, Volume 157, Issue 4, pp 629–640 | Cite as

Identifying the predator complex of Homalodisca vitripennis (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae): a comparative study of the efficacy of an ELISA and PCR gut content assay

  • Valerie Fournier
  • James Hagler
  • Kent Daane
  • Jesse de León
  • Russell Groves
Community Ecology - Methods Paper


A growing number of ecologists are using molecular gut content assays to qualitatively measure predation. The two most popular gut content assays are immunoassays employing pest-specific monoclonal antibodies (mAb) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays employing pest-specific DNA. Here, we present results from the first study to simultaneously use both methods to identify predators of the glassy winged sharpshooter (GWSS), Homalodisca vitripennis (Germar) (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae). A total of 1,229 arthropod predators, representing 30 taxa, were collected from urban landscapes in central California and assayed first by means of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) using a GWSS egg-specific mAb and then by PCR using a GWSS-specific DNA marker that amplifies a 197-base pair fragment of its cytochrome oxidase gene (subunit I). The gut content analyses revealed that GWSS remains were present in 15.5% of the predators examined, with 18% of the spiders and 11% of the insect predators testing positive. Common spider predators included members of the Salticidae, Clubionidae, Anyphaenidae, Miturgidae, and Corinnidae families. Common insect predators included lacewings (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae), praying mantis (Mantodea: Mantidae), ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), assassin bugs (Hemiptera: Reduviidae), and damsel bugs (Hemiptera: Nabidae). Comparison of the two assays indicated that they were not equally effective at detecting GWSS remains in predator guts. The advantages of combining the attributes of both types of assays to more precisely assess field predation and the pros and cons of each assay for mass-screening predators are discussed.


Conservation biological control ELISA Generalist predators Gut content PCR Predator-prey interactions Spiders 


  1. Agustí N, de Vincente MC, Gabarra R (1999) Development of sequence amplified characterized region (SCAR) markers of Helicoverpa armigera: a new polymerase chain reaction-based technique for predator gut analysis. Mol Ecol 8:1467–1474PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agustí N, Shayler SP, Harwood JD, Vaughan IP, Sunderland KD, Symondson WOC (2003) Collembola as alternative prey sustaining spiders in arable ecosystems: prey detection within predators using molecular markers. Mol Ecol 12:3467–3475PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blankenship LE, Yayanos AA (2005) Universal primers and PCR of gut contents to study marine invertebrate diets. Mol Ecol 14:891–899PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blua MJ, Redak RA, Morgan DJW, Costa HS (2001) Seasonal flight activity of two Homalodisca species (Homoptera: Cicadellidae) that spread Xylella fastidiosa in southern California. J Econ Entomol 94:1506–1510PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Burke WD, Eickbush DG, Xiong Y, Jakubczak J, Eickbush TH (1993) Sequence relationship of retrotransposable elements R1 and R2 within and between divergent insect species. Mol Biol Evol 10:163–185PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Calder CR, Harwood JD, Symondson WOC (2005) Detection of scavenged material in the guts of predators using monoclonal antibodies: a significant source of error in measurement of predation? Bull Entomol Res 95:57–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen Y, Giles KL, Payton ME, Greenstone MH (2000) Identifying key cereal aphid predators by molecular gut analysis. Mol Ecol 9:1887–1898PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Costello MJ, Daane KM (1999) Abundance of spiders and insect predators on grapes in central California. J Arachnol 27:531–538Google Scholar
  9. Costello MJ, Daane KM (2005) Day vs. night sampling for spiders in grapes vineyards. J Arachnol 33:25–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de León JH, Fournier V, Hagler JR, Daane KM (2006) Development of molecular diagnostic markers for the glassy-winged sharpshooter Homalodisca coagulata (Homoptera: Cicadellidae) for use in predator gut content examinations. Entomol Exp Appl 119:109–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dodd CS (2004) Development and optimization of PCR-Based techniques in predator gut analysis. PhD Thesis, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UKGoogle Scholar
  12. Foltan P, Sheppard S, Konvicka M, Symondson WOC (2005) The significance of facultative scavenging in generalist predator nutrition: detecting decayed prey in the guts of predators using PCR. Mol Ecol 14:4147–4158PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fournier V, Hagler JR, Daane KM, de León JH, Groves RL, Costa HS, Henneberry TJ (2006) Development and application of glassy-winged and smoke-tree sharpshooter egg-specific predator gut content ELISA. Biol Control 37:108–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gariepy TD, Kuhlmann U, Gillott C, Erlandson M (2007) Parasitoids, predators and PCR: the use of diagnostic molecular markers in biological control of arthropods. J Appl Entomol 131:225–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Greenstone MH (1983) Site-specificity and site tenacity in a wolf-spider: a serological dietary analysis. Oecologia 56:79–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Greenstone MH (1996) Serological analysis of arthropod predation: past, present, and future. In: Symondson WOC, Liddell JE (eds) The ecology of agricultural pests. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 383–399Google Scholar
  17. Greenstone MH, Morgan CE (1989) Predation on Heliothis zea (Lepidoptera: Noctuididae): an instar specific ELISA assay for stomach analysis. Ann Entomol Soc Am 82:45–49Google Scholar
  18. Greenstone MH, Shufran KA (2003) Spider predation: Species-specific identification of gut contents by polymerase chain reaction. J Arachnol 31:131–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hagler JR (1998) Variation in the efficacy of several predator gut content immunoassays. Biol Control 12:25–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hagler JR (2006) Development of an immunological technique for identifying multiple predator-prey interactions in a complex arthropod assemblage. Ann Appl Biol 149:153–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hagler JR, Naranjo SE (1996) Using gut content immunoassays to evaluate predaceous biological control agents: a case study. In: Symondson WOC, Liddell JE (eds) The ecology of agricultural pests. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 383–399Google Scholar
  22. Hagler JR, Naranjo SE (1997) Measuring the sensitivity of an indirect predator gut content ELISA: detectability of prey remains in relation to predator species, temperature, time, and meal size. Biol Control 9:112–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hagler JR, Naranjo SE (2005) Use of a gut content ELISA to detect whitefly predator feeding activity after field exposure to different insecticide treatments. Biocontrol Sci Technol 15:321–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hagler JR, Cohen AC, Enriquez FJ, Bradley-Dunlop D (1991) An egg-specific monoclonal antibody to Lygus hesperus. Biol Control 1:75–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hagler JR, Cohen AC, Bradley-Dunlop D, Enriquez FJ (1992) Field evaluation of predation on Lygus hesperus (Hemiptera: Miridae) using a species- and stage-specific monoclonal antibody. Environ Entomol 21:896–900Google Scholar
  26. Hagler JR, Brower AG, Tu Z, Byrne DN, Bradley-Dunlop D, Enriquez FJ (1993) Development of a monoclonal antibody to detect predation of the sweetpotato whitefly, Bemisia tabaci. Entomol Exp App 68:231–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hagler JR, Naranjo SE, Bradley-Dunlop D, Enriquez FJ, Henneberry TJ (1994) A monoclonal antibody to pink bollworm (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidea) egg antigen: a tool for predator gut analysis. Ann Entomol Soc Am 87:85–90Google Scholar
  28. Harper GL, King RA, Dodd C, Harwood JD, Glen DM, Bruford MW, Symondson WOC (2005) Rapid screening of invertebrate predators for multiple prey DNA targets. Mol Ecol 14:819–827PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Harper GL, Sheppard SK, Harwood JD, Read DSM, Glen DM, Bruford MW, Symondson WOC (2006) Evaluation of temperature gradient gel electrophoresis (TGGE) for the analysis of prey DNA within the guts of invertebrate predators. Bull Entomol Res 96:295–304PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Harwood JD, Phillips SW, Sunderland KD, Symondson WOC (2001) Secondary predation: quantification of food chain errors in an aphid–spider–carabid system using monoclonal antibodies. Mol Ecol 10:2049–2057PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Harwood JD, Sunderland KD, Symondson WOC (2004) Prey selection by linyphiid spiders: molecular tracking of the effects of alternative prey on rates of aphid consumption in the field. Mol Ecol 13:3549–3560PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Harwood JD, Sunderland KD, Symondson WOC (2005) Monoclonal antibodies reveal the potential of the tetragnathid spider Pachygnatha degeeri (Araneae: Tetragnathidae) as an aphid predator. Bull Entomol Res 95:161–167PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Harwood JD, Bostrom MR, Hladilek EE, Wise DH, Obrycki JJ (2007a) An order-specific monoclonal antibody to Diptera reveals the impact of alternative prey on spider feeding behavior in a complex food web. Biol Control 41:397–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Harwood JD, Desneux N, Yoo HJS, Rowley DL, Greenstone MH, Obrycki JJ, O’Neil RJ (2007b) Tracking the role of alternative prey in soybean aphid predation by Orius insidiosus: a molecular approach. Mol Ecol 16:4390–4400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Holland JM, Perry JN, Winder L (1999) The within-field spatial and temporal distribution of arthropods in winter wheat. Bull Entomol Res 89:499–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hoogendoorn M, Heimpel GE (2002) PCR-based gut content analysis of insect predators: using ribosomal ITS-1 fragments from prey to estimate predation frequency. Mol Ecol 10:2056–2067Google Scholar
  37. Juen A, Traugott M (2005) Detecting predation and scavenging by DNA gut-content analysis: a case study using soil insect predator-prey system. Oecologia 142:344–352PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Juen A, Traugott M (2007) Revealing species-specific trophic links in soil food webs: molecular identification of scarab predators. Mol Ecol 16:1545–1557PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kasper ML, Reeson AF, Cooper SJB, Perry KD, Austin AD (2004) Assessment of prey overlap between a native (Polites humilis) and an introduced (Vespula germanica) social wasp using morphology and phylogenetic analysis of 16S rDNA. Mol Ecol 13:2037–2048PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Luck RB, Shepard B, Kenmore P (1988) Experimental methods for evaluating arthropod natural enemies. Ann Rev Entomol 33:367–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Naranjo SE, Hagler JR (1998) Characterizing and estimating the effect of heteropteran predation. In: Coll M, Ruberson JR (eds) Predatory Heteroptera: their ecology and use in biological control. Thomas Say Publ, Entomological Society of America, Lanham, pp 171–197Google Scholar
  42. National Research Council (2004) California agricultural research priorities: Pierce’s disease. National Resource Council of the National Academies. National Academies Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  43. Park Y-L, Perring TM, Farrar CA, Gispert C (2006) Spatial and temporal distribution of two sympatric Homalodisca spp. (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae): implications for areawide pest management. Agric Ecosyst Environ 133:168–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pfannenstiel RS, Yeargan KV (2002) Identification and diel activity patterns of predators attacking Helicoverpa zea eggs in soybean and sweet corn. Environ Entomol 31:232–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Read DS, Sheppard SK, Bruford MW, Glen DM, Symondson WOC (2006) Molecular detection of predation by soil micro-arthropods on nematodes. Mol Ecol 15:1963–1972PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Redak RA, Purcell AH, Lopes JRS, Blua MJ, Mizell RFIII, Andersen PC (2004) The biology of xylem fluid-feeding insect vectors of Xylella fastidiosa and their relation to disease epidemiology. Ann Rev Entomol 49:243–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Riechert SE, Lockley (1984) Spiders as biological control agents. Ann Rev Entomol 29:299–320Google Scholar
  48. Riechert SE, Bishop L (1990) Prey control by an assemblage of generalist predators: spiders in garden test systems. Ecology 71:1441–1450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sheppard SK, Harwood JD (2005) Advances in molecular ecology: tracking trophic links through complex predator-prey food webs. Funct Ecol 19:751–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sheppard SK, Henneman ML, Memmott J, Symondson WOC (2004) Infiltration by alien predators into invertebrate food webs in Hawaii: a molecular approach. Mol Ecol 13:2077–2088PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sheppard SK, Bell J, Sunderland KD, Fenlon J, Skervin D, Symondson WOC (2005) Detection of secondary predation by PCR analyses of the gut contents of invertebrate generalist predators. Mol Ecol 14:4461–4468PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sorenson JT, Gill RJ (1996) A range extension of Homalodisca coagulata (Say) (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae) to southern California. Pan-Pac Entomol 72:160–161Google Scholar
  53. STATA (2003) STATA user’s guide, release 8. Stata Press, College StationGoogle Scholar
  54. Sunderland KD (1988) Quantitative methods for detecting predation occurring in the field. Ann Appl Biol 112:201–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sunderland KD (1996) Progress in quantifying predation using antibody techniques. In: Symondson WOC, Liddell JE (eds) The ecology of agricultural pests. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 419–455Google Scholar
  56. Sutula C, Gillett JM, Morrissey SM, Ramsdell DC (1986) Interpreting ELISA data and establishing the positive-negative threshold. Plant Dis 70:722–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Symondson WOC (2002) Molecular identification of prey in predator diets. Mol Ecol 11:627–641PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Symondson WOC, Liddell JE (1996) A species-specific monoclonal antibody system for detecting the remains of field slugs, Deroceras reticulatum (Mueller) (Mollusca: Pulmonata), in carabid beetles. Biocontrol Sci Technol 6:91–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Takiya DM, McKamey SH, Cavichioli RR (2006) Validity of Homalodisca and of H. vitripennis as the name for Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae: Cicadellinae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 99:648–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Werren JH, Windsor D, Guo L (1995) Distribution of Wolbachia among neotropical arthropods. Proc R Soc Lond B 262:197–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Winder L, Alexander CJ, Holland JM, Symondson WOC, Perry JN, Wooley C (2005) Predatory activity and spatial pattern: the response of generalist carabid to their aphid prey. J Anim Ecol 74:443–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Young OP, Edwards GB (1990) Spiders in United States field crops and their potential effects on crop pests. J Arachnol 18:1–27Google Scholar
  63. Zaidi RH, Jaal Z, Hawkes NJ, Hemingway J, Symondson WOC (1999) Can multiplecopy sequences of prey DNA be detected amongst the gut contents of invertebrate predators? Mol Ecol 8:2081–2087PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Valerie Fournier
    • 1
    • 2
    • 5
  • James Hagler
    • 2
    • 7
  • Kent Daane
    • 1
  • Jesse de León
    • 3
  • Russell Groves
    • 4
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of Environmental Science, Policy and ManagementUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.Arid-Land Agricultural Research Center, USDA-ARSMaricopaUSA
  3. 3.Beneficial Insects Research Unit, USDA-ARSWeslacoUSA
  4. 4.Exotic and Invasive Diseases and Pests Lab, USDA-ARSParlierUSA
  5. 5.Département de PhytologieUniversité LavalQuebecCanada
  6. 6.Department of EntomologyUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA
  7. 7.USDA-ARSMaricopaUSA

Personalised recommendations