271
Aoki, T., Smith, J. A., Kasson, M. T., Freeman, S., Geiser, D. M., Geering, A. D. W., & O’ Donnell, K.
272
(2019). Three novel ambrosia Fusarium clade species producing clavate macroconidia known
273
(F. floridanum and F. obliquiseptatum) or predicted (F. tuaranense) to be farmed by Euwallacea
274
spp. (Coleoptera: Scolytinae) on woody hosts, Mycologia, 111, 919–935.
275
276
277
278
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). lme4: Linear Mixed-effects Models Using
Eigen and S4. R Package Version, 1, 1–7.
Berec, L., Maxin, D., & Bernhauerová, V. (2016). Male-killing bacteria as agents of insect pest control.
Journal of Applied Ecology, 53, 1270–1279.
279
Burton, M., & Burton, R. (2002). Earwigs. In P. Bernabeo (Ed.), International wildlife
280
encyclopedia (pp. 738–740), (3rd edn.). New York, NY, USA: Marshall Cavendish Corporation.
281
Carroll, D. P., Walker, J. T. S., & Hoyt, S. C. (1985). European earwigs (Dermaptera: Forficulidae) fail
282
to control apple aphids on bearing apple trees and woolly apple aphids (Homoptera: Aphididae)
283
in apple rootstock stool beds. Journal of Economic Entomology, 78, 972–974.
284
285
Cross, J., Fountain, M., Marko, V., & Nagy, C. (2015). Arthropod ecosystem services in apple orchards
and their economic benefits. Ecological Entomology, 40, 82–96.
286
De Winter, J. C. F., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2016). Comparing the Pearson and Spearman
287
correlation coefficients across distributions and sample sizes: A tutorial using simulations and
288
empirical data. Psychological Methods, 21, 273–290.
289
Dib, H., Sauphanor, B., & Capowiez, Y. (2017). Report on the life history traits of the generalist
290
predator Forficula auricularia (Dermaptera Forficulidae) in organic apple orchards in
291
southeastern France. The Canadian Entomologist, 149, 56–72.
292
Ferrari, M. C., Trowell, J. J., Brown, G. E., & Chivers, D. P. (2005). The role of learning in the
293
development of threat-sensitive predator avoidance by fathead minnows. Animal Behaviour, 70,
294
777–784.
295
Fielding, N. J., O'Keefe, T., & King, C. J. (1991). Dispersal and host‐finding capability of the predatory
296
beetle Rhizophagus grandis Gyll. (Col., Rhizophagidae). Journal of Applied Entomology, 112,
297
89–98.
298
Grégoire, J. C., Merlin, J., Pasteels, J. M., Jaffuel, R., Vouland, G., & Schvester, D. (1985). Biocontrol
299
of Dendroctonus micans by Rhizophagus grandis Gyll. (Col., Rhizophagidae) in the Massif
11/25
300
Central (France): A first appraisal of the mass-rearing and release methods. Zeitschrift für
301
angewandte Entomologie, 99, 182–190.
302
303
Griffiths, C. L. (2018). First record of the maritime earwig Anisolabis maritima (Bonelli, 1832)
(Dermaptera: Anisolabididae) from South Africa. BioInvasions Records, 7, 459–462.
304
Hansen, K. (1983). Reception of bark beetle pheromone in the predaceous clerid beetle, Thanasimus
305
formicarius (Coleoptera: Cleridae). Journal of Comparative Physiology, 150, 371–378.
306
Hayashi, M., Morimoto, K., & Kimoto, S. (1984). The Coleoptera of Japan in color. In A. Nobuchi
307
308
309
(Ed.), Scolytidae, (2nd edn.) (pp. 362–369; IV). Hoikusha: Osaka. [in Japanese].
He, X. Z., Wang, Q., & Xu, J. (2008). European earwig as a potential biological control agent of apple
leaf-curling midge. New Zealand Plant Protection, 61, 43–349.
310
Hong, S. Y., Jeong, D. S., Gil, H. W., Yang, J. O., Lee, E. Y., & Hong, S. Y. (2009). The estimation of
311
pesticide exposure in depression scores: in case of Korean orchard farmers. Journal of Pest
312
Science, 82, 261–265.
313
314
IBM Corporation (2010). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 19.0. Chicago, Li, USA: IBM
Corp.
315
IJianJi Corporation (2017). PROC user's manual, version 3.0. Guangzhou, China: Quying Co., Ltd.
316
Kajii, C., Morita, T., Jikumaru, S., Kajimura, H., Yamaoka, Y., & Kuroda, K. (2013). Xylem
317
dysfunction in Ficus carica infected with wilt fungus Ceratocystis ficicola and the role of the
318
vector beetle Euwallacea interjectus. International Association of Wood Anatomists Journal, 34,
319
301–312.
320
Kajitani, Y. (1999). The dispersal period of the Xyleborus interjectus (Coleoptera, Scolytidae), a vector
321
of the fig Ceratocystis canker, and the organ carrying the causal fungus. Annals of the
322
Phytopathological Society of Japan, 65, 377. [in Japanese].
323
Kajitani, Y., & Yamanaka, M. (2001). Efficacy of various insecticide against the Xyleborus interjectus
324
(Coleoptera, Scolytidae), a vector of the fig Ceratocystis canker, and carrying the causal fungus.
325
Annals of the Phytopathological Society of Japan, 67, 220. [in Japanese].
326
327
Kajitani, Y., & Masuya, H. (2011). Ceratocystis fcicola sp. nov., a causal fungus of fig canker in Japan.
Mycoscience, 52, 349–353.
328
Kenis, M., Wermelinger, B., & Gre´goire, J. C. (2004). Research on parasitoids and predators of
329
Scolytidae–a review. In F. Lieutier, K. R. Day, A. Battisti, J. C. Gre´goire, & H. F. Evans, (Eds).
12/25
330
Bark and wood boring insects in living trees in Europe, a synthesis (pp. 237–290). Dordrecht,
331
The Netherlands: Springer.
332
Khanday, A. L., Buhroo, A. A., Singh, S., Ranjith, A. P., & Mazur, S. (2018). Survey of predators
333
associated with bark beetles (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) with redescription of
334
Platysoma rimarium Erichson, 1834 from Kashmir, India. Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity,
335
11, 353–360.
336
Körner, M., Vogelweith, F., Foitzik, S., & Meunier, J. (2017). Condition-dependent trade-off between
337
weapon size and immunity in males of the European earwig. Scientific Reports, 7, 7988.
338
Landi, L., Braccini, C. L., Knížek, M., Pereyra, V. A., & Marvaldi, A. E. (2019). A newly detected
339
exotic ambrosia beetle in Argentina: Euwallacea interjectus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae:
340
Scolytinae). Florida Entomologist, 102, 240–242.
341
Logan, D. P., Maher, B. J., & Rowe, C. A. (2017). Predation of diaspidid scale insects on kiwifruit
342
vines by European earwigs, Forficula auricularia, and steel-blue ladybirds, Halmus chalybeus.
343
BioControl, 62, 469–479.
344
345
Martinou, A. F., Seraphides, N., & Stavrinides, M. C. (2014). Lethal and behavioral effects of
pesticides on the insect predator Macrolophus pygmaeus. Chemosphere, 96, 167–173.
346
Maser, C., & Trappe, J. (1984). The seen and unseen world of the fallen tree. Portland: U.S.
347
Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment
348
Station.
349
Mizuno, T., & Kajimura, H. (2009). Effects of ingredients and structure of semi-artificial diet on the
350
reproduction of an ambrosia beetle, Xyleborus pfeili (Ratzeburg) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae:
351
Scolytinae). Applied Entomology and Zoology, 44, 363–370.
352
Moral, R. A., Demétrio, C. G. B., Hinde, J., Godoy, W. A. C., & Fernandes, F. S. (2017).
353
Parasitism-mediated prey selectivity in laboratory conditions and implications for biological
354
control. Basic and Applied Ecology, 19, 67–75.
355
Morita, T., Hara, H., Mise, D., & Jikumaru, S. (2012). A case study of Ceratocystis canker epidemic in
356
relation with Euwallacea interjectus infestation. Annual Report of the Kansai Plant Protection
357
Society, 54, 29–34. [in Japanese with English summary].
358
Mueller, T. F., Blommers, L. H. M., & Mols, P. J. M. (1988). Earwig (Forficula auricularia) predation
359
on the woolly apple aphid, Eriosoma lanigerum. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 47,
13/25
360
361
362
145–152.
Mukherjee, S., & Heithaus, M. R. (2013). Dangerous prey and daring predators: a review. Biological
Reviews, 88, 550–563.
363
Naranjo-Guevara, N., Peñaflor, M. F. G., Cabezas-Guerrero, M. F., & Bento, J. M. S. (2017). Nocturnal
364
herbivore-induced plant volatiles attract the generalist predatory earwig Doru luteipes Scudder.
365
The Science of Nature, 104, 77.
366
Nicholas, A. H., Thwaite, W. G., & Spooner-Hart, R. (1999). Arthropod abundance in an Australian
367
apple orchard under mating disruption and supplementary insecticide treatments for codling
368
moth, Cydia pomonella (L.) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Australian Journal of Entomology, 38,
369
23–29.
370
Nicholas, A. H., Spooner-Hart, R. N., & Vickers, R. A. (2005). Abundance and natural control of the
371
woolly aphid Eriosoma lanigerum in an Australian apple orchard IPM program. BioControl, 50,
372
271–291.
373
Nishikawa, M. (2009). Record of earwigs on Rishiri and Rebun Islands, northern Hokkaido, with
374
references on dermaptera of Hokkaido, Japan. Rishiri Studies, 28, 61–65. [in Japanese].
375
Nitta, H., Morita, T., Wakasaki, Y., & Kakogawa, K. (2005). Relationship between Ceratocystis canker
376
and ambrosia beetle in fig orchards. Annual Report of the Kansai Plant Protection Society, 47,
377
95–98.
378
Nunes, G. D. S., Dantas, T. A. V., Souza, M. D. S. D., Nascimento, I. N., Batista, J. D. L., & Malaquias,
379
J. B. (2019). Life stage and population density of Plutella xylostella affect the predation
380
behavior of Euborellia annulipes. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 167, 544–552.
381
Pekár, S., García, L. F., & Viera, C. (2017). Trophic niches and trophic adaptations of prey-specialized
382
spiders from the neotropics: A guide. In C. Viera, & M. Gonzaga (Eds.), Behaviour and ecology
383
of spiders (pp. 247–274). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
384
385
386
387
R Core Team (2019). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R
Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Raffa, K. F., & Dahlsten, D. L. (1995). Differential responses among natural enemies and prey to bark
beetle pheromones. Oecologia, 102, 17–23.
388
Ranger, C. M., Reding, M. E., Schultz, P. B., Oliver, J. B., Frank, S. D., Addesso, K. M., … Krause, C.
389
(2016). Biology, ecology, and management of nonnative ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera:
14/25
390
Curculionidae: Scolytinae) in ornamental plant nurseries. Journal of Integrated Pest
391
Management, 7, 1–23.
392
393
394
395
Robinson, A. S. (1983). Sex-ratio manipulation in relation to insect pest control. Annual review of
genetics, 17, 191–214.
Samuelson, G. A. (1981). A synopsis of Hawaiian Xyleborini (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Pacific Insects,
23, 50–92.
396
Stavrinides, M. C., & Mills, N. J. (2009). Demographic effects of pesticides on biological control of
397
Pacific spider mite (Tetranychus pacificus) by the western predatory mite (Galendromus
398
occidentalis). Biological Control, 48, 267–273.
399
400
401
402
Tømmerås, B. Å. (1988). The clerid beetle, Thanasimus formicarius, is attracted to the pheromone of
the ambrosia beetle, Trypodendron lineatum. Experientia, 44, 536–537.
Travis, J., Keen, W. H., & Juilianna, J. (1985). The role of relative body size in a predator-prey
relationship between dragonfly naiads and larval anurans. Oikos, 45, 59–65.
403
Wegensteiner, R., Wermelinger, B., & Herrmann, M. (2015). Natural enemies of bark beetles: predators,
404
parasitoids, pathogens, and nematodes. In F. E. Vega, & R. W. Hofstetter (Eds.), Bark beetles:
405
biology and ecology of native and invasive species (pp. 247–304). Oxford, MS, USA: Elsevier.
15/25
406
407
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Additional supporting information may be found online in the Supporting Information section.
408
Appendix S1. Predatory processes in the present study.
409
Table S1. The number of ambrosia beetles provided for earwig individuals on each date.
410
16/25
411
TABLE 1 Information on the ambrosia beetles used in this experiment
Body length
(mm)a
Collection
methods
2.0–2.6
Trap
13/0
0/13/0
XC
2.4–2.7
Maple trees or
Trap
6/0
0/6/0
XB
2.5–3.0
Maple trees or
Trap
21/25
0/28/18
2.6–3.0
Rearing artificial
8/0
diets
3/5/0
E. interjectus
3.4–3.8
Fig trees or
Rearing artificial 79/29
diets
31/29/48
Scolytoplatypus
mikado
2.9–3.8
Maple trees or
Trap
36/1
30/6/1
2.7–4.0
Maple trees or
Trap
42/3
32/10/3
3.5–4.1
Trap
6/0
0/6/0
3.6–4.0
Maple trees or
Trap
9/0
0/9/0
3.3–4.5
Maple trees or
Trap
17/0
0/17/0
237/58
96/129/70
Beetle species
Abbreviation Sex
Xylosandrus
germanus
XG
Xylosandrus
crassiusculus
Xylosandrus
brevis
Euwallacea
interjectus
EI
SM
S. mikado
Euwallacea
validus
EV
Scolytoplatypus
tycon
ST
S. tycon
Total
Hayashi et al., 1984.
412
413
17/25
No choice/choice AM1/AM2/AM3
414
415
TABLE 2 Summaries of GLMMs with predator as random variable and attacking duration or
percentage of beetles consumed as target variable
Estimate/
Variance
Std. Error/
Std. Dev.
Z-value
Pr(>|z|)
Intercept
−0.01476
0.46382
−0.032
0.975
Body size
0.50924
0.06280
8.109
< 0.001
0.4655
0.6823
0.6023
0.3854
1.563
0.118
0.4829
0.1296
3.725
< 0.001
0.1417
0.3764
Parametric coefficients
Attacking duration (AIC = 872.7)
Fixed effects
Random effect
Predatora
Percentage of beetles consumed (AIC = 227.3)
Fixed effects
Intercept
Body size
Random effect
Predatora
416
417
418
Estimate for the random effect of predator.
X. brevis (♀), E. interjectus (♀) and S. mikado (♀&♂).
18/25
419
420
Figure 1 Layout of the predatory processes between predator and prey
421
19/25
422
423
Figure 2 Process of earwig preying on ambrosia beetle.
424
(a), Simultaneous release of predator and prey; (b), walking or staying put; (c), touching the beetle
425
body with antenna; (d), cutting it with forceps; (e), eating the contents with mouth organs; (f), finishing
426
(leaving exoskeleton after completion of predation)
427
20/25
428
429
Figure 3 Pre-attack duration in each beetle species in the no-choice test (total n = 139).
430
The overall difference in medians among the species (n ≥ 5) is not significant at P > .05 using
431
Kruskal–Wallis test. SD, standard deviation
432
21/25
433
434
Figure 4 Attack duration in each beetle species in the no-choice test (total n = 129).
435
The overall difference in medians among the species (n ≥ 5) is significant at P < .01 using
436
Kruskal–Wallis test. Means with different letters (a, b) are significantly different at the 1% level. SD,
437
standard deviation.
438
22/25
439
440
Figure 5 Percentage of male and female beetles consumed in each beetle species in the no-choice test
441
(total n = 149).
442
n.s., not significant at P > .05 using Mann–Whitney U test; SD, standard deviation
443
23/25
444
445
446
Figure 6 Percentage of alive or dead (within 2 days) cases of beetles consumed in each beetle species
447
in the no-choice test (total n = 237).
448
*: Statistically significant at P < .05 using Mann–Whitney U test; n.s., not significant at P > .05 using
449
Mann–Whitney U test; SD, standard deviation
450
24/25
451
452
Figure 7 Prey preference between two different species in the choice test (total n = 58).
453
*: Significant at P < .01 using Fisher's exact test
25/25
...
論文の公開元へ
