Journal of Pest Science

, Volume 85, Issue 1, pp 89–100 | Cite as

Analysing the diets of invertebrate predators using terminal restriction fragments

  • Anita Juen
  • Katja Hogendoorn
  • Gang Ma
  • Otto Schmidt
  • Michael A. Keller
Original Paper

Abstract

Analysing food webs in agricultural habitats is essential for the development of natural control strategies. Several molecular tools to investigate trophic interactions on a species-specific level have been developed in recent years and their advantages and limitations have been discussed. With this study we introduce another tool, terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism (tRFLP). Generalist predators found in Australian brassica crops, their prey and abundant parasitoids were chosen as a model system to adapt and evaluate the tRFLP approach. Using general primers and selecting six restriction enzymes, we obtained species-specific tRF patterns for 21 of the most abundant arthropods in brassica crops. We detected up to three prey species in the gut contents of laboratory-fed predators. Detection rates differed among predators, ranging between 28 and 100%. The identification of a species-specific tRF pattern was strongly affected by the presence and concentrations of DNA from other species. In a preliminary field study, prey could be identified from 20% of the collected brown lacewings. The advantage of the tRFLP method is the possibility of identifying multiple species at once. This advantage is counterbalanced by methodological limitations, among which the most critical one is the fact that it will be difficult to maintain specificity in highly diverse ecosystems. However, if species diversity is limited and the target sequence and the primers are chosen to increase detection success, the tRFLP method can be used to study trophic interactions in the field.

Keywords

tRFLP Molecular diagnostic Gut content analysis Trophic interactions Neuroptera 

References

  1. Agusti N, De Vicente MC, Gabarra R (1999) Developing SCAR markers to study predation on Trialeurodes vaporariorum. Insect Mol Biol 9:263–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agusti N, Shayler SR, Harwood JD et al (2003) Collembola as alternative prey sustaining spiders in arable ecosystems: prey detection within predators using molecular markers. Mol Ecol 12:3467–3475PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Avaniss-Aghajani E, Jones K, Holtzman A et al (1996) Molecular technique for rapid identification of Mycobacteria. J Clin Microbiol 34:98–102PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Blackwood CB, Hudleston D, Zak DR, Buyer JS (2007) Interpreting ecological diversity indices applied to terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism data: insights from simulated microbial communities. Appl Environ Microb 73:5276–5283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blankenship LE, Levin LA (2007) Extreme food webs: foraging strategies and diets of scavenging amphipods from the ocean’s deepest 5 kilometres. Limnol Oceanogr 52:1685–1697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blankenship LE, Yayanos AA (2005) Universal primers and PCR of gut contents to study marine invertebrate diets. Mol Ecol 14:891–899PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clement BG, Kehl LE, DeBord KL, Kitts CL (1998) Terminal restriction fragment patterns (TRFPs), a rapid, PCR-based method for the comparison of complex bacterial communities. J Microbiol Methods 31:135–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Denno RF, Mitter MS, Langellotto GA, Gratton C, Finke DL (2004) Interaction between a hunting spider and a web-builder: consequences of intraguild predation and cannibalism for prey suppression. Ecol Entomol 29:566–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dodd CS, Bruford MW, Symondson WOC, Glen DM (2003) Detection of slug DNA within carabid predators using prey-specific PCR primers. In: Dussard GBJ (ed) Slugs and snails: agricultural, veterinary and environmental perspectives. British Crop Protection Council, AltonGoogle Scholar
  10. Farrelly V, Rainey F, Stackebrandt E (1995) Effect of genome size and rrn gene copy number on PCR amplification of 16S rRNA genes from a mixture of bacterial species. Appl Environ Microb 61:2798–2801Google Scholar
  11. Folmer O, Black M, Hoeh W, Lutz R, Vrijenhoek R (1994) DNA primers for amplification of mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I from diverse metazoan invertebrates. Mol Mar Biol Biotech 3:294–299Google Scholar
  12. Hajek AE (2004) Natural enemies: an introduction to biological control. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Hall TA (1999) BioEdit: a user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT. Nucleic Acid Symp 41:95–98Google Scholar
  14. Harper GL, King RA, Dodd CS et al (2005) Rapid screening of invertebrate predators for multiple prey DNA targets. Mol Ecol 14:819–827PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harper GL, Sheppard SK, Harwood JD et al (2006) Evaluation of temperature gradient gel electrophoresis for the analysis of prey DNA within the guts of invertebrate predators. Bull Entomol Res 96:295–304PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harwood JD, Desneux N, Yoo HJS et al (2007) Tracking the role of alternative prey in soybean aphid predation by Orius insidiosus: a molecular approach. Mol Ecol 16:4390–4400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holt RD, Lawton JH (1994) The ecological consequences of shared natural enemies. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 25:495–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hosseini R (2007) A DNA-based approach to study predator-prey trophic interactions within Brassica crop. A search for predators of diamondback moth Plutella xylostella. PhD thesis, The University of Adelaide, AdelaideGoogle Scholar
  19. Juen A, Traugott M (2005) Detecting predation and scavenging by DNA gut-content analysis: a case study using a soil insect predator–prey system. Oecologia 142:344–352PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Juen A, Traugott M (2006) Amplification facilitators and multiplex PCR: tools to overcome PCR-inhibition in DNA-gut content analysis of soil-living invertebrates. Soil Biol Biochem 38:1872–1879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Kaplan CW, Kitts CL (2003) Variation between observed and true terminal restriction fragment length is dependent on true TRF length and purine content. J Microbiol Methods 54:121–125PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. King RA, Read DS, Traugott M, Symondson WOC (2008) Molecular analysis of predation: a review of best practice for DNA-based approaches. Mol Ecol 17:947–963PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leathwick DM (1989) Applied ecology of the Tasmanian lacewing Micromus tasmaniae Walker (Neuroptera: Hemerobiidae). PhD thesis, Lincoln College University of Canterbury, ChristchurchGoogle Scholar
  25. de León JH, Fournier V, Hagler JR, Daane KM (2006) Development of molecular diagnostic markers for sharpshooters Homalodisca coagulata and Homalodisca liturata for use in predator gut content examinations. Entomol Exp Appl 119:109–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ma J, Li DD, Keller M, Schmidt O, Feng X (2005) A DNA marker to identify predation of Plutella xylostella (Lep., Plutellidae) by Nabis kinbergii (Hem., Nabidae) and Lycosa sp. (Aranaea, Lycosidae). J Appl Entomol 129:330–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marsh TL (1999) Terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism (T-RFLP): an emerging method for characterizing diversity among homologous populations of amplification products. Curr Opin Microbiol 2:323–327PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Martin DL, Ross RM, Quetin LB, Murray AE (2006) Molecular approach (PCR-DGGE) to diet analysis in young Antarctic krill Euphausia superba. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 319:155–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Osborn AM, Moore ERB, Timmis KN (2000) An evaluation of terminal-restriction fragment length polymorphism (T-RFLP) analysis for the study of microbial community structure and dynamics. Environ Microbiol 2:39–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Passmore AJ, Jarman SN, Swadling KM et al (2006) DNA as a dietary biomarker in Antarctic Krill, Euphausia superba. Mar Biotechnol 8:686–696PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Reysenbach A-L, Giver LJ, Wickham GS, Pace NR (1992) Differential amplification of rRNA genes by polymerase chain reaction. Appl Environ Microb 58:3417–3418Google Scholar
  33. Rosenheim JA, Kaya HK, Ehler LE, Marois JJ, Jaffee BA (1995) Intraguild predation among biological-control agents: theory and evidence. Biol Control 5:303–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rosenheim JA (2007) Intraguild predation: new theoretical and empirical perspectives. Ecology 88:2679–2680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Simon C, Frati F, Beckenbach A et al (1994) Evolution, weighting, and phylogenetic utility of mitochondrial gene sequences and a compilation of conserved polymerase chain reaction primers. Ann Entomol Soc Am 87:651–701Google Scholar
  36. Snyder WE, Ives AR (2003) Interactions between specialist and generalist natural enemies: parasitoids, predators, and pea aphid biocontrol. Ecology 84:91–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Suzuki MT, Giovannoni SJ (1996) Bias caused by template annealing in the amplification of mixtures of 16S rRNA genes by PCR. Appl Environ Microb 62:625–630Google Scholar
  38. Suzuki M, Rappé MS, Giovannoni SJ (1998) Kinetic bias in estimates of coastal picoplankton community structure obtained by measurements of small-subunit rRNA gene PCR amplicon length heterogeneity. Appl Environ Microb 64:4522–4529Google Scholar
  39. Suzuki N, Murakami K, Takeyama H, Chow S (2006) Molecular attempt to identify prey organisms of lobster phyllosoma larvae. Fish Sci 72:342–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Symondson WOC (2002) Molecular identification of prey in predator diets. Mol Ecol 11:627–641PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Traugott M, Zangerl P, Juen A, Schallhart N, Pfiffner L (2006) Detecting key parasitoids of lepidopteran pests by multiplex PCR. Biol Control 39:39–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Traugott M, Bell JR, Broad GR et al (2008) Endoparasitism in cereal aphids: molecular analysis of a whole parasitoid community. Mol Ecol 17:3928–3938PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Troedsson C, Lee RF, Stokes V et al (2008) Development of a denaturing high-performance liquid chromatography method for detection of protest parasites of metazoans. Appl Environ Microb 74:4336–4345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Walker MK, Stufkens MAW, Wallace AR (2007) Indirect non-target effects of insecticides on Tasmanian brown lacewing (Micromus tasmaniae) from feeding on lettuce aphid (Nasonovia ribisnigri). Biol Control 43:31–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zhu Y-C, Williams L III (2002) Detecting the egg parasitoid Anaphes iole (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae) in tarnished plant bug (Heteroptera: Miridae) eggs by using a molecular approach. Ann Entomol Soc Am 95:359–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anita Juen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Katja Hogendoorn
    • 1
  • Gang Ma
    • 1
  • Otto Schmidt
    • 1
  • Michael A. Keller
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Agriculture, Food and Wine, Waite Campus, The University of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia
  2. 2.Institute of EcologyUniversity of InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria

Personalised recommendations