean? According to Wikipedia (where else would I go?),

 “Common species and uncommon species are designations used in ecology to describe the population status of a species. Commonness is closely related to abundance. Abundance refers to the frequency with which a species is found in controlled samples; in contrast, species are defined as common or uncommon based on their overall presence in the environment. A species may be locally abundant without being common.

However, “common” and “uncommon” are also sometimes used to describe levels of abundance, with a common species being less abundant than an abundant species, while an uncommon species is more abundant than a rare species.”

In the UK we have a conservation designation, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, the criteria for selection which can be found here. To save you the trouble of reading the whole document, the way in which rarity and scarcity are defined is as follows.

Nationally Rare (15 or fewer UK hectad (10 km squares) records)

Nationally Scarce – Notable A (31-100 UK hectad records),

Nationally Scarce – Notable B (16-30 hectad records.

Local – (101-300 UK hectad records)

Okay, so what has all this to do with aphids and their pest status? As you all probably know by now I love aphids; as far as I am concerned, where insects are concerned, they are the bee’s knees**.

Unfortunately, aphids get a terrible press, most of it, in my opinion, undeserved.

Just a couple of examples of aphids getting a biblically bad press.

A few years ago, I wrote a short piece about the fact that only a minority of the so far 5600 or so aphids described, are pests, and many are very rare. The cover of this issue of New Scientist from 1977, which appeared a few months after I joined the group, very nicely sums up the question that we really ought to be asking. Here I have to confess that the article from our lab (McLean et al., 1977), made the case for aphids being pests, and it was the late Denis Owen who defended aphids (Owen, 1977).

Tony Dixon’s cereal aphid research group (of which I was proud to be a member) got more than just a mention in this issue.

Two plants that I have a particular interest in are sycamore and bird cherry, mainly because of their aphids, but in the case of the bird cherry, I love its flowers.  Now, although both have very similar distributions and occurrences to cow parsley and ribwort plantain, ubiquitous, they are much easier

Distribution of cow parsley, ribwort plantain, and sycamore and bird cherry in the British Isles (Atlas of the British Flora)

to find aphids on than both cow parsley and plantain.  On my daily walks during which I pass countless cow parsley and plantain plants, I have, so far, only found one cow parsley with aphids on and not a single plantain has shown any signs of aphid infestation . I have also, only found one nettle plant with Microlophium carnosum on it.  Cow parsley has a number of aphid species that use it as a secondary host migrating there from willows or hawthorns. Plantains also serve as host plants to aphids, some such as Dysaphis plantaginea host alternate, others such as Aphis plantaginis, do not. The latter species, if present, is almost always ant attended (Novgorodova & Gavrilyuk, 2012), which, if you know what you are looking for, makes it easy to spot.  I know what to look for and so far, have not found any! Nettles are also very common in the roadside verges, and they too have aphids that love them, Microlophium carnosum and Aphis urticata, the former a favourite prey of ants, the latter, farmed by the ants.  So far this year I have only found one small colony of M. carnosum, and believe me, I have been looking.

So what about the trees? Sycamores are a common sight on my walks, occurring both as hedges and as solitary trees or sometime in small groups. Almost all the large trees have sycamore aphids, Drepanosiphum platanoidis feeding on their leaves, and many have dense colonies of the maple aphid, Periphyllus testudinaceus, some with ants in attendance. Bird cherry is not as common on my walks and where I have found it, they have been small trees or shrubs usually on their own, and surrounded by other woody plants. Without exception, all have been conspicuously infested by the bird-cherry oat aphid.  To summarise, we have common plants that support aphids that are not regarded as rare, but find startlingly different levels of abundance of them here in Staffordshire, and in my experience, elsewhere.  At the same time that I have been actively searching for aphids, six species of butterfly that the Woodland Trust lists as common, have been hard to miss.  In order of sightings these are the Orange Tip, the Peacock, the Small Tortoiseshell, the Speckled Wood, the Holly Blue and the Brimstone, two of which, the Peacock and the Small Tortoiseshell, being nettle feeders as larvae. Despite the abundance of nettles in the hedgerows, So far I have only seen one small colony of Small Tortoiseshell larvae on the of nettles. I am, at this juncture, unable to resist mentioning that adults of the Holly Blue feed on aphid honeydew J Going back to my original point, the fact that I have seen more butterflies than aphids doesn’t necessarily mean that the aphids are less abundant, just less apparent.

There are at least 614 species of aphid in the UK (Bell et al., 2015). I am not sure how many I have seen, I stopped keeping a personal tick list many years ago, but I would guess that I have seen about half of them.  I like aphids, I look for aphids, but there are many ‘common’ species that I have never seen. I have, however, seen some of the rare ones. Four that stand out in my memory are Monaphis antnenata, Stomapahis graffii, Myzocallis myricae and Maculolachnus submacula. The first feeds on the upper surface of birch leaves (Hopkins & Dixon, 1997) and was shown to me by the late Nigel Barlow, when he was on a sabbatical at Silwood Park. Stomaphis graffii which feeds under the bark of sycamores and maples and is ant attended, was shown to me by an MSc student, Andrew Johnson, also at Silwood Park.  Myzocallis myricae, the bog myrtle aphid, only found on bog myrtle (Myrica gale) (Hopkins et al., 2002), I saw in the Highlands of Scotland, when Tony Dixon asked me to stop the car so he could go and look at a clump of bog myrtle he had spotted as we drove along between field sites. The giant rose aphid, Maculolachnus submacula, I saw in my garden in Norwich (84 Earlham Road) when I was a PhD student at the University of East Anglia.  I only found it because I wondered why there was an ant nest reaching halfway up one of my roses.  When I looked, I found that they were farming the aphids that were feeding on the lower stems.

It is important to remember that most aphids are host-specific, some feeding only on a single plant species, others being confined to a single genus with only a minority having a wide host range*** and considered pests (Dixon, 1998). Given this, it is obvious that aphids with rare host plants are also going to be rare (Hopkins et al., 2002).  Many aphids are also very fussy about their niche, either feeding on a very particular part of a plant or having a very close association with a particular species of ant.  Looking at the aphids that the two Bobs (Influential Points it seems that aphids that are rare  are also ant-attended.  Given, that many ant-attended aphids aren’t rare it would seem an interesting area to pursue. Perhaps it is the degree of ant-attendance, i.e. facultative versus obligate that is the key factor?

If you look at the list of species of insects that are regarded as endangered and worthy of conservation in the UK, the overwhelming impression is that unless they are big and pretty they don’t get a look in.  Needless to say, despite their beauty and fascinating life styles, no aphids are included in the list L

We really should be conserving aphids, not squashing them. Many provide important nutrition for ants and other pollinators, honeydew.  They are an important source of food for insects and birds (Cowie & Hinsley, 1988).  Aphids also help plants grow by feeding mycorrhizae with their honeydew (Owen, 1980; Milcu et al., 2015). Finally, as aphids are so host specific using the presence of uncommon species in suction traps could help identify sites with rare plants.

Aphids, rare, useful and much maligned, time to rethink their role.

 

References

Adler, L.S., Schmitt, J. & Bowers, M.D. (1995) Genetic variation in defensive chemistry in Plantago lanceolata (Plantaginaceae) and its effect on the specialist herbivore Junonia coenia (Nymphalidae). Oecologia, 101, 75-85.

Bell, J.R., Alderson, L., Izera, D., Kruger, T., Parker, S., Pickup, J., Shortall, C.R., Taylor, M.S., Verier, P. & Harrington, R. (2015) Long-term phenological trends, species accumulation rates, aphid traits and climate: five decades of change in migrating aphids. Journal of Animal Ecology, 84, 21-34.

Cowie, R.J. & Hinsley, S.A. (1988) Feeding ecology of great tits (Parus major) and blue tits (Parus caeruleus), breeding in suburban gardens. Journal of Animal Ecology, 57, 611-626.

Dixon, A.F.G. (1998) Aphid Ecology. Chapman & Hall, London.

Feeny, P. (1976) Plant apparency and chemical defence. Recent Advances in Phytochemistry, 10, 1-40.

Hopkins, G.W. & Dixon, A.F.G. (1997) Enemy-free space and the feeding niche of an aphid. Ecological Entomology, 22, 271-274.

Hopkins, G.W., Thacker, J.I.T., Dixon, A.F.G., Waring, P. & Telfer, M.G. (2002) Identifying rarity in aphids: the importance of host plant range. Biological Conservation, 105, 293-307.

McLean, I., Carter, N. & Watt, A. (1977) Pests out of Control. New Scientist, 76, 74-75.

Milcu, A., Bonkowski, H., Collins, C.M. & Crawley, M.J. (2015) Aphid honeydew-induced changes in soil biota can cascade up to tree crown architecture. Pedobiologia, 58, 119-127.

Milovanovic, M., Stefanovic, M., Djermanovic, V., & Milovanovic, J. (1996). Some chemical constituents of Anthriscus sylvestris. Journal of Herbs, Spices & Medicinal Plants, 4, 17–22. Eugenol – insecticide

Novgorodova, T.A. & Gavrilyuk, A.V. (2012). The degree of protection different ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) provide aphids (Hemiptera: Aphididae) against aphidophages European Journal of Entomology, 109, 187-196.

Owen, D.F. (1977) Are aphids really plant pests? New Scientist, 76, 76-77.

Owen, D.F. (1980) How plants may benefit from the animals that eat them. Oikos, 35, 230-235.

Price, P.W. (2003) Macroecological Theory on Macroecological Patterns, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Thacker, J.I., Hopkins, G.W. & Dixon, A.F.G. (2006) Aphids and scale insects on threatened trees: co-extinction is a minor threat. Oryx, 40, 233-236.

Uusitalo, M. (2004) European Bird Cherry (Pruns padus L). A Biodiverse Wild Plant for Horticulture. MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Jokioinen.

** https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/the_bee%27s_knees    

***Hugh Loxdale however, would argue that all insects are specialists and that so called polyphagous species are, in reality, cryptic specialist species (Loxdale, H.D., Lushai, G. & Harvey, J.A. (2011) The evolutionary improbablity of ‘generalism’ in nature, with special reference to insects. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 103, 1-18.)

 

5 Comments

Filed under Aphidology, Aphids

Insectageddon, Ecological Armageddon, Global insect Apocalypse – why we need sustained long-term funding

“To him that countryside, largely unspoiled in his early days, was an inexhaustible source of delight and a subject of endless study and mediation…And as the years passed and the countryside faded away under the withering touch of mechanical transport, that knowledge grew more and more precious. Now, the dwindling remnants had to be sought and found with considered judgement and their scanty material eked out with detail from the stores of the remembered past”  R Austin Freeman The Jacob Street Mystery (1942)

The recent release of the IPBES report highlighting the significant global declines in biodiversity has prompted me to revisit the “Insectageddon” debate, some of the ramifications of which I wrote about earlier this year.

 

Summary from the IPBES report – note that even a well-known group like dragonflies is quite data deficient*.

Insects may be in decline, but papers about their decline have been around for almost twenty years and even more are appearing as we entomologists begin to hope that people may at last be beginning to listen to us.

A selection of some of the many papers that have documented insect declines over the last several years.

Using the now infamous search term “insect decline” in the Google Trends function I was not surprised to see the steep increase since 2016, as 2017 was the year in which the paper reporting  the 75% decline in flying insect biomass appeared (Hallmann et al., 2017), but I was intrigued by what appeared to have been a peak in mentions since 2004.

Google Trends using the phrase insect decline – last data point is 2019 at the time of writing

I wondered what caused the peak in 2004, so using the same key words as Sánchez-Bayo & Wyckhuys (2019), checked Google Scholar and Web of Science to see if I could track down a paper that might have caused a media splash at the time.  I also checked 2003, in case there was a delay in reporting. To my surprise I couldn’t find anything relevant in 2004, but 2003 threw up three papers (Hopkins & Freckleton, 2002; Kotze & O’Hara, 2003; Dennis & Shreeve, 2003).  The first was about the decline of taxonomists, which although a serious problem is unlikely to have generated that much attention, the other two were about long-term declines in Carabid beetles (Kotze & O’Hara, 2003) and the third about the decline of French butterflies (Dennis & Shreeve, 2003) which again, I suspect were probably not high enough profile to generate a big splash.  I was puzzled but then I thought, why not just put it into Google with the date 2004, and sure enough it directed me to a Nature News item with the headline Insect deaths add to extinction fears, which in turn led me to Thomas et al., (2004) which I am pretty certain generated the peak in interest and also highlights the fact that ecologists and entomologists have been worrying about this problem for some time.

Since the appearance of the, now, infamous paper, that sparked the most recent round of Armageddon stories (Sánchez-Bayo & Wyckhuys, 2019), a lot has been, quite justifiably, written about the short-comings of the study both in scientific journals (e.g. Komonen et al., 2019, Simmons et al., 2019; Thomas et al, 2019, Wagner, 2019) and in blog posts, such as this thoughtful piece from Manu Saunders.

What does need to be stressed, is that although these commentators recognise the shortcomings of the paper, none of them, including the most scathing of commentators (Mupepele et al., 2019) dispute the fact, that insects, in general, are in decline. Unfortunately, the climate change deniers and their ilk, have, of course, used the criticisms to try and spread a message of “nothing to fear folks”.

Hopefully a failed attempt at downplaying the insect decline stories, but a great example of how climate change deniers are keen to muddy the waters

For humans with our relatively short lifespans, shifting baselines can be a problem (Leather & Quicke, 2010; Tree, 2018), in that people accept what they have known in their childhoods as the natural state of nature.  It can of course work the other way. I can remember the late great Miriam Rothschild telling me in the early 1990s, how as a “gel” in the 1920s a particular butterfly species that was currently at very low numbers compared with the 1970s which was what I and similar aged colleagues were remarking upon, was 50 years before that, also very low, her message being “populations cycle”.  It is because of this propensity, which is nicely illustrated by some of my 20-year data sets, all from the same 52 trees, that we need access to long-term funding to monitor insect populations.  Chop my data sets into three-year concurrent periods, the time-span of a typical PhD study or research grant, and you end up with some very different pictures of the populations of three common insect species.

The Silwood Park Winter moth, Operophtera brumata – dramatic shifts in population levels

Twenty years of the Sycamore aphid, Drepanosiphum platanoidis, at Silwood Park.  First five years versus last five years – what happened? Does this fit with the recent paper by Stephen Heard and colleagues that species chosen for study because they are common or easy to find, are almost certainly to show declines over the long-term?

 

The Maple aphid, Periphyllus testudinaceus – twenty-year data run from Silwood Park

Given the above, and the fact that most of the evidence for insect declines is largely based on studies from Europe, the UK heading the list (Wagner, 2019) and on top of that, the evidence from tropical locations is open to different interpretations (e.g.  Willig et al, 2019), there is an urgent need for something to be done.  So, what do we need to do?  I think there are three things that need addressing, sooner, rather than later.

Monitoring

First, we need to build on the work that has been done in Germany (Hallmann et al., 2017) and the UK via the Rothamsted Insect Survey (Bell et al., 2015) and establish active insect monitoring networks using repeatable sampling methods, but on a global scale. New monitoring programs will not help establish past baselines, but they can help us determine trends from this point forward. We can make this truly global by engaging the public through community science. These programs will need to use standardized methods, such as Malaise traps, pitfall traps, light traps, and effort-based counts, with species diversity, abundance and biomass being primary measures. Although biomass is an imperfect estimator because it can be sensitive to changes in abundances of large species, it is still a valuable metric from the ecosystem perspective. Determining biomass trends also does not require fine-scale taxonomic knowledge, which is often lacking in citizen science initiatives. It would, even if it were possible, be incredibly expensive, to try to monitor all insect species from any community with appreciable diversity.  A much better option, and one that will certainly appeal to a wide range of citizen scientists would be to monitor taxa like butterflies, macro-moths, dragonflies, bees, and some beetle groups.  All these can serve as indicator species for other insect groups and, tongue in cheek, many can be observed using binoculars, thus encouraging ornithologists and mammalologists to join in 😊

Innovative use of past data

At national levels, a few long-term monitoring schemes already exist, for example, the UK Environmental Change Network (http://www.ecn.ac.uk/ ) collects biotic and abiotic data, including many insect groups, from 57 different sites across the UK using identical protocols (Rennie, 2016).   Multiple Long-Term Ecological Research projects track different facets of ecosystems in different ways (Magurran et al., 2010). In fact, the LTER network, if expanded to a global scale, could be the natural framework to make a global network proposal feasible, possibly through a targeted step change in funding (Thomas et al., 2019).  This is great for the future, but unfortunately, all the active long-term monitoring schemes are younger than modern agricultural intensification.  A way forward would be to use museum collections and to construct data sets by going through back numbers of those entomological journals that pre-date the 1940s.  There are some long-term historical long-term data that are already accessible, for example the 150 year record pine beauty moth infestations in Germany dating from 1810 (Klimetzek, 1972) and I am sure that others must exist.

Funding

Whatever we do, it will need long-term funding. There needs to be a recognition by state research funding agencies that entomological survey and monitoring work, although appearing mundane, should receive a step-change in funding, even if it is at the expense of other taxa  Funding should reflect the diversity and abundance of taxa, not their perceived charisma (Clark & May, 2002; Leather, 2013).  Crowd-funding may draw in some funding, but what is required is stable, substantial and sustained funding that will allow existing and future international collaborations to flourish.  For this to happen and failing sustained state funding, we need to convince philanthropic donors such as the Gates Foundation to turn their attention from insect eradication to insect conservation.

We do, however, need to act quickly, stop talking to just our peers, meet the public, and, if needs be, personally, or via our learned societies, lobby governments; there is no Planet B.

 

References

Bell, J.R., Alderson, L., Izera, D., Kruger, T., Parker, S., Pickup, J., Shortal, C.R., Taylor, M.S., Verier, P., & Harrington, R. (2015) Long-term phenological trends, species accumulation rates, aphid traits and climate: five decades of change in migrating aphids. Journal of Animal Ecology, 84, 21-34.

Cordoso, P. & Leather, S.R. (2019) Predicting a global insect apocalypseInsect Conservation & Diversity, 12, 263-267.

Dennis, R.H.L. & Shreeve, T.G. (2003) Gains and losses of French butterflies: tests of predictions, under-recording and regional extinction from data in a new atlas. Biological Conservation, 110, 131-139.

Hallmann, C.A., Sorg, M., Jongejans, E., Siepel, H., Hoflan, N., Schwan, H., Stenmans, W., Muller, A., Sumser, H., Horren, T., Goulson, D., & De Kroon, H. (2017) More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas. PLoSONE, 12(10), :e0185809.

Hopkins, G.W. & Freckleton, R.P. (2002) Declines in the numbers of amateur and professional taxonomists: implications for conservation. Animal Conservation, 5, 245-249.

Klimetzek, D. (1972) Die Zeitfolge von Ubervermehrungen nadelfressender kiefernraupen in derPfalz seit 1810 und die Ursachen ihres Ruckanges in neuerer Zeit. Zeitschrift fur Angewandte Entomologie, 71, 414-428.

Kotze, D.J. & O’Hara, R.B. (2003) Species decline – but why?  Explanations of Carabid beetle (Coleoptera, Carabidae) declines in Europe. Oecologia, 135, 138-148.

Leather, S.R. & Quicke, D.J.L. (2010) Do shifting baselines in natural history knowledge threaten the environment?  Environmentalist, 30, 1-2

Magurran, A.E., Baillie, S.R., Buckland, S.T., Dick, J.M., Elston, D.A., Scott, M., Smith, R.I., Somerfiled, P.J. & Watt, A.D. (2010) Long-term datasets in biodiversity research and monitoring: assessing change in ecological communities through time. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 25, 574-582.

Møller, A.P. (2019) Parallel declines in abundance of insects and insectivorous birds in Denmark over 22 years. Ecology & Evolution, 9, 6581-6587.

Mupepele, A.C., Bruelheide, H., Dauber, J., Krüß, A., Potthast, T., Wägele, W. & Klein, A.M. (2019). Insect decline and its drivers: Unsupported conclusions in a poorly performed meta-analysis on trends—A critique of Sánchez-Bayo and Wyckhuys (2019).  Basic & Applied Ecology, 37, 20-23.

Rennie, S.C. (2016) Providing information on environmental change: Data management, discovery and access in the UK Environmental Change Network data.  Ecological Indicators, 68, 13-20.

Sánchez-Bayo, F. & Wyckhuys, K.A.G. (2019) Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: A review of its drivers. Biological Conservation, 232, 8-27.

Thomas, C.D., Jones, T.H. & Hartley, S.E. (2019) “Insectageddon”: a call for more robust data and rigorous analyses. Global Change Biology, 6, 1891-1892.

Thomas, J.A., Telfer, M.G., Roy, D.B., Preston, C.D., Greenwood, J.J.D., Asher, J., Fox, R., Clarke, R.T. & Lawton, J.H. (2004) Comparative losses of British butterflies, birds, and plants and the global extinction crisis. Science, 303, 1879-1881.

Tree, I. (2018) Wilding, Picador, Pan Macmillan.

Wagner, D.L. (2019) Global insect decline: comments on Sánchez-Bayo and Wyckhuys (2019). Biological Conservation, 233, 332-333.

Willig, M.R., Woolbright, L., Presley, S.J., Schowalter, T.D., Waide, R.B., Heartsill Scalley, T., Zimmerman, J.K.,  González, G. & Lugo, A.E. (2019) Populations are not declining and food webs are not collapsing at the Luquillo Experimental Forest. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116, 12143-12144.

*

7 Comments

Filed under Bugbears, EntoNotes

Not all aphids are farmed by ants

One of the great things about working with aphids is that it gave me the chance to go back to my childhood entomological roots of playing with ants.  Most gardeners have had the experience when cruelly* running their finger and thumb down an aphid covered plant stem of finding their hand suddenly covered with ants.   As someone who has a very relaxed approach to aphids, I find the presence of ants on a plant a handy way of finding aphids, although sometimes the ants are there because of extra-floral nectaries.  So what exactly is going on when you find ants and aphids together?

It has long been known that some aphids are farmed or tended by some ant species.  According to Jones (1927) Goedart** was the first to describe the relationship scientifically (Goedart & Lister, 1685) and by the latter half of the 19th Century you can find illustrations such as the one below that appeared in Van Bruyssel’s fantastic foray into early science-communication.

antsaphids-1

An ant dairy maid coming to milk her aphids – their siphunculi and anuses are just visible if you look closely: cleverly made to look like cow heads (From Van Bruyssel, 1870)

The ant-aphid association is usually defined as a mutualism as the two species exist in a relationship in which each individual benefits from the activity of the other.  Just to confuse people however, the association is also sometimes termed trophobiosis*** (e.g. Oliver et al., 2008) which is a more symbiotic relationship.

The degree of dependence of the aphid on the ants varies from species to species.  Some aphids, especially those that live underground on plant roots, are unable to survive without their ant attendants (Pontin, 1978).   Pontin (1960) also reports seeing Lasius flavus workers licking aphid eggs which he suggests stops them from going mouldy as the licking removes fungal spores.  He also noted that those eggs that were not cared for in this way did not hatch.  Other aphids have a more facultative relationship, and are able to survive quite successfully without the help of their friendly neighbourhood ants.

We tend to think of aphids as soft squidgy defenceless things that are easy to squash.  To other insects however, they present a bit more of a challenge.  Aphids have structural and behavioural defences to keep them safe in the dangerous world of bug eat bug.  Alarm pheromones and dropping behaviour are commonly used by aphids to avoid meeting predators face to face (Dixon, 1958a).    Aphis also have a number of physical defences.  Their spihunculi (cornicles) can produce a quickly hardening wax to gum up ladybird jaws (Dixon, 1958b).  Other aphid species cover themselves with dense waxy coats that make them less palatable or accessible to natural enemies (Mueller et al., 1992).  Other aphids have thick skins (heavily sclerotized) and what entomologists term saltatorial leg modification; long legs to you and me, and so able to give a ladybird or other opportunistic insect predator a good kicking (Villagra et al., 2002).  These characteristics, which are all costly, are reduced or absent in aphids that are frequently associated with ants (Way, 1963) as presumably with ant bodyguards in attendance, there is no need for the aphids to invest in extra anti-predator defences.

antsaphids-2

Note also the shortened siphunculi in Periphyllus testudinaceus and the hairier bottom, when compared with the leggy, and arguably, prettier Drepanosihpum platanoidis.

Apart from reducing their defensive armoury, those aphids that are obligately ant attended have a specially adapted rear end, essentially a hairy bottom.  This is more scientifically known as the trophobiotic organ.   The trophobiotic organ is an enlarged anal plate surrounded by special hairs that acts as a collection and storage device that allows the aphid to accumulate honeydew ready for the ants to remove at their leisure.

antsaphids3

Three different trophobiotic organs, some hairier than others – after Heie (1980)

antsaphids4

A real live view of the “trophobiotic organ” of Tetraneura ulmi (from the fantastic Influential Points website – http://influentialpoints.com/Images/Tetraneura_ulmi_aptera_on_grass_roots_c2015-09-04_14-53-13ew.jpg

Non-ant attended aphids without the trophobiotic organ, deposit their honeydew directly on to the leaf surface or on the ground, or if you are unlucky enough to park under an aphid infested tree, on to your car 🙂  Ants lick and collect sycamore aphid, Drepanosiphum platanoidis honeydew from leaves, but not directly from the aphids, which they do do from the maple aphid, Periphyllus testudinaceus, which also lives on sycamore trees P. testudinaceus (Pontin, 1958).

So what’s in it for the ants?  Why should they bother looking after aphids, even in some cases, keeping aphid eggs in their nests over the winter (Pontin, 1960)? The obvious answer is the honeydew that the aphids produce as a by-product of feeding on phloem sap. The amount of material that an aphid can remove from a plant is quite astounding.  A large willow aphid (Tuberolacnhus salignus) adult can sucks up the equivalent of 4 mg sucrose per day Mittler (1958) , which is equivalent to the photosynthetic product of one to two leaves per day.  Admittedly, they are large aphids and not ant attended****, but even an aphid half their size passes a lot of plant sap through their digestive systems.  Honeydew is not just sugar but is a mixture of free amino acids and amides, proteins, mineral and B-vitamins, so all in all, quite a useful food source for the ants (Way, 1963).  All aphids produce honeydew but not all aphids are ant attended and as I pointed out earlier, not all ants attend aphids.  Our research suggests that 41% of ant genera have trophobiotic species, but these are not equally distributed among ant families.  Some ant sub-families, for example the Fomicinae,  specilaise in ant attendance,  whereas in other ant families such as the Ecitoninae, aphids are used only as prey and the honeydew is gathered from plant and ground surfaces (Oliver et al., 2008).  The ant species that are most likely to develop mutualistic relationship with aphids appear to be those that live in trees, have large colonies, are able to exploit disturbed habitats and are dominant or invasive species (Oliver et al., 2008).

Those ants that do tend aphids don’t just protect them from predators and other natural enemies. They want to maximise the return for their investment. The black bean aphid, Aphis fabae, which is often tended by Lasius niger, has its tendency to produced forms reduced by the ants, thus making sure that the aphids are around longer to provide food for them (El-Ziady & Kennedy, 1956).  The ant Lasius fuliginosus transports young Stomaphis quercus aphids to parts of the tree with the best honeydew production (Goidanich, 1959) and Lasius niger goes one step further, moving individuals of the aphid Pterocomma salicis, to better quality willow trees (Collins & Leather, 2002).  Lasius niger seems to have a propensity for moving bugs about, they have also been seen moving coccids from dying clover roots to nearby living ones (Hough, 1922).

In the mid-1970s John Whittaker and his student, Gary Skinner, set up a study to examine the interactions between the wood ant, Formica rufa and the various insect herbivores feeding on the sycamore trees in Cringlebarrow Wood, Lancashire.  They excluded some ants from some of the aphid infested branches and allowed them access to others on the same trees and also looked at trees that were foraged by ants and those that weren’t.  They found that F. rufa was a heavy predator of the sycamore aphid, D. platanoidis, but tended the maple aphid,  P. testudinaceus (a novel observation for that particular ant-aphid interaction).  Ant excluded colonies of P. testudinaceus decreased, whereas D. platanoidis did not, but on those branches where ants were able to access the aphids, the reverse pattern was seen (Skinner & Whittaker, 1981).

The presence of thriving aphid colonies in the neighbourhood of ant nests and in some cases aphid colonies only exist where there are ant nests nearby (Hopkins & Thacker, 1999), has made some people wonder if aphids actively look for ant partners (Fischer et al., 2015).  There is, however, no evidence that aphids look for ant partners, rather the fact that wing production is reduced in the presence of tending ants, means that aphid colonies can accumulate around and close to ant nests (Fischer et al., 2015a).

That doesn’t mean that the aphids only rely on honeydew production to guarantee the presence of their ant bodyguards. The aphid Stomaphis yanonis, which like other

antsaphids5

Stomaphis aceris, also ant attended.  Imagine trying to drag that mouth part out of a tree trunk quickly 🙂

Stomaphis species, has giant mouthparts, and so needs plenty of time to remove its mouthparts safely definitely needs ant protection to cover its back when involved in the delicate operation of stylet unplugging. In this case, it turns out that the aphids smell like that ants, they have cuticular hydrocarbons that resemble those of their ant protector Lasius fuji and thus encourages the ants to treat them as their own (Endo & Itino (2013).  Earlier work on the ant-attended tree-dwelling aphids, Lachnus tropicalis and Myzocallis kuricola, in Japan showed that the ant Lasius niger preyed on aphids that had not been attended by nest mates, but tended those that had been previously tended (Sakata 1994).  This too would indicate the presence of some sort of chemical marker or brand.

To add support to this, just over twenty years ago (1996), I supervised an undergraduate student Arran Frood*****.   He worked with the maple aphid, and the ants L. niger and L. fulginosus.  Aphids on ant-attended sycamore trees were washed with diluted acetone or water.   Those that had been washed with acetone were predated more than unwashed aphids suggesting that It was like washing off the colony specific pheromone marker. In support of this hypothesis, Arran found that predation would also increase if he swapped a twig full of aphids between colonies, but not from one part of the colony to another. It also worked between the two ant species, Lasius niger and L. fuliginosus, so it seems like the ants have a colony specific marker on their aphids.  We should really have written this up for publication.

Although aphids do not actively seek ant partners, they may compete with each other to retain the services of their ant bodyguards by producing more honeydew (Addicott, 1978).  There is evidence that ants make their decisions of whether to predate or tend aphids by monitoring honeydew production and choose to prey on aphids in colonies that produce less honeydew (Sakata, 1995).  Recent work has also shown that the honeydew of the black bean aphid, Aphis fabae is often colonised by the bacterium Staphylococcus xylosus. Honeydew so infected produces a bouquet of volatile compounds that are attractive to the ant L. niger thus increasing the cahnces of the aphids being ant-attended (Fischer et al., 2015b).  This adds yet another layer of complexity to the already complicated mutualistic life style that aphids have adopted.

And finally, you may remember me writing about the wonderful colour variations seen in some aphid species and how this could be modified by their symbionts. In another twist, it seems that ants may have a say in this too, albeit at a colony level rather than at the clonal level.  The improbably named Mugwort aphid, Macrosiphoniella yomogicola  which is obligately ant-attended by the ant L. japonicus, is found in  colonies that are typically 65% green 35% red (Watanabe et al. 2016).  The question Watanabe and his colleagues asked is why do ants like this colour balance? One possibility is that red and green aphids have slightly different effects on the mugwort plants where they feed. Though green aphids produce more honeydew, red aphids seem to prevent the mugwort from flowering. Given that aphid colonies on a flowering mugwort go extinct, ants looking to maintain an aphid herd for more than a year might see an advantage to keeping reds around to guarantee a long-term food supply from their green sisters.

Aren’t insects wonderful?

 

References

Addicott, J.F. (1978) Competition for mutualists: aphids and ants.  Canadian Journal of Zoology, 56, 2093-2096.

Carroll, C.R. & Janzen, D.H. (1973) Ecology of foraging by ants.  Annual Review of Ecology & Systematics, 4, 231-257

Collins, C.M. & Leather, S.R. (2002) Ant-mediated dispersal of the black willow aphid Pterocomma salicis L.; does the ant Lasius niger L. judge aphid-host quality?  Ecological Entomology, 27, 238-241.

Dixon, A.F.G. (1958a) The escape responses shown by certain aphids to the presence of the coccinellid Adalia decempunctata (L.). Transactions of the Royal Entomological Society London, 110, 319-334.

Dixon, A.F.G. (1958b) The protective function of the siphunculi of the nettle aphid, Microlophium evansi (Theob.). Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine, 94, 8.

El-Ziady, S. & Kenendy, J.S. (1956) Beneficial effects of the common garden ant, Lasius niger L., on the black bean aphid, Aphis fabae Scopoli.  Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society London (A), 31, 61-65

Endo, S. & Itino, T. (2012) The aphid-tending ant Lasius fuji exhibits reduced aggression toward aphids marked with ant cuticular hydrocarbons.  Research on Population Ecology, 54, 405-410.

Endo, S. & Itino, T. (2013) Myrmecophilus aphids produce cuticular hydrocarbons that resemble those of their tending ants.  Population Ecology, 55, 27-34.

Fischer, C.Y., Vanderplanck, M., Lognay, G.C., Detrain, C. & Verheggen, F.J. (2015a) Do aphids actively search for ant partner?  Insect Science, 22, 283-288.

Fischer, C.Y., Lognay, G.C., Detrain, C., Heil, M., Sabri, A., Thonart, P., Haubruge, E., & Verheggen, F.J. (2015) Bacteria may enhance species-association in an ant-aphid mutualistic relationship. Chemoecology, 25, 223-232.

Goidanich, A.  (1959) Le migrazioni coatte mirmecogene dello Stomaphis quercus Linnaeus, afido olociciclio monoico omotopo. Bollettino dell’Istituto di Entomologia della Università degli Studi di Bologna, 23, 93-131.

Goedart, J. & Lister, M. (1685) De Insectis, in Methodum Redactus; cum Notularum Additione. [Metamorphosis Naturalis] Smith, London.

Heie, O. (1980)  The Aphdioidea (Hemiptera) of Fennoscandia and Denmark. 1. Fauna Entomologica Scandinavica 9.Scandinavian Science Press, Klampenborg, Denmark.

Hough, W.S (1922) Observations on two mealy bugs Trionymus tritolii Forbes and Pseudococcus maritimus Ehrh. Entomologist’s News, 33, 1 7 1-76.

Hopkins, G.W. & Thacker, J.I. (1999) Ants and habitat specificity in aphids. Journal of Insect Conservation, 3, 25-31.

Jones, C.R. (1927) Ants and Their Relation to Aphids.  PhD Thesis, Iowa State College, USA.

Mittler, T.E. (1958a) Studies on the feeding and nutrition of Tuberolachnus salignus (Gmelin) (Homoptera, Aphididae).  II. The nitrogen and sugar composition of ingested phloem sap and excreted honeydew.  Journal of Experimental Biology, 35, 74-84.

Mueller, T.F., Blommers, L.H.M. & Mols, P.J.M. (1992) Woolly apple aphid (Eriosoma lanigerum Hausm., Hom., Aphidae) parasitism by Aphelinus mali Hal. (Hym., Aphelinidae) in relation to host stage and host colony size, shape and location.  Journal of Applied Entomology, 114, 143-154.

Oliver, T.H., Leather, S.R. & Cook, J.M. (2008)  Macroevolutionary patterns in the origin of mutualisms,  Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 21, 1597-1608.

Pontin, A.J. (1958)  A preliminary note on the eating of aphids by ants of the genus Lasius. Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine, 94, 9-11.

Pontin, A.J. (1960)  Some records of predators and parasites adapted to attack aphids attended by ants.  Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine, 95, 154-155.

Pontin, A.J. (1960)  Observations on the keeping of aphid eggs by ants of the genus LasiusEntomologist’s Monthly Magazine, 96, 198-199.

Pontin, A.J. (1978) The numbers and distributions of subterranean aphids and their exploitation by the ant Lasius flavus (Fabr.). Ecological Entomology, 3, 203-207.

Sakata, H. (1994) How an ant decides to prey on or to attend aphids.  Research on Population Ecology, 36, 45-51.

Sakata, H. (1995) Density-dependent predation of the ant Lasius niger (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) on two attendant aphids Lachnus tropicalis and Myzocallis kuricola (Homoptera: Aphidae). Research on Population Ecology, 37, 159-164.

Skinner, G.J. & Whittaker, J.B. (1981) An Experimental investigation of inter-relationships between the wood-ant (Formica rufa) and some tree-canopy herbivores.  Journal of Applied Ecology, 50, 313-326.

Stadler, B. & Dixon, A.F.G. (1999)  Ant attendance in aphids: why different degrees of myrmecophily? Ecological Entomology, 24, 363-369.

Van Bruyssel, E. (1870) The Population of an Old Pear Tree.  MacMillan & Co, London

Vilagra, C.A., Ramirez, C.C. & Niemeyer, H.M. (2002) Antipredator responses of aphids to parasitoids change as a function of aphid physiological state.  Animal Behaviour, 64, 677-683.

Watanabe, S., Murakami, T., Yoshimura, J. & Hasegawa, E. (2016) Color piolymorphism in an aphid is maintained by attending ants.  Science Advances, 2, e1600606

Way, M.J. (1963) Mutualism between ants and honeydew-producing Homoptera.  Annual Review of Entomology, 3, 307-344.

*in my opinion at any rate 🙂

**I have had to take this on faith as have not been able to get hold of the original reference and read it myself

***Trophobiosis is a symbiotic association between organisms where food is obtained or provided. The provider of food in the association is referred to as a trophobiont. The name is derived from the Greek τροφή trophē, meaning “nourishment” and -βίωσις -biosis which is short for the English symbiosis

****Perhaps they are too big for ants to mess with?  They are, however, very often surrounded by Vespid wasps who do appreciate the huge amount of honeydew deposited on the willow leaves and stems.

***** He must have enjoyed it because he also did his MSc project with me the following year 🙂

 

Post script

I began this post with an illustration from Van Bruyssel.  I finish it with this illustration from another early attempt to get children interested in entomology.  Unfortunately in this case the  ant attended aphids are the very opposite of what they should look like and he further compounds his error by telling his youthful audience that the aphids milk the aphids via their siphunculi 😦

antsaphids-holdrich

The very opposite of what an ant-attend aphid looks like – from Half hours in the tiny world; wonders of insect life by C.F. Holder (1905)

4 Comments

Filed under Aphidology, Aphids

Aphid life cycles – bizaare, complex or what?

In a very early post I mentioned that one of the reasons that I love aphids so much is their life-cycles https://simonleather.wordpress.com/aphidology/  and the fantastic jargon that is used to describe them.  Many undergraduates find the jargon off-putting but it was this complexity that really grabbed my imagination.

aphid jargon

Insects are probably the most diverse group of organisms on Earth (Grimaldi & Engel, 2005) and their life cycles range from simple sexual and asexual styles to complex life cycles encompassing obligate and facultative alternation of sexual and asexual components.  Nancy Moran (1992) suggests that in the insect world probably the most intricate and varied life cycles are found in aphids and I certainly wouldn’t disagree.

There are basically two types of aphid life-cycles, non-host alternating (autoecious, monoecious) and host alternating (heteroecious).   Autoecious aphids spend their entire life cycle in association with one plant species as shown below (Dixon, 1985).

autoecious lifecycle

(or group of related plant species), whereas heteroecious aphids divide their time between two very different species of host plant, usually a tree species (the primary host) on which they overwinter, and an herbaceous plant species (the secondary host) on which they spend their summer.

Heteroecious

Approximately 10% of aphid species are heteroecious.  The ancestral aphid life cycle is thought to have been winged, egg laying and autoecious on a woody host plant almost certainly conifers and the oldest families of woody angiosperms e.g. Salicaceae (Mordwilko, 1928; Moran, 1992).

aphid life cycle evolution

Aphid life cycles can also be described as holocyclic, in which cyclical parthenogenesis occurs, with aphids reproducing sexually in the autumn to produce an overwintering egg, in temperate regions and parthenogenetically during spring and summer as shown below for the sycamore aphid (Dixon, 1985).

Holocyclic.png

Some aphids are anholocyclic where the clone is entirely asexual reproducing by parthenogenesis throughout the year. This is often seen in locations where winter conditions are mild, in the tropics for example or as a bit of an oddity around hot-springs in Iceland.

Anholocyclic.png

Parthenogenesis in aphids is coupled with live births and reduced generation times through the phenomenon of telescoping generations.  Parthenogenesis in aphids developed early on but whether the oldest aphids (200 mya) were parthenogenetic is not known.

Host alternation appears to have arisen more than once (Moran, 1988) and occurs in four slightly different forms depending on the taxon in which it occurs.  The main differences being in whether the sexual forms are produced on the primary (winter) host (the host on which the eggs are laid), or as in the case of the Aphidini, the males being produced on the secondary (summer) host and the sexual females produced on the primary host.   The majority of aphids host alternate between unrelated woody and perennial hosts, but some species host alternate between herbaceous plants e.g. pea aphid Acyrthosiphon pisum alternates between the perennial vetches and the annual peas Pisum sativum (Muller & Steiner, 1985) and Urleucon gravicorne alternates between the perennial Solidago and the annual Erigeron (Moran 1983).  Some aphid species such as Rhopalosipum padi, have clones that are holocyclic and some that are anholocyclic, so hedge their bets and also gives me the opportunity to slip in a great slide kindly lent to me by my friend Richard Harrington at Rothamsted Research.

Mixed

One of the things that is rather puzzling is why some aphid species should have adopted a host alternating life cycle which on the face of it, seems to be rather a risky strategy.  You could liken it to looking for a needle in a hay-stack; only about 1 in 300 aphids that leave the secondary host at the end of summer are likely to find their primary host (Ward et al, 1998).  There are a number of theories as to why it has evolved.

1. The nutritional optimization through complementary host growth hypothesis states that heteroecy has been favoured by natural selection because it enables a high rate of nutrient intake throughout the season (Davidson, 1927; Dixon, 1971).  In essence, the clone moves from a host plant where food quality is low and moves onto a herbaceous host that is growing rapidly and thus provides a good source of nutrition.  In autumn, the clone moves back to its primary woody host where leaves are beginning to senesce and provide a better source of nutrition as seen below (Dixon, 1985).

Nutritional changes

On the other hand, non-host alternating aphids such as the sycamore aphid, Drepanosiphum platanoidis, or the maple aphid, Periphyllus testudinaceus, reduce their metabolism and tough it out over the summer months when the leaves of their tree hosts are nutritionally poor, the former as adults, the latter as nymphs (aphid immature forms) known as dimorphs. Mortality over the summer in these species is, however, very high.  In some years I have recorded almost 100% mortality on some of my study trees, so very similar to the 99.4% mortality seen in the autumn migrants (gynoparae) of the bird cherry-oat aphid, Rhoaplosiphum padi.  Other autoecious aphids are able to track resources if they live on host plants that continue to develop growing points throughout the summer.

 Tough it out

Verdict:  No apparent advantage gained

2. The oviposition site advantage hypothesis states that primary woody hosts provide better egg laying sites and provide emerging spring aphids with guaranteed food source (Moran, 1983).  There is however, no evidence that eggs laid on woody hosts survive the winter better than those laid in the herbaceous layer.  Egg mortality in both situations ranges from 70-90% (Leather, 1983, 1992, 1993).

Verdict:  No apparent advantage gained

3.  The enemy escape hypothesis states that by leaving the primary host as natural enemy populations begin to build up and moving to a secondary host largely devoid of enemies confers an advantage on those species that exhibit this trait (Way & Banks, 1968).  At the end of summer, when the natural enemies have ‘found’ the clone again, the clone then migrates back to its primary host, which theoretically is now free of natural enemies.  This is an attractive idea as it is well known that natural enemies tend to lag behind the populations of their prey.

Enemy escape

Verdict: Possible advantage gained

4. The Rendez-vous hosts hypothesis suggests that host alternation assists mate location and enables wider mixing of genes than autoecy (Ward, 1991; Ward et al. 1998).  This seems reasonable, but as far as I know, no-one has as yet demonstrated that host-alternating aphid species have a more diverse set of genotypes than non-host alternating aphids.

Verdict:  Not proven

5.  The temperature tolerance constraints hypothesis which postulates that seasonal morphs are adapted to lower or higher temperatures and that they are unable to exist on the respective host plants at the ‘wrong time of year’ (Dixon, 1985).  I don’t actually buy this one at all, as I have reared spring and autumn morphs at atypical temperatures and they have done perfectly well (Leather & Dixon, 1981), the constraint being the phenological stage of their host plant rather than the temperature.  In addition, there are some host alternating aphid species in which the fundatrix can exist on both the secondary and primary hosts (if the eggs are placed on the secondary host).  This has been experimentally demonstrated in the following species:

Aphis fabae                                 Spindle & bean                                        Dixon & Dharma (1980)

Cavariella aegopdii

Cavariella pastinacea              Willows and Umbelliferae                     Kundu & Dixon (1995)

Cavariella theobaldi

Metopolophium dirhodum       Rose and grasses                                    Thornback (1993)

Myzus persicae                           Prunus spp &  40 different plants       Blackman & Devonshire (1978)

Verdict: Unlikely

6.  The escape from induced host-plant defences hypothesis (Williams & Whitham, 1986), which states that by leaving the primary host as summer approaches, the aphids escape the plant defences being mustered against them.  This is only really applicable to those gall aphids where galled leaves are dropped prematurely by the host plant.

Verdict: Special case pleading?

7.  The constraint of fundatrix specialisation hypothesis is that of Moran (1988), who argues that heteroecy is not an optimal life cycle but that it exists because the fundatrix generation (the first generation that hatches from the egg in spring) on the ancestral winter host, are constrained by their host affinities and are unable to shift to newly available nutritionally superior hosts.  Whilst it is true that some host alternating aphids are however, very host specific as fundatrcies, some aphids are equally host-specific as oviparae at the end of the year the constraints of ovipara specialisation

For example, in the bird cherry-oat aphid Rhopalosiophum padi, the fundatrices are unable to feed on senescent leaf tissue of the primary host, their offspring can only develop very slowly on ungalled tissue and all their offspring are winged emigrants (the alate morph that flies from the primary host to the secondary host) (Leather & Dixon, 1981).  The emigrants are able to feed as nymphs on the primary host on which they develop and as adults on their secondary host, but not vice versa (Leather et al., 1983).  The autumn remigrants (gynoparae, the winged parthenogenetic females that fly from the secondary hosts to the primary hosts on the other hand, feed on the secondary host as nymphs but are unable to feed on the primary host as adults (Leather, 1982; Walters et al., 1984).  The black bean aphid shows similar, but less rigid host specificity and whilst there is a distinct preference for the relevant host plant (Hardie et al., 1989), parthenogenetic forms can occur throughout the summer on the primary host (Way & Banks, 1968), particularly if new growth is stimulated by pruning (Dixon & Dharma, 1980). There are also at least two examples of where both the primary and secondary host are herbaceous (see earlier).  In both these cases the fundatrices could exist on both the primary and secondary host plants

Verdict:  Not proven

So what do I think?  For years I was very firmly convinced that the nutritional optimization hypothesis was the obvious answer; after all Tony Dixon was my PhD supervisor 😉  Now, however, having lectured on the subject to several cohorts of students, if I was forced to pick a favourite from the list above, I would do a bit of fence-sitting and suggest a combination of the nutritional optimization and enemy escape hypotheses. What do you think? There are cetainly a number of possible research projects that would be interesting to follow up, the problem is finding the funding 😦

Sources

Blackman, R.L. & Devonshire, A.L. (1978)  Further studies on the genetics of the carboxylase-esterase regulatory system involved in resistance to orgaophosphorous insecticides in Myzus persicae (Sulzer).  Pesticide Science 9, 517-521

Davidson, J. (1927) The biological and ecological aspects of migration in aphids.  Scientific Progress, 21, 641-658

Dixon, A.F.G. (1971) The life cycle and host preferences of the bird cherry-oat aphid, Rhopalosiphum padi (L) and its bearing on the theory of host alternation in aphids. Annals of  Applied Biology, 68, 135-147.  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-7348.1971.tb06450.x/abstract

Dixon, A.F.G. (1985) Aphid Ecology Blackie, London.

Dixon, A.F.G. & Dharma, T.R. (1980) Number of ovarioles and fecundity in the black bean aphid, Aphis fabae. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 28, 1-14. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1570-7458.1980.tb02981.x/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=true

Grimaldi. D. & Engel, M.S. (2005)  Evolution of the Insects, Cambridge University Press, New York

Hardie, J. (1981) Juvenile hormone and photoperiodically controlled polymorphism in Aphis fabae: postnatal effects on presumptive gynoparae. Journal of Insect Physiology, 27, 347-352.

Hardie, J. Poppy, G.M. & David, C.T. (1989) Visual responses of flying aphids and their chemical modification. Physiological Entomology, 14, 41-51.  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-3032.1989.tb00935.x/abstract

Kundu, R. & Dixon, A.F.G. (1995) Evolution of complex life cycles in aphids. Journal of Animal Ecology, 64, 245-255.  http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/5759?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21102533364873

Leather, S.R. (1982) Do gynoparae and males need to feed ? An attempt to allocate resources in the bird cherry-oat oat aphid Rhopalosiphum padi. Entomologia experimentalis et applicata, 31, 386-390.  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1570-7458.1982.tb03165.x/abstract

Leather, S.R. (1983) Forecasting aphid outbreaks using winter egg counts: an assessment of its feasibility and an example of its application. Zeitschrift fur  Angewandte  Entomolgie, 96, 282-287. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1439-0418.1983.tb03670.x/abstract

Leather, S.R. (1992) Aspects of aphid overwintering (Homoptera: Aphidinea: Aphididae). Entomologia Generalis, 17, 101-113.  http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/19941101996.html;jsessionid=60EA025C7230C413B6094BCC4966EC06

Leather, S.R. (1993) Overwintering in six arable aphid pests: a review with particular relevance to pest management. Journal of Applied Entomology, 116, 217-233. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1439-0418.1993.tb01192.x/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=true

Leather, S.R. & Dixon, A.F.G. (1981) Growth, survival and reproduction of the bird-cherry aphid, Rhopalosiphum padi, on it’s primary host. Annals of applied Biology, 99, 115-118. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-7348.1981.tb05136.x/abstract

Moran, N.A. (1983) Seasonal shifts in host usage in Uroleucon gravicorne (Homoptera:Aphididae) and implications for the evolution of host alternation in aphids. Ecological Entomology, 8, 371-382. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2311.1983.tb00517.x/full

Moran, N.A. (1988) The evolution of host-plant alternation in aphids: evidence for specialization as a dead end. American Naturalist, 132, 681-706. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2461929?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21102533364873

Moran, N.A. (1992) The evolution of aphid life cycles. Annual Review of Entomology, 37, 321-348. http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.en.37.010192.001541

Mordwilko, A. (1928)  The evolution of cycles and the origin of heteroecy (migrations) in plant-lice.  Annals and Magazine of Natural History Series 10, 2, 570-582

Muller, F.P. & Steiner, H. (1985)  Das Problem Acyrthosiphom pisum (Homoptera: Aphididae).  Zietsschrift fur angewandte Entomolgie 72, 317-334

Thornback, N. (1983)  The Factors Determiining the Abundance of Metopolophium dirhodum (Walk.) the Rose Grain Aphid.  PhD Thesis, University of East Anglia.

Walters, K.F.A., Dixon, A.F.G., & Eagles, G. (1984) Non-feeding by adult gynoparae of Rhopalosiphum padi and its bearing on the limiting resource in the production of sexual females in host alternating aphids. Entomologia experimentalis et applicata, 36, 9-12. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1570-7458.1984.tb03398.x/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=true

Ward, S.A. (1991). Reproduction and host selection by aphids: the importance of ‘rendevous’ hosts. In Reproductive Behaviour of Insects: Individuals and Populations (eds W.J. Bailey & J. Ridsdill-Smith), pp 202-226. Chapman & Hall, London.

Ward, S.A., Leather, S.R., Pickup, J., & Harrington, R. (1998) Mortality during dispersal and the cost of host-specificity in parasites: how many aphids find hosts? Journal of Animal Ecology, 67, 763-773. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2656.1998.00238.x/full

Way, M.J. & Banks, C.J. (1968) Population studies on the active stages of the black bean aphid, Aphis fabae Scop., on its winter host Euonymus europaeus L. Annals of Applied Biology, 62, 177-197.  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-7348.1968.tb02815.x/abstract

Williams, A.G. & Whitham, T.G. (1986) Premature leaf abscission: an induced plant defense against gall aphids. Ecology, 67, 1619-1627.  http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1939093?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21102533364873

15 Comments

Filed under Aphidology, Aphids