Cited by 88Insect-Plant Interactions and ControlBiological Control of Invasive SpeciesForest Insect Ecology and Management

Indirect interaction between a fungal plant pathogen and a herbivorous beetle of the weed Cirsium arvense

Open access
Kruess, Andreas·2002·Oecologia

Abstract

Interactions between plants and their natural enemies are well studied, but investigations on the indirect interactions between plant enemies that simultaneously exploit a host plant are rare. Yet these plant-mediated interactions are important because they may affect not only the impact of plant antagonists on plant survival but may also influence the performance of the other plant exploiters. This study focused on the indirect effects of a systemic infection of creeping thistle, [irsium arvense (L.) Scop., with the necrotrophic fungus Phoma destructiva (Plowr.) on the phytophagous leaf beetle Cassida rubiginosa Müller, by examining egg deposition, food plant choice, and larval and pupal performance of the beetle. Thus, the results give a broader view than most other studies of plant-mediated effects of a pathogen on a phytophagous insect. Since both the beetle and the fungus are considered as agents for the biological control of C. arvense, the results are also of interest for applied ecology. Potted plants of C. arvense were inoculated with a conidiospore suspension of P. destructiva to cause a systemic infection of the plants. In a cage experiment, ovipositing females of C. rubiginosa showed a significant preference for healthy thistles. In dual-choice tests, adults of C. rubiginosa preferred leaf discs from healthy thistles over those from Phoma-infected thistles. The beetles also consumed significantly more leaf tissue from healthy than from infected plants. Development time from freshly hatched larvae until pupation was significantly longer for larvae fed on infected leaves. The weight of last-instar larvae and pupae was lower, and larval and pupal mortality was higher when larvae had been fed with infected compared to healthy leaves. Thus, the combined use of both potential biological control agents may be of lowered efficiency because (1) C. rubiginosa avoided infected thistles for both egg deposition and adult feeding and (2) Phoma infection negatively affected larval development and increased larval and pupal mortality of the beetle.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00442-001-0829-9

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Kruess, A.
Affiliations
University of Göttingen (DE)
Corresponding author
Kruess, Andreas
Venue
Oecologia
Published
2002-02
Volume
130
Issue
4
Pages
563-569
ISSN
  • 0029-8549 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-1939
OpenAlex
W2063075758
Cited by
88
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 7
FWCI
6.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Locations
  • Oecologia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • GRO (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Insect-Plant Interactions and Control
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Biological Control of Invasive Species
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Forest Insect Ecology and Management
Keywords
indirect interactions, plant-mediated interactions, Cirsium arvense, Cassida rubiginosa, Chrysomelidae, plant pathogenic fungi, herbivore behavior, oviposition preference, larval development, larval and pupal mortality, biological control, biological weed control

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review