Advertisement

Chemoecology

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 69–73 | Cite as

Your chemical coat tells me you are my delicacy: a predatory stink bug uses cuticular hydrocarbons to identify prey

  • Huai-Jun Xue
  • Jing Wei
  • Zheng-Zhong Huang
  • Wen-Zhu Li
  • Xing-Ke Yang
Short Communication

Abstract

Extensive studies have shown that cuticular hydrocarbons (CHCs) are among the major cues that allow many insects to identify interspecific and intraspecific variation between individuals. CHCs often have mutually nonexclusive functions that can provide multiple types of signals, while their role in predator–prey interactions has received little attention. Here, we used a predatory stink bug, Zicrona caerulea (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae), and one of its favorite flea beetle prey, Altica viridicyanea (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), to test the hypothesis that CHCs of prey are important chemical cues for a predator. Two-choice bioassays using dead beetles and glass dummies clearly indicated that the CHC profile of A. viridicyanea is the pivotal cue in prey identification for Z. caerulea. The results also suggested that the role of acoustic and visual cues can be ignored in prey recognition at close range.

Keywords

Cuticular hydrocarbon Chemical cue Predation Prey preference Altica Zicrona 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Rui-E Nie and Ming-Xia Guo for assistance in field collecting and bioassays, anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and Elizabeth McHone for helpful comments and English editing. This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 31272302) awarded to H.J.X.

References

  1. Akino T, Knapp JJ, Thomas JA, Elmes GW (1999) Chemical mimicry and host specificity in the butterfly Maculinea rebeli, a social parasite of Myrmica ant colonies. Proc R Soc B 266:1419–1426CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Anton S, Gnatzy W (1998) Prey specificity and the importance of close-range chemical cues in prey recognition in the digger wasp, Liris niger. J Insect Behav 11:671–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bantock T, Botting J (2013) British Bugs, an online identification guide to UK Hemiptera. http://www.britishbugs.org.uk/index.html
  4. Binz H, Kraft EF, Entling MH, Menzel F (2016) Behavioral response of a generalist predator to chemotactile cues of two taxonomically distinct prey species. Chemoecology 26:153–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blomquist G, Bagnères A (2010) Insect hydrocarbons: biology, biochemistry and chemical ecology. Cambridge Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dietemann V, Peeters C, Liebig J, Thivet V, Hölldobler B (2003) Cuticular hydrocarbons mediate discrimination of reproductives and nonreproductives in the ant Myrmecia gulosa. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:10341–10346CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Endo S, Itino T (2013) Myrmecophilous aphids produce cuticular hydrocarbons that resemble those of their tending ant. Popul Ecol 5:27–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ginzel MD, Blomquist GJ (2016) Insect hydrocarbons: biochemistry and chemical ecology. In: Cohen E, Moussian B (eds) Extracellular composite matrices in arthropods. Springer, New York, pp 221–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Herzner G, Schmitt T, Linsenmair KE, Strohm E (2005) Prey recognition by females of the European beewolf and its potential for a sensory trap. Anim Behav 70:1411–1418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Koedam D, Morgan ED, Nunes TM, Patricio E, Imperatriz-Fonseca VL (2011) Selective preying of the sphecid wasp Trachypus boharti on the meliponine bee Scaptotrigona postica: potential involvement of caste-specific cuticular hydrocarbons. Physiol Entomol 36:187–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lahav S, Soroker V, Hefetz A, Vander Meer RK (1999) Direct behavioral evidence for hydrocarbons as ant recognition discriminators. Naturwissenschaften 86:246–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lihoreau M, Rivault C (2009) Kin recognition via cuticular hydrocarbons shapes cockroach social life. Behav Ecol 20:46–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lorenzi MC, Sledge MF, Laiolo P, Sturlini E, Turillazzi S (2004) Cuticular hydrocarbon dynamics in young adult Polistes dominulus (Hymenoptera: Vespidae) and the role of linear hydrocarbons in nestmate recognition systems. J Insect Physiol 50:935–941CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. McPheron LJ, Mills NJ (2007) Influence of visual and olfactory cues on the foraging behavior of the paper wasp Mischocyttarus flavitarsis (Hymenoptera: Vespidae). Entomol Gen 30:105–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Monnin T (2006) Chemical recognition of reproductive status in social insects. Ann Zool Fenn 43:515–530Google Scholar
  16. Peterson MA, Dobler S, Larson EL, Juárez D, Schlarbaum T, Monsen KJ, Francke W (2007) Profiles of cuticular hydrocarbons mediate male mate choice and sexual isolation between hybridising Chrysochus (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Chemoecology 17:87–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pfannenstiel RS, Hunt RE, Yeargan KV (1995) Orientation of a hemipteran predator to vibrations produced by feeding caterpillars. J Insect Behav 8:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Phillips WM (1977) Observations on the biology and ecology of the chrysomelid genus Haltica Geoff. in Britain. Ecol Entomol 2:205–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rahman S, Hajong SR, Gévar J, Lenoir A, Darrouzet E (2016) Cuticular hydrocarbon compounds in worker castes and their role in nestmate recognition in Apis cerana indica.. J Chem Ecol 42:444–451CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Ranganathan Y, Bessière J, Borges RM (2015) A coat of many scents: cuticular hydrocarbons in multitrophic interactions of fig wasps with ants. Acta Oecol 67:24–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rider DA, Zheng LY (2002) Checklist and nomenclatural notes on the Chinese Pentatomidae (Heteroptera) I. Asopinae. Entomotaxonomia 24:107–115Google Scholar
  22. Rutledge CE, Silk PJ, Mayo P (2014) Use of contact chemical cues in prey discrimination by Cerceris fumipennis. Entomol Exp Appl 153:93–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Scott MP, Madjid K, Orians CM (2008) Breeding alters cuticular hydrocarbons and mediates partner recognition by burying beetles. Anim Behav 76:507–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shu M, Eyoumu W, Luo QH, Liu WW, Feng LK, Mou LS, Ma N, Wang PL (2012) Predation potential of Zicrona caerulea (Linnaeus) to the Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say) low instar larvae. J Environ Entomol 34:38–44Google Scholar
  25. Thomas ML, Parry LJ, Allan RA, Elgar MA (1999) Geographic affinity, cuticular hydrocarbons and colony recognition in the Australian meat ant Iridomyrmex purpureus. Naturwissenschaften 86:87–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Uma DB, Weiss MR (2010) Chemical mediation of prey recognition by spider-hunting wasps. Ethology 116:85–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wagner D, Tissot M, Cuevas W, Gordon DM (2000) Harvester ants utilize cuticular hydrocarbons in nestmate recognition. J Chem Ecol 26:2245–2257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wang SY, Cui JZ, Li WZ, Zhang Y (2005) The feeding habits of the genus Altica and biological significance. Chin Bull Entomol 42:385–390Google Scholar
  29. Wang ZW, Chen G, Tan K (2014) Both olfactory and visual cues promote the hornet Vespa velutina to locate its honeybee prey Apis cerana. Insects Soc 61:67–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Xue HJ, Wei JN, Magalhães S, Zhang B, Song KQ, Liu J, Li WZ, Yang XK (2016a) Contact pheromones of 2 sympatric beetles are modified by the host plant and affect mate choice. Behav Ecol 27:895–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Xue HJ, Zhang B, Segraves KA, Wei JN, Nie RE, Song KQ, Liu J, Li WZ, Yang XK (2016b) Contact cuticular hydrocarbons act as a mating cue to discriminate intraspecific variation in Altica flea beetles. Anim Behav 111:217–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Yasuda T (1997) Chemical cues from Spodoptera litura larvae elicit prey-locating behavior by the predatory stink bug, Eocanthecona furcellata. Entomol Exp Appl 82:349–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yasuda T, Wakamura S (1996) Behavioral responses in prey location of the predatory stink bug, Eocanthecona furcellata, to chemical cues in the larvae of Spodoptera litura. Entomol Exp Appl 81:91–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zhang B, Xue HJ, Song KQ, Liu J, Li WZ, Nie RE, Yang XK (2014) Male mate recognition via cuticular hydrocarbons facilitates sexual isolation between sympatric leaf beetle sister species. J Insect Physiol 70:15–21CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Key Laboratory of Zoological Systematics and Evolution, Institute of ZoologyChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  2. 2.University of Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations