Next Article in Journal
Effect of Ageing in the Mating Behaviour Sequence of Osmia cornuta Latr. (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae)
Previous Article in Journal
Scanning Electron Microscopy of Antennae and Mouthparts of Mezira yunnana Hsiao (Hemiptera: Aradidae): Specialized Microstructures Reflecting Adaptation to Mycetophagy
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Insects
Volume 14
Issue 4
10.3390/insects14040334
insects-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Host-Plant Selection Behavior of Ophraella communa, a Biocontrol Agent of the Invasive Common Ragweed Ambrosia artemisiifolia

by
Jisu Jin
1,†,
Meiting Zhao
1,2,†,
Zhongshi Zhou
1,
Ren Wang
1,
Jianying Guo
1,* and
Fanghao Wan
1,3,4,*
1
State Key Laboratory for Biology of Plant Diseases and Insect Pests, Institute of Plant Protection, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100193, China
2
School of Marxism, Ludong University, Yantai 264025, China
3
Agricultural Genomics Institute at Shenzhen, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Shenzhen 518120, China
4
College of Plant Health and Medicine, Qingdao Agricultural University, Qingdao 266109, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Insects 2023, 14(4), 334; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14040334
Submission received: 17 December 2022 / Revised: 27 March 2023 / Accepted: 27 March 2023 / Published: 29 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Insect Pest and Vector Management)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Ophraella communa is an effective biocontrol agent against the invasive common ragweed Ambrosia artemisiifolia. However, whether some closely related non-target plants can become alternative host plant species of O. communa in China remains unclear. Although extensive host-plant selection tests have been used to ensure the host specificity of O. communa in other countries, some doubts remain. In this study, we conducted a series of choice experiments in outdoor cages and open fields to determine the preference of O. communa for A. artemisiifolia and three non-target plant species: sunflower (Helianthus annuus), cocklebur (Xanthium sibiricum), and giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida). The results showed that this beetle poses no threat to the biosafety of H. anunuus or A. trifida and exhibits a robust dispersal capacity to find and feed on A. artemisiifolia. However, in the future, we should be aware that X. sibiricum has the potential to be an alternative host plant for O. communa.

Abstract

Understanding the host-selection behavior of herbivorous insects is important to clarify their efficacy and safety as biocontrol agents. To explore the host-plant selection of the beetle Ophraella communa, a natural enemy of the alien invasive common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), we conducted a series of outdoor choice experiments in cages in 2010 and in open fields in 2010 and 2011 to determine the preference of O. communa for A. artemisiifolia and three non-target plant species: sunflower (Helianthus annuus), cocklebur (Xanthium sibiricum), and giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida). In the outdoor cage experiment, no eggs were found on sunflowers, and O. communa adults rapidly moved from sunflowers to the other three plant species. Instead, adults preferred to lay eggs on A. artemisiifolia, followed by X. sibiricum and A. trifida, although very few eggs were observed on A. trifida. Observing the host-plant selection of O. communa in an open sunflower field, we found that O. communa adults always chose A. artemisiifolia for feeding and egg laying. Although several adults (<0.02 adults/plant) stayed on H. annuus, no feeding or oviposition were observed, and adults quickly transferred to A. artemisiifolia. In 2010 and 2011, 3 egg masses (96 eggs) were observed on sunflowers, but they failed to hatch or develop into adults. In addition, some O. communa adults crossed the barrier formed by H. annuus to feed and oviposit on A. artemisiifolia planted in the periphery, and persisted in patches of different densities. Additionally, only 10% of O. communa adults chose to feed and oviposit on the X. sibiricum barrier. These findings suggest that O. communa poses no threat to the biosafety of H. anunuus and A. trifida and exhibits a robust dispersal capacity to find and feed on A. artemisiifolia. However, X. sibiricum has the potential to be an alternative host plant for O. communa.

1. Introduction

Exploring and understanding host specificity is an important part of the methodology for selecting biological control agents [1,2,3], and the concept of insect behavior has been widely applied to improve testing for host specificity [4,5,6,7,8]. During the long-term evolutionary process, herbivorous insects have developed a series of specialized behavioral strategies to distinguish between host and non-host plants [9], and multiple mechanisms have been proposed to underlie host-plant selection [10,11,12]. For example, the “preference-performance hypothesis” predicts that female insects evolve to oviposit on hosts on which their offspring will fare best [13,14]. To maximize overall fitness, herbivorous insects must assess host-plant quality, both between and within species, and locate and select the most suitable host for feeding and larval development [15,16,17].
Although many agents used for the biological control of weeds exhibit extreme host specificity, the endogenous conditions of the insect and test arena may cause host-plant selection behavior to become more labile, thus affecting the host-plant range [18,19]. There are numerous types of host specificity tests, including choice tests [20], non-choice tests [20,21], cage tests [22], and open field choice tests [21]. The selection of the test, and even the distribution pattern of the test plants, affects the host specificity results. For example, Microthrix inconspicuella is a potential agent for the control of the polygonaceous weed Emex australis, and, under caged quarantine conditions, the larvae of this moth have been found to feed on apples, a rosaceous crop [23]. However, under field conditions or when the larvae are contained in large sleeve cages, apple foliage is not attacked [22]. Therefore, the outcomes of host specificity tests typically vary under different test designs, owing to behavioral factors.
Several behavioral factors influence test results, including sequential behavioral responses during host-plant selection [24,25,26], experience and learning [27,28,29,30,31], and time-dependent effects [32]. These factors may lead to two types of false results. A false positive result refers to an attack during the test but no potential for attack under field conditions, whereas a false negative result occurs when a plant species is not attacked during the test but might be attacked in the field. For example, if non-target plants are near the host plant, they may be more prone to attack, and insects may habituate to and accept non-host plants through repeated contact, thus leading to a false positive result. False results may lead to the rejection of potential biological control agents that might be adequately host-specific, or to the release of candidate agents that may attack non-host plants in the field.
To minimize the potential for false results, many test methods have been designed, including the use of large arenas [33], natural arenas [4], open field testing [34], and behavior-based host-selection tests, which should indicate whether a plant is susceptible to feeding or oviposition by a biological control agent under any set of field conditions [1,5]. In this study, we experimentally analyzed under field conditions the host-selection behavior of a potential biological control agent, Ophraella communa (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), against the common ragweed Ambrosia artemisiifolia (Asteraceae).
Ophraella communa has been found to be an effective agent for the biological control of common ragweed, a widespread and harmful invasive alien weed [35,36], and has achieved great success in China [37]. It is an oligophagous leaf beetle that feeds on plants of the Asteraceae family. Several studies have focused on its host range, and it has been reported to attack cockleburs (Iva axillaris, Xanthium strumarium, X. canadense, and X. italicum), giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida), sunflower (Helianthus annuus), feverfew (Parthenium hysterophorus), and Jerusalem artichoke (H. tuberosus) (Asteraceae) [2,35,36,38]. Watanabe and Hirai, Hu and Meng, Kim et al., and Kim and Lee concluded that O. communa could feed on sunflower plants and even complete generations [36,38,39,40]. Therefore, this beetle was rejected for release as a biocontrol agent for ragweed because of the possible damage to crops in Australia [41]. Although extensive host-plant selection tests have been used to ensure the host specificity of O. communa [2,42,43,44], some doubts remain, such as whether cockleburs can become an alternative host-plant species and the host-plant range expansion of O. communa in China is unclear. The risk of attack by O. communa and the subsequent level of damage that might occur in sunflower crops under field conditions remain unknown [19,36,45].
Host and non-host plants often coexist under natural conditions, and the “physical obstruction hypothesis” describes the situation in which host plants are effectively hidden by large or tall non-host plants [13], which are usually used to protect crops from pest infestations in the field. Similarly, a biological control agent may have difficulty locating a targeted invasive host when the plant coexists with larger or taller non-host plants. In China and Europe, A. artemisiifolia has become a major agricultural weed, especially spring-sown crops, such as sunflower and maize [46,47,48]. Sunflower is a large and tall plant that can easily act as a barrier to biological control. Therefore, when O. communa is used to control A. artemisiifolia in sunflower cultivation, it is unclear whether the weed can hide among the crops, leading to a reduction in biological control efficiency.
Understanding the characteristics of the host-plant selection behavior of O. communa is important for better prediction and evaluation of its safety and efficacy as a biological control agent. It is also important to determine whether cockleburs can become alternative host-plant species in China, what is the risk of attack by O. communa on sunflower, and the control efficacy of A. artemisiifolia under field conditions. Therefore, in this study, outdoor cage and open field tests were performed to investigate the host-selection behavior of this beetle in the hope of answering these questions.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Host Plants

Seeds of A. artemisiifolia were collected from the Institute of Plant Protection of the Hunan Academy of Agricultural Sciences (IPP, HAAS, 25°21′17.81″ N, 114°33′40.00″ E), and X. strumarium and A. trifida seeds were collected from the experimental farm of Shenyang Agricultural University, Liaoning Province (41°48′ N, 123°24′ E). Seeds of H. annuus (oil sunflower, cv. CH609) were purchased from Ku-Fu-Tian Seed Company, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, China.
The A. artemisiifolia, X. strumarium, and A. trifida seeds were sown in individual seed trays with sterilized nutritional soil (Langfang Dingxin Seedling Company, Langfang, China) and individually transplanted into plastic pots (15 cm in diameter and 10 cm in height) with loamy clay soil at the three- to four-leaf stage. H. annuus seeds were sown directly in the same plastic pots. The seedlings were placed in an unheated and naturally lit greenhouse at the Langfang Experimental Station of the Institute of Plant Protection, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (LF Station, IPP, CAAS) in Langfang City, Hebei Province (39°30′42″ N, 116°36′07″ E) and watered every four days. All individuals of each species were used in the experiments when they were approximately 20–30 cm in height.

2.2. Insect Culture

Ophraella communa pupae were collected from IPP and HAAS and used to construct colonies on A. artemisiifolia plants at the LF Station, IPP, and CAAS. The O. communa population was maintained in an unheated greenhouse under a 16 h L:8 h D photoperiod at 26 ± 1 °C and 70 ± 10% relative humidity (RH) and was used for the experiments after three generations.

2.3. Distribution and Oviposition Preference Behavior of O. communa Adults on Four Different Coexisting Plant Species in Outdoor Cages

The experiments were conducted in outdoor cages (6.5 × 24.5 m) at LF Station, IPP, CAAS. Five sample plots (2.5 × 4.5 m) were regularly arranged in the field, and each plot was covered with a single mesh cage (2 m in height) on 2 July 2010 (Figure 1A). Two plants of each of the four tested species (approximately 30–40 cm in height) were transplanted into the above cages on 8 July 2010. The planting patterns are shown in Figure 1B. O. communa adults at 2 days of age were randomly collected from the greenhouse, and on 15 July 2010, 10 pairs (female: male = 1:1) were released on each sunflower plant in each cage. From the day after release to the 5th day, the numbers of adults and eggs on each plant in each cage were counted daily; the observations were performed every other day until the 27th day after release (one O. communa generation). Five replicates were performed for each experiment.

2.4. Host-Plant Selection Behavior of O. communa on Regularly Distributed Ragweed Patches in Sunflower Plots

The experiments were conducted in an open field (45 × 70 m) at the LF Station, IPP, and CAAS in 2010 and 2011. Six sample plots (20 × 20 m) were prepared, and X. strumarium was planted among different barrier bands (Figure 2A). The intercropping patterns of A. artemisiifolia and H. annuus are shown in Figure 2B. In each plot, 20 A. artemisiifolia plants were evenly planted in the center of each plot (shaded area in the figure with a 1 m radius), and 24 sunflowers were planted in a homocentric ring with a 3 m radius to create the sunflower barrier. Twenty-seven and forty-five sunflowers were planted in homocentric rings with radii of 6 and 9 m, respectively. One, two, and three A. artemisiifolia plants per cluster were evenly intercropped at intervals of three sunflowers in the 6 m radius homocentric ring and at intervals of four sunflowers in the 9 m homocentric ring. Sunflower and ragweed seedlings were planted 80 cm apart. O. communa adults at 2 days of age were randomly collected from the laboratory culture; on July 4 of both years, 40 pairs were released on A. artemisiifolia in the center of each plot. After three days, visual sampling was used to count the numbers of O. communa adults, eggs, larvae, and pupae on A. artemisiifolia and sunflower plants in each plot, and observations were performed every six days until the sunflower fruit ripened on September 26. Six replicates were performed for each experiment and continued for two years.

2.5. Data Analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using the SAS system for Windows V8. The experimental data were checked for normality and homoscedasticity, and if required, were arcsine square-root or log-transformed before analysis. In the outdoor cages experiment, three-way ANOVA followed by the Tukey test (p values ≤ 0.05) was performed to compare the data on O. communa distribution (adults and eggs) considering the effects of plant species, days after release and cages (blocks) and their interactions. In the open field experiment, preliminary analyses indicated no significant effects of year and blocks (plots). Therefore, a three-way ANOVA followed by the Tukey test (p values ≤ 0.05) was used to test for the effects of plant species, distance from center, and ragweed cluster density on the cumulative densities of the different O. communa developmental stages.

3. Results

3.1. Distribution of O. communa Adults on Four Different Coexisting Plant Species in Outdoor Cages

In the outdoor cages experiment, the results of three-way ANOVA indicated that only plant species had a significant effect on dynamics of O. communa adults, whereas days after release, cages and their interactions had no significant effects (Supplementary Table S1). O. communa adults released on H. annuus moved rapidly to the other three plant species, and there was a significantly lower number of O. communa adults on sunflower compared to the other plant species (Figure 3). After release, approximately 70% of the beetles were observed on the four different plant species, approximately 32.5% and 25% moved to A. artemisiifolia and X. sibiricum, respectively, approximately 2% moved to A. trifida (two adults on one plant), and approximately 10% remained on the sunflower plants. On the third day after release, most adult beetles were found to feed on A. artemisiifolia and X. sibiricum. Only one adult remained on a single sunflower plant, and several tiny feeding spots were observed; however, this area was negligible compared to the entire leaf area. After five days, no adult beetles were found on the sunflowers, but the population of adult O. communa remained high in A. artemisiifolia and X. sibiricum. One or two adults occasionally fed on A. trifida.

3.2. Oviposition Preference Behavior of O. communa Adults on Four Different Coexisting Plant Species in Outdoor Cages

In the outdoor cages experiment, the results of the three-way ANOVA showed significant effects of the plant, the day, and their interaction on the dynamics of O. communa egg deposition (Supplementary Table S1). By tracking the movement of O. communa adults among the four tested plant species, we found that they preferred to lay eggs on A. artemisiifolia followed by X. sibiricum. Very few eggs (<60) were observed on one A. trifida plant and no eggs were found on H. annuus plants during the entire survey period. The oviposition of O. communa on A. artemisiifolia showed a significant peak of 623.0 eggs per plant on 24 July 2010, which was significantly higher than that on X. sibiricum (146.2 eggs per cage) and A. trifida (9 eggs per cage) (Figure 4).

3.3. Host-Plant Selection Behavior of O. communa on Regularly Distributed Ragweed Patches in Sunflower Plots

In the open field experiment, the results of the three-way ANOVA indicated that only plant species had a significant effect on the number of O. communa individuals in different developmental stages, whereas distance, density, and the interactions between the three factors had no significant effects (Supplementary Table S2). In 2010 and 2011, there were significant differences in the number of O. communa individuals at different developmental stages in A. artemisiifolia compared with H. annuus (Figure 5). In both years, the number of O. communa adults on common ragweed was significantly higher than that on sunflower (Figure 5a,b). The number of eggs laid also showed consistency (Figure 5c,d). Very few eggs were found on sunflowers, and all died during development. Moreover, the number of larvae (Figure 5e,f) and pupae (Figure 5g,h) on sunflower was significantly lower and was close to zero.
In addition, based on two years of observation and records, the O. communa adults were mainly found feeding and/or ovipositing on A. artemisiifolia planted in the center of each plot during the early period after release, and very few adults were found on A. artemisiifolia planted in homocentric rings with radii of 6 m and 9 m (Supplementary Figure S1a,b). During the entire survey period, from July to September, the O. communa population completed two generations on A. artemisiifolia planted in the center and one generation in both homocentric rings. By September (60 days after release), almost all A. artemisiifolia planted in the center had died, and adult O. communa had moved to A. artemisiifolia planted in both homocentric rings to feed and oviposit (Supplementary Figure S1).

4. Discussion

The host-plant selection behavior of herbivorous insects is complex. When larval and/or adult insects encounter target or non-target plants, the morphology and chemical properties of the plant surfaces are first evaluated by the contact receptors (antennae, mouthparts, ovipositors) of the insects, and the inner chemical characteristics of the plants are assessed to determine whether they are acceptable or antagonistic [49]. In non-choice tests, herbivorous insects are typically confined to only one test plant species; therefore, they tend to have a broader host range than in choice tests [5,20,50]. Host range overestimation may lead to the rejection of candidate biological control agents that are adequately host-specific under field conditions [4]. The risk of O. communa feeding on sunflower is negligible because the leaf beetle is occasionally found on H. annuus when all A. artemisiifolia plants are defoliated near the sunflower field. If the beetle feeds only on sunflower, the number of offspring will be reduced and the beetle cannot survive [42]. To date, there has been a debate on whether O. communa can feed on and damage H. annuus even though host specificity tests have been conducted for nearly 30 years.
In our field cage test, several tiny feeding spots from adult O. communa were found on sunflower leaves. However, those adults left the sunflower plant in the next survey (four days after release) and did not feed or oviposit on the sunflower thereafter. In the open field investigation, adult O. communa released on A. artemisiifolia in the center of the plot primarily fed and oviposited there. As O. communa spread to the periphery, several adults were occasionally found on sunflowers, but no feeding or oviposition behavior was observed. Our results demonstrate that adult O. communa are averse to sunflower compared with ragweed. “Preference-performance hypothesis”, also known as the “mother knows best” hypothesis, predicts that females prefer a host that assures the greatest fitness of their offspring [14,51,52]. In our study, no O. communa eggs were found on sunflowers in the cage test, but three egg masses were found on sunflowers in open sunflower fields in 2010 and 2011. However, only one egg mass hatched, and all larvae died during development. These results support the conclusion that sunflower is an unsuitable host plant for O. communa offspring and are consistent with findings from previous studies carried out in Canada [42] and China [43,44,53]. In addition, it is worth noting that we should be alert to the possibility of individuals dispersing from outside the field into the experimental plots in the open field experiment, because ragweed leaf beetles are known to disperse over long distances. Yamanaka et al. [54] found that, with the passage of time, O. communa spills over to adjacent locations at roughly the one-beetle-generation time scale according to the “resource concentration hypothesis” and “reaction–diffusion theory”. In addition, herbivorous insects can find their host plants over long distances to feed and oviposit, even though the host plants are hidden in a range of other plants and plant volatile organic compounds play an important role in the host location process. Insects rely on a powerful olfactory system, with olfactory receptor neurons able to identify volatiles cues, made by specific key compounds or specific blends emitted from suitable host plants [55,56]. For example, diterpene hydrocarbons released by the seedlings of brassicaceous hosts Brassica oleracea and Brassica napus species, alone or in combination with one or more minor compounds, are key vectors for host localization by Bagrada hilaris [57,58].
In many herbivorous species, female adults avoid reproduction in places where their offspring are at a high risk of predation [59,60,61,62]. In this study, many natural enemies, such as ladybeetles (Harmonia axyridis and Coccinella septempunctata), lacewings (Chrysopa spp.), and Pentatomidae, were observed on sunflower leaves (data not shown). This study confirmed that O. communa is safe for use as a biological control agent to control ragweed, based on its host-selection behavior in an open field experiment. However, when all common ragweed plants are completely eradicated or defoliated from the local population, the leaf beetle O. communa of suboptimal alternative host plants (A. trifida and H. annuus) should not be ignored. It has been reported that O. communa began feeding on A. trifida after all A. artemisiifolia plants were defoliated under field conditions in Japan [63].
In our choice test using closed cages in the field, most O. communa adults (25%) moved rapidly from H. annuus to X. sibiricum, in addition to the host-plant A. artemisiifolia, to feed and lay eggs, and several were found feeding and oviposition on X. canadense but not on H. annuus. Additionally, when A. artemisiifolia died in October, many O. communa adults moved to X. canadense to prepare for overwintering (unpublished data). In Japan, O. communa can also be found feeding on X. canadense, and adults in the field have been found to move to X. canadense overwinter after the death of A. artemisiifolia in late summer [39]. Our results indicated that X. sibiricum may be a suitable host-plant species for this beetle. This result is consistent with those of Cao et al. [43] and Liu et al. [64], who suggested that X. sibiricum could be used as a lower-ranked host plant next to the target weed. In China, X. canadense is a common weed in cultivated fields, especially in soybean, tobacco, and sunflower fields [65,66,67]. Therefore, O. communa may be used to control X. canadense in China in the future.
In its native range, O. communa does not utilize A. trifida as a host plant [36,54,68,69], and, in our study, although A. trifida was attacked by several adults, the damage level was very low. Therefore, the beetle cannot effectively control A. trifida, and there have been no reports on the use of O. communa to effectively control A. trifida in China. However, this beetle has been reported to feed extensively on A. trifida in fields throughout the Japanese islands [35,36,63]. These results indicate the expansion of the host range of occasionally introduced O. communa, which may be the result of the co-evolution of herbivorous insects and host plants [19,69,70].
In our study, after the adult O. communa that were released on A. artemisiifolia plants in the center of the sunflower field completed one generation (approximately 30 days), they initiated a search for suitable host plants across the sunflower barrier (planted in homocentric rings with a radius of 3 m), and the number of O. communa in the peripheral population was supplemented by the population in the center. This result indicated that O. communa has a robust capacity to find A. artemisiifolia for feeding. The “resource concentration hypothesis” predicts that specialist herbivorous insects are more likely to find and stay longer on host plants growing in dense or nearly pure contexts [71,72,73]. In our study, the cumulative densities of O. communa feeding or remaining on A. artemisiifolia did not differ among plant clusters of different densities, which does not support the “resource concentration hypothesis”. This result was consistent with the observations of Yamanaka et al. [54]. Insects with high dispersal abilities may not be limited by patch borders. Hence, their densities per plant did not differ among host-plant patches of different sizes [74]. In addition, if patches are closer together, insects may move more easily between them, thus diminishing differences in density [75,76]. O. communa has been shown to rapidly disperse after introduction into a new area [77,78,79], and our results further support this high dispersal ability. Certainly, the proximity of the A. artemisiifolia clusters (< 4.5 m) may have resulted in a lack of difference in the densities of O. communa in plants. In this study, we used well-established plants as test plants (all 135 individuals of each species were used for the experiments when they were approximately 20–30 cm in height). However, sunflower was sown; thus, seeding and younger sunflower plants were exposed to O. communa and these might be more susceptible to feeding and oviposition. More experiments are needed to confirm this in the future. Finally, how can we better predict the long-term benefits and risks of ragweed biology control? We advocate research on host specificity and population differentiation before the release of biocontrol agents to promote the development of improved biological control under changing global conditions [3,19,80].

5. Conclusions

In summary, by observing the host-plant selection behavior of O. communa, we conclude that this beetle poses no threat to the biosafety of H. annuus. In addition, X. sibiricum has the potential to become an alternative host plant for O. communa in the future; however, it cannot efficiently control A. trifida in China. In the open field study, some O. communa adults crossed the barrier formed by H. annuus to feed and lay eggs on A. artemisiifolia planted in the periphery, and the spatial interactions between A. artemisiifolia and O. communa did not support the “resource concentration hypothesis”. We conclude that O. communa has a robust dispersal capacity to find and feed on A. artemisiifolia.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/insects14040334/s1, Figure S1: Occurrence and frequency of Ophraella communa individuals in different developmental stages on A. artemisiifolia planted at different distances; Table S1: Three-way ANOVA of the effects of four plant species, days after release, and cages (blocks) on Ophraella communa distribution (adults and eggs) in outdoor cages; Table S2: Three-way ANOVA of the effects of plant species, distance from center, and ragweed cluster density on the number of O. communa individuals in different developmental stages on A. artemisiifolia and H. annuus planted.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.J., M.Z., Z.Z., J.G. and F.W.; Methodology, M.Z., Z.Z., J.G. and F.W.; Validation, J.J.; Writing—original draft, J.J. and M.Z.; Writing—review & editing, J.J. and J.G.; Project administration, R.W., J.G. and F.W.; Funding acquisition, J.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation for Excellent Young Scholars (31322046) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31171908 and 31972340).

Data Availability Statement

Data used in this study are available from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Yi-Bo Zhang (Chinese Academy of Agricultural Science) for valuable suggestions to improve the manuscript. We thank De-Yu Wang (Qingdao Agricultural University) for help with the experiments.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Heard, T.A. Concepts in insect host-plant selection behaviour and their application to host specificity testing. In Proceedings of Session: Host Specificity Testing of Exotic Arthropod Biological Control Agents: The Biological Basis for Improvement in Safety, Proceedings of the X International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, Bozeman, MT, USA, 4–14 July 1999; Van Driesche, R.G., Heard, T.A., McClay, A., Reardon, R., Eds.; USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team: Morgantown, WV, USA, 2000; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  2. Augustinus, B.A.; Gentili, R.; Horvath, D.; Naderi, R.; Sun, Y.; Tournet, A.M.T.E.; Müller-Schärer, H. Assessing the risks of non-target feeding by the accidentally introduced ragweed leaf beetle, Ophraella communa, to native European plant species. Biol. Control 2020, 150, 104356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Müller-Schärer, H.; Bouchemousse, S.; Litto, M.; McEvoy, P.B.; Roderick, G.K.; Sun, Y. How to better predict long-term benefits and risks in weed biocontrol: An evolutionary perspective. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 2020, 38, 84–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Cullen, J.M. Current problems in host-specificity screening. In Proceedings of the VII International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, Rome, Italy, 6–11 March 1988; Delfosse, E.S., Ed.; Istituto Sperimentale per la Patologia Vegetale: Rome, Italy, 1990; pp. 27–36. [Google Scholar]
  5. Marohasy, J. The design and interpretation of host specificity tests for weed biological control with particular reference to insect behavior. Biocontrol. News Inf. 1998, 19, 13–20. [Google Scholar]
  6. Urs, S. Host range testing of insects for biological weed control: How can it be better interpreted? Bioscience 2001, 51, 951–959. [Google Scholar]
  7. Kuhlmann, U.; Mason, P.G.; Hinz, H.L.; Blossey, B.; De Clerck-Floate, R.A.; Dosdall, L.M.; McCaffrey, J.P.; Schwarzlaender, M.; Olfert, O.; Brodeur, J.; et al. Avoiding conflicts between insect and weed biological control: Selection of non-target species to assess host specificity of cabbage seedpod weevil parasitoids. J. Appl. Entomol. 2006, 130, 129–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Melanie, L.H.; Rowan, M.E.; Andy, S.; Pauline, S.; Toni, M.W.; Susan, P.W. Impliations of individual variation in insect behavior for host specificity testing in weed. Biocontrol 2013, 58, 703–713. [Google Scholar]
  9. Lu, Y.H.; Zhang, Y.J.; Wu, K.M. Host-plant selection mechanisms and behavioural manipulation strategies of phytophagous insects. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2008, 10, 5113–5122. [Google Scholar]
  10. Cook, S.M.; Khan, Z.R.; Pickett, J.A. The use of push-pull strategies in integrated pest management. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2007, 52, 375–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Finch, S.; Collier, R.H. Host-plant selection by insects-a theory based on ‘appropriate/inappropriate landings’ by pest insects of cruciferous plants. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2000, 96, 91–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ma, C.; Cui, S.W.; Bai, Q.; Tian, Z.Q.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, G.M.; Gao, X.Y.; Tian, Z.Y.; Chen, H.S.; Guo, J.Y.; et al. Olfactory co-receptor is involved in host recognition and oviposition in Ophraella communa (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Insect Mol. Biol. 2020, 29, 381–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bonebrake, T.C.; Boggs, C.L.; McNally, I.M.; Ranganathan, J.; Ehrlich, P.R. Oviposition behavior and offspring performance in herbivorous insects: Consequences of climatic and habitat heterogeneity. Oikos 2010, 119, 927–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Gripenberg, S.; Mayhew, P.J.; Parnell, M.; Roslin, T.A. Meta-analysis of preference-performance relationships in phytophagous insects. Ecol. Lett. 2010, 13, 383–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Scheirs, J.; De Bruyn, L. Integrating optimal foraging and optimal oviposition theory in plant-insect research. Oikos 2002, 96, 187–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Poykko, H. Females and larvae of a geometrid moth, Cleorodes lichenaria, prefer a lichen host that assures shortest larval period. Environ. Entomol. 2006, 35, 1669–1676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Loewy, K.J.; Murphy, S.M. Trade-offs in host choice by an herbivorous insect based on parasitism and host plant quality. Oecologia 2015, 179, 741–751. [Google Scholar]
  18. Withers, T.M.; Mansfield, S. Choice or no-choice tests? Effects of experimental design on the expression of host ranges. In Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Biological Control of Arthropods, Davos, Switzerland, 12–16 September 2005; pp. 620–633. [Google Scholar]
  19. Litto, M.; Bouchemousse, S.; Schaffner, U.; Müller-Schärer, H. Population differentiation in response to temperature in Ophraella communa: Implication for the biological control of Ambrosia artemisiifolia. Biol. Control 2021, 164, 104777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Murray, T.J.; Withers, T.M.; Mansfield, S. Choice versus no-choice test interpretation and the role of biology and behavior in parasitoid host specificity tests. Biol. Control 2010, 52, 153–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wang, Y.Z.; Wu, K.; Ding, J.Q. Host specificity of Euops chinensis, a potential biological control agent of Fallopia japonica, an invasive plant in Europe and North America. BioControl 2010, 55, 551–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Shepherd, R.C.H. Problems which arise with host-specificity testing of insects. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on the Biological Control of Weeds, Rome, Italy, 6–11 March 1988; Delfosse, E.S., Ed.; Insituto Sperimentale per la Patologia Vegetale: Rome, Italy, 1990; pp. 85–92. [Google Scholar]
  23. Harley, K.L.S.; Kassulke, R.C.; Julien, M.H. Biology and host specificity of Microthrix inconspicuella Ragonat (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), a natural enemy of Emex australis in South Africa. J. Entomol. Soc. South. Afr. 1979, 42, 343–348. [Google Scholar]
  24. Bernays, E.A.; Chapman, R.F. Host Plant Selection by Phytophagous Insect; Chapman and Hall: London, UK, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  25. Ukeh, D.A.; Birkett, M.A.; Bruce, T.; Allan, E.J.; Luntz, A.J.M. Behavioural responses of the maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais, to host (stored-grain) and non-host plant volatiles. Pest Manag. Sci. 2010, 66, 44–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Mandal, P.; Mondal, F.; Hossain, M.S. Factors influences selection and adaptation of aphid to their Host Plant. J. Plant Sci. Crop Protec. 2020, 3, 102. [Google Scholar]
  27. Szentesi, A. The role of experience in host plant choice by phytophagous insects. In Insect-Plant Interactions (1990); CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1989; p. 2. [Google Scholar]
  28. Ou, H.Y.; Tian, M.Y.; Lin, R.; He, Y.R.; Xie, M.Q. The effect of host kairomones and learning behavior on olfactory responses of Trichogramma. J. Environ. Entomol. 2010, 32, 243–249. [Google Scholar]
  29. Furlong, M.J.; Wright, D.J.; Dosdall, L.M. Diamondback moth ecology and management: Problems, progress, and prospects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2013, 58, 517–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Anderson, P.; Anton, S. Experience-based modulation of behavioural responses to plant volatiles and other sensory cues in insect herbivores. Plant Cell. Environ. 2014, 37, 1826–1835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Tapia, D.H.; Silva, A.X.; Ballesteros, G.I.; Figueroa, C.C.; Niemeyer, H.M.; Ramírez, C.C. Differences in learning and memory of host plant features between specialist and generalist phytophagous insects. Anim. Behav. 2015, 106, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Withers, T.M.; Barton, B.L.; Stanley, J. How time-dependent processes can affect the outcome of assays. In Proceedings of Session: Host Specificity Testing of Exotic Arthropod Biological Control Agents: The Biological Basis for Improvement in Safety, Proceedings of the X International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, Bozeman, MT, USA, 4–14 July 1999; Van Driesche, R.G., Heard, T.A., McClay, A.S., Reardon, R., Eds.; USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team: Morgantown, WV, USA, 2000; pp. 27–41. [Google Scholar]
  33. Wan, F.H.; Harris, P.; Cai, L.M.; Zhang, M.X. Host specificity of Altica carduorum Guer. (Chrysomelidae: Coleoptera), a defoliator of Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. (Asteraceae) from North-western China. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 1996, 6, 521–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Clement, S.A. Review of open field tests in host-specificity determination of insects for biological control of weeds. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2013, 5, 395–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Fukano, Y.; Doi, H. Population abundance and host use pattern of Ophraella communa (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in its native and introduced range. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2013, 23, 595–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kim, H.G.; Lee, D.H. Review of the biology and ecology of a ragweed leaf beetle, Ophraella communa (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), which is a biological control agent of an invasive common ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia (Asterales: Asteraceae). Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2019, 29, 185–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zhou, Z.S.; Chen, H.S.; Zheng, X.W.; Guo, J.Y.; Guo, W. Control of the invasive weed Ambrosia artemisiifolia with Ophraella communa and Epiblema strenuana. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2014, 24, 950–964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hu, Y.P.; Meng, L. Potential impacts of alien herbivorous insect Ophraella communa (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) on non-target plants in mainland China. Chinese J. Ecol. 2007, 26, 56–60. [Google Scholar]
  39. Watanabe, M.; Hirai, Y. Host-use pattern of the ragweed beetle Ophraella communa Lesage (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) for overwintering and reproduction in Tsukuba. Appl. Entomol. Zool. 2004, 39, 249–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Kim, D.S.; Oh, K.S.; Lee, Y.D.; Lee, S.Y.; Lee, H.; Kim, H.J.; Kim, D.E. The distribution of the exotic species, Ophraella communa LeSage (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae) and their applicability for biological control against ragweed Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. on Jeju Island. Environ. Biol. Res. 2017, 35, 437–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Palmer, W.A.; Goeden, R.D. The host of range Ophraella communa Lesage (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Coleopts Bull. 1991, 45, 115–120. [Google Scholar]
  42. Dernovici, S.A.; Teshler, M.P.; Watson, A.K. Is Sunflower (Helianthus annuus) at risk to damage from Ophraella communa, a natural enemy of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia)? Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2006, 16, 669–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Cao, Z.J.; Wang, H.Y.; Meng, L.; Li, B.P. Risk to nontarget plants from Ophraella communa (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), a potential biological control agent of alien invasive weed Ambrosia artemisiifolia (Asteraceae) in China. Appl. Entomol. Zool. 2001, 46, 201–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Zhou, Z.S.; Guo, J.Y.; Zheng, X.W.; Luo, M.; Chen, H.S.; Wan, F.H. Reevaluation of biosecurity of Ophraella communa against sunflower (Helianthus annuus). Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2011, 21, 1147–1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Müller-Schärer, H.; Lommen, S.T.; Rossinelli, M.; Bonini, M.; Boriani, M.; Bosio, G.; Schaffner, U. Ophraella communa, the ragweed leaf beetle, has successfully landed in Europe: Fortunate coincidence or threat? Weed Res. 2014, 54, 109–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Wan, F.H.; Wang, R. A review on biological control of the ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia. Weed Sci. 1990, 1, 30–32. [Google Scholar]
  47. Komives, T.; Beres, I.; Reisinger, P. New strategy of the integrated protection against common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.). Hung Weed Res. Technol. 2006, 6, 5–50. [Google Scholar]
  48. Jin, L.Y.; Yu, J.Y.; Guo, Q.Y.; Ma, S.J.; Dong, J.G.; Yang, J.; Zhang, L.H. Characteristics of weed community and optimization of nicosulfuron and atrazine combination in spring corn field in eastern Hebei province. J. Maize Sci. 2022, 30, 157–163. [Google Scholar]
  49. Schoonhoven, L.M.; van Loon, J.J.A.; Dicke, M. Insect-Plant Biology, 2nd ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  50. Chu, S.; Cong, S.; Li, R.; Hou, Y. Host range of Herpetogramma basalis (Lepidoptera: Crambidae), a biological control agent for the invasive weed Alternanthera philoxeroides (Centrospermae: Amaranthaceae) in China. J. Insect Sci. 2019, 19, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Jaenike, J. Optimal oviposition behavior in phytophagous insects. Theor. Popul. Biol. 1978, 14, 350–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Liu, Q.S.; Hu, X.Y.; Su, S.L.; Peng, Y.F.; Li, Y.H. Cooperative herbivory between two important pests of rice. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 6772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Wang, H.Y.; Li, B.P.; Meng, L. Host-selection behavior of exotic Ophraella communa (Chrysomelidae: Coleoptera) for non-target plants. Chinese J. Biol. Control 2009, 25, 120–124. [Google Scholar]
  54. Yamanaka, T.; Tanaka, K.; Otuka, A.; Bjørnstad, O.N. Detecting spatial interactions in the ragweed (Ambrosia artemissifolia L.) and the ragweed beetle (Ophraella communa LeSage) populations. Ecol. Res. 2007, 22, 185–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Bruce, T.J.; Wadhams, L.J.; Woodcock, C.M. Insect host location: A volatile situation. Trends Plant Sci. 2005, 10, 269–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Bruce, T.J.; Pickett, J.A. Perception of plant volatile blends by herbivorous insects–finding the right mix. Phytochemistry 2011, 72, 1605–1611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Guarino, S.; Arif, M.A.; Millar, J.G.; Colazza, S.; Peri, E. Volatile unsaturated hydrocarbons emitted by seedlings of brassica species provide host location cues to Bagrada hilaris. PloS ONE 2018, 13, e0209870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Arif, M.A.; Guarino, S.; Peri, E.; Colazza, S. Evaluation of brassicaceae seedlings as trap plants for Bagrada hilaris Burmeister in caper bush cultivations. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Mappes, J.; Kaitala, A. Host-plant selection and predation risk for offspring of the parent bug. Ecology 1995, 76, 2668–2670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ballabeni, P.; Wlodarczyk, M.; Rahier, M. Does enemy-free space for eggs contribute to a leaf beetle’s oviposition preference for a nutritionally inferior host plant? Funct. Ecol. 2001, 15, 318–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Why, A.M.; Walton, W.E. Ovipositional Responses of Mosquitoes to Kairomones Produced from Aquatic Taxa in Different Guilds. In Proceedings of the Entomological Society of America Annual Meeting, Online, 13–16 November 2011. [Google Scholar]
  62. Hirayama, H.; Kasuya, E. Effect of adult females’ predation risk on oviposition site selection in a water strider. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2013, 149, 250–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Miyatake, T.; Ohno, T. Seasonal abundance of exotic leaf beetle Orphraella communa LeSage (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) on two different host plants. Appl. Entomol. Zool. 2010, 45, 283–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Liu, X.; Meng, L.; Li, B.P. Host choice and leaf consumption of Ophraella communa (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) on Ambrosia artemisiifolia and Xanthium sibiricum. Chin. J. Ecol. 2011, 30, 1337–1341. [Google Scholar]
  65. Qian, X. The preliminary studies on habits of growth and damage of cocklebur and its chemical control. Soybean Sci. 1988, 1, 61–68. [Google Scholar]
  66. Zhang, C.Q.; Chen, R.H.; Feng, X.H.; Cheng, X.Q.; Zhang, G.P.; Fan, Z.L. Investigation on species and distribution of weeds in tobacco fields in Jiangxi province. Acta Agric. Jiangxi 2012, 24, 80–82. [Google Scholar]
  67. Wang, Y.; Huang, C.Y.; Piao, D.W.; Huang, Y.J. Weed survey of sunflower field in northwest region of Heilongjiang province. Heilongjiang Agric. Sci. 2013, 6, 29–32. [Google Scholar]
  68. Funk, D.; Futuyma, D.; Orti, G.; Meyer, A. A history of host associations and evolutionary diversification for Ophraella (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae): New evidence from mitochondrial DNA. Evolution 1995, 49, 1008–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Fukano, Y.; Doi, H.; Thomas, C.E.; Takata, M.; Koyama, S.; Satoh, T. Contemporary evolution of host plant range expansion in an introduced herbivorous beetle Ophraella communa. J. Evol. Biol. 2016, 29, 757–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Nishide, Y.; Fukano, Y.; Doi, H.; Satoh, T.; Inoue, H.; Boriani, M. Origins and genetic diversity of the ragweed beetles, Ophraella communa (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), that were introduced into Italy and Japan based on an analysis of mitochondrial DNA sequence data. Eur. J. Entomol. 2015, 112, 613–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Root, R.B. Organization of a plant-arthropod association in simple and diverse habitats: The fauna of collards (Brassica oleracea). Ecol. Monogr. 1973, 43, 95–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Long, Z.T.; Mohler, C.L.; Carson, W.P. Extending the resource concentration hypothesis to plant communities: Effects of litter and herbivores. Ecology 2003, 84, 652–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Ohsaki, H.; Miyagi, A.; Kawai-Yamada, M.; Yamawo, A. Intraspecific interaction of host plants leads to concentrated distribution of a specialist herbivore through metabolic alterations in the leaves. Funct. Ecol. 2022, 36, 779–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Grez, A.A.; Gonzalez, R.H. Resource concentration hypothesis: Effect of host plant patch size on density of herbivorous insects. Oecologia 1995, 103, 471–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Bergelson, J.; Kareiva, P. Barriers to movement and the response of herbivores to alternative cropping patterns. Oecologia 1987, 71, 457–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Capman, W.C.; Batzli, G.O.; Simms, L.E. Responses of the common sooty wing skipper to patches of host plants. Ecology 1990, 71, 1430–1440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Meng, L.; Xu, J.; Li, H. Dispersal and bionomics of the alien Ophraella communa in China mainland. Chinese J. Biol. Control 2007, 23, 5–10. [Google Scholar]
  78. Zhou, Z.S.; Guo, J.Y.; Michaud, J.P.; Li, M.; Wan, F.H. Variation in cold hardiness among geographic populations of the ragweed beetle, Ophraella communa LeSage (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), a biological control agent of Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. (Asterales: Asteraceae), in China. Biol. Invasions 2011, 13, 659–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Tanaka, K.; Murata, K.; Matsuura, A. Rapid evolution of an introduced insect Ophraella communa LeSage in new environments: Temporal changes and geographical differences in photoperiodic response. Entomol. Sci. 2015, 18, 104–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Sun, Y.; Müller-Schärer, H.; Schaffner, U. Fighting neobiota with neobiota: Consider it more often and do it more rigorously. Biol. Conserv. 2022, 268, 109506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Insects 14 00334 g001 550
Figure 1. (A) Arrangement of experimental plots, (B) planting pattern, and Ophraella communa release sites in each plot.
Figure 1. (A) Arrangement of experimental plots, (B) planting pattern, and Ophraella communa release sites in each plot.
Insects 14 00334 g001
Insects 14 00334 g002 550
Figure 2. (A) Arrangement of experimental plots and (B) the planting pattern for the Ophraella communa host-plant selection behavior test on regularly distributed ragweed patches in sunflower plots. The shaded area indicates that 20 ragweed plants were evenly planted in the center (a radius of 1 m) of each plot. “Insects 14 00334 i001” shows the sites and densities per cluster of common ragweed planted in the 6 m and 9 m radius homocentric rings in each plot.
Figure 2. (A) Arrangement of experimental plots and (B) the planting pattern for the Ophraella communa host-plant selection behavior test on regularly distributed ragweed patches in sunflower plots. The shaded area indicates that 20 ragweed plants were evenly planted in the center (a radius of 1 m) of each plot. “Insects 14 00334 i001” shows the sites and densities per cluster of common ragweed planted in the 6 m and 9 m radius homocentric rings in each plot.
Insects 14 00334 g002
Insects 14 00334 g003 550
Figure 3. Dynamics of adult Ophraella communa occurrence on four coexisting plant species in cage experiments. All values are shown as the means ± SE. Values with the same letter in the same day are not significantly different (three-way ANOVA followed by Tukey test at p ≤ 0.05).
Figure 3. Dynamics of adult Ophraella communa occurrence on four coexisting plant species in cage experiments. All values are shown as the means ± SE. Values with the same letter in the same day are not significantly different (three-way ANOVA followed by Tukey test at p ≤ 0.05).
Insects 14 00334 g003
Insects 14 00334 g004 550
Figure 4. Dynamics of Ophraella communa egg deposition on four coexisting plant species in cage experiments. All values are shown as the means ± SE. Values with the same letter in the same day are not significantly different (three-way ANOVA followed by Tukey test at p ≤ 0.05).
Figure 4. Dynamics of Ophraella communa egg deposition on four coexisting plant species in cage experiments. All values are shown as the means ± SE. Values with the same letter in the same day are not significantly different (three-way ANOVA followed by Tukey test at p ≤ 0.05).
Insects 14 00334 g004
Insects 14 00334 g005 550
Figure 5. The number of O. communa individuals in different developmental stages on A. artemisiifolia (individuals/plant) and H. annuus (individuals/plant) planted in 2010 and 2011. All values are shown as the means ± SE. ** p < 0.01, highly significant. (a): the number of O. communa adults on A. artemisiifolia and H. annuus in 2010, (b): the number of O. communa adults on A. artemisiifolia and H. annuus in 2011,(c): the number of O. communa eggs on A. artemisiifolia and H. annuus in 2010., (d): the number of O. communa eggs on A. artemisiifolia and H. annuus in 2011.,(e): the number of O. communa larvae on A. artemisiifolia and H. annuus in 2010.,(f): the number of O. communa larvae on A. artemisiifolia and H. annuus in 2011.,(g): the number of O. communa pupae on A. artemisiifolia and H. annuus in 2010, (h): the number of O. communa pupae on A. artemisiifolia and H. annuus in 2011.
Figure 5. The number of O. communa individuals in different developmental stages on A. artemisiifolia (individuals/plant) and H. annuus (individuals/plant) planted in 2010 and 2011. All values are shown as the means ± SE. ** p < 0.01, highly significant. (a): the number of O. communa adults on A. artemisiifolia and H. annuus in 2010, (b): the number of O. communa adults on A. artemisiifolia and H. annuus in 2011,(c): the number of O. communa eggs on A. artemisiifolia and H. annuus in 2010., (d): the number of O. communa eggs on A. artemisiifolia and H. annuus in 2011.,(e): the number of O. communa larvae on A. artemisiifolia and H. annuus in 2010.,(f): the number of O. communa larvae on A. artemisiifolia and H. annuus in 2011.,(g): the number of O. communa pupae on A. artemisiifolia and H. annuus in 2010, (h): the number of O. communa pupae on A. artemisiifolia and H. annuus in 2011.
Insects 14 00334 g005
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jin, J.; Zhao, M.; Zhou, Z.; Wang, R.; Guo, J.; Wan, F. Host-Plant Selection Behavior of Ophraella communa, a Biocontrol Agent of the Invasive Common Ragweed Ambrosia artemisiifolia. Insects 2023, 14, 334. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14040334

AMA Style

Jin J, Zhao M, Zhou Z, Wang R, Guo J, Wan F. Host-Plant Selection Behavior of Ophraella communa, a Biocontrol Agent of the Invasive Common Ragweed Ambrosia artemisiifolia. Insects. 2023; 14(4):334. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14040334

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jin, Jisu, Meiting Zhao, Zhongshi Zhou, Ren Wang, Jianying Guo, and Fanghao Wan. 2023. "Host-Plant Selection Behavior of Ophraella communa, a Biocontrol Agent of the Invasive Common Ragweed Ambrosia artemisiifolia" Insects 14, no. 4: 334. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14040334

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop