Next Article in Journal
Effects of Land-Use Change on the Community Structure of the Dung Beetle (Scarabaeinae) in an Altered Ecosystem in Southern Ecuador
Next Article in Special Issue
Assessing the Distribution of Exotic Egg Parasitoids of Halyomorpha halys in Europe with a Large-Scale Monitoring Program
Previous Article in Journal
Characterizing and Quantifying Arbovirus Transmission by Aedes aegypti Using Forced Salivation and Analysis of Bloodmeals
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Ant Who Cried Wolf? Short-Term Repeated Exposure to Alarm Pheromone Reduces Behavioral Response in Argentine Ants
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Insects
Volume 12
Issue 4
10.3390/insects12040305
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

Predation on Drosophila suzukii within Hedges in the Agricultural Landscape

by
Alexandra Siffert
1,2,
Fabian Cahenzli
3,
Patrik Kehrli
4,
Claudia Daniel
3,
Virginie Dekumbis
5,
Barbara Egger
6,
Jana Furtwengler
3,
Camille Minguely
5,7,
Nicola Stäheli
6,
Franco Widmer
8,
Dominique Mazzi
9 and
Jana Collatz
1,*
1
Research Division Agroecology and Environment, Agroscope, Reckenholzstrasse 191, 8046 Zürich, Switzerland
2
Institute of Plant and Microbial Biology, University of Zurich, Zollikerstrasse 107, 8008 Zürich, Switzerland
3
Department of Crop Sciences, FiBL, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture, Ackerstrasse 113, 5070 Frick, Switzerland
4
Research Division Plant Protection, Agroscope, Route de Duillier 50, 1260 Nyon, Switzerland
5
Research Division Plant Protection, Agroscope, Route des Eterpys 18, 1964 Conthey, Switzerland
6
Competence Division Plants and Plant Products, Agroscope, Müller-Thurgau-Strasse 29, 8820 Wädenswil, Switzerland
7
School of Agricultural, Bern University of Applied Sciences, Forest and Food Sciences HAFL, Länggasse 85, 3052 Zollikofen, Switzerland
8
Molecular Ecology, Agroscope, Reckenholzstrasse 191, 8046 Zürich, Switzerland
9
Research Division Plant Protection, Agroscope, Müller-Thurgau-Strasse 29, 8820 Wädenswil, Switzerland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Insects 2021, 12(4), 305; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12040305
Submission received: 8 March 2021 / Revised: 26 March 2021 / Accepted: 26 March 2021 / Published: 30 March 2021
(This article belongs to the Collection Biocontrol and Behavioral Approaches to Manage Invasive Insects)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Drosophila suzukii is an invasive species that feeds and reproduces on various cultivated and wild fruits and moves between agricultural and semi-natural habitats, such as hedges and forest patches. These semi-natural habitats are known to harbor a diverse community of natural enemies of pests. When we exposed D. suzukii pupae in dry and humid hedges, we found that on average 44% of them were predated within four days. The most common predators in the hedges were earwigs, spiders, and ants. Using a molecular assay that detects the DNA of D. suzukii in the gut of predators, we could show that 3.4% of the sampled earwigs, 1.8% of the spiders, and one predatory bug had fed on D. suzukii. This small proportion may be due to methodological constraints. However, the overall predation rate helps to reduce D. suzukii populations, in particular in hedges that are scarce of host fruits.

Abstract

The invasive Drosophila suzukii feeds and reproduces on various cultivated and wild fruits and moves between agricultural and semi-natural habitats. Hedges in agricultural landscapes play a vital role in the population development of D. suzukii, but also harbor a diverse community of natural enemies. We investigated predation by repeatedly exposing cohorts of D. suzukii pupae between June and October in dry and humid hedges at five different locations in Switzerland. We sampled predator communities and analyzed their gut content for the presence of D. suzukii DNA based on the COI marker. On average, 44% of the exposed pupae were predated. Predation was higher in dry than humid hedges, but did not differ significantly between pupae exposed on the ground or on branches and among sampling periods. Earwigs, spiders, and ants were the dominant predators. Predator communities did not vary significantly between hedge types or sampling periods. DNA of D. suzukii was detected in 3.4% of the earwigs, 1.8% of the spiders, and in one predatory bug (1.6%). While the molecular gut content analysis detected only a small proportion of predators that had fed on D. suzukii, overall predation seemed sufficient to reduce D. suzukii populations, in particular in hedges that provide few host fruit resources.

1. Introduction

The invasive, frugivorous Drosophila suzukii Matsumura (Diptera: Drosophilidae) oviposits into ripening cherries, berries, and grapes, causing large economic damage [1,2]. Besides these agricultural crops, D. suzukii infests more than 100 species of wild fruits, many of them commonly found in agricultural hedges [3,4,5]. Therefore, this highly mobile species may use fruits in hedges for reproduction when host crops are not available. Hedges in the agricultural landscape may consequently provide a source for the re-infestation of crops after pest management interventions. Drosophila suzukii further uses hedges and woodland as a refuge during unfavorably hot and dry weather in summer [6] and as an overwintering habitat [7]. In addition, other polyphagous pests, for example aphids, are known to utilize the diverse resources and shelter afforded by semi-natural habitats [8,9]. Several studies have shown that nearby hedges and forest promote D. suzukii in crops [10,11,12]. In a recent study, it was observed that a greater proportion of non-cropping habitat promoted larger populations of D. suzukii, whereas fewer generalist predators were captured in those landscapes [13]. However, many natural enemies that provide biological control of agricultural pests also respond positively to landscape complexity, such as semi-natural habitats between agricultural plots [14,15]. Hedges, for example, not only connect natural and semi-natural habitats with crops [16], but they can also be the source of biocontrol functions in agricultural landscapes [17] by satisfying natural enemy needs not covered by crops [18]. For instance, the microclimate within hedges is buffered compared to open fields and therefore offers shelter during adverse climatic conditions [17,19]. Hedges may also form refuges for natural enemies, as they are usually not sprayed with insecticides [20]. Furthermore, diverse hedges can provide food and alternative hosts when target pests are scarce in the crop [21].
Thus, hedges support a diverse fauna of natural enemies, among them generalist predators such as carabids, staphylinids, earwigs, spiders, and predatory bugs [17,22]. It has been shown that these generalist predators can provide baseline control of agricultural pests [23]. Some of them are known to prey on D. suzukii and may thus reduce its abundance [22,24,25]. We aimed to gain further insight into the role of generalist predators in hedges in agricultural landscapes for the control of D. suzukii. We exposed pupae of D. suzukii in dry and humid hedges at different locations in Switzerland during the growing season (June–October) and determined predation rates, assessed the community of arthropod predators within these hedges, and analyzed the gut content of captured predators with D. suzukii-specific primers in order to confirm their feeding on this prey.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Field Sites

Ten hedges embedded in the agricultural landscape were chosen at five different locations in Switzerland. Hedges were selected according to the known presence of D. suzukii from surveys conducted in previous years and all hedges contained a variety of potential host plants of this vinegar fly. One humid and one dry hedge were assessed at each location to cover a wide diversity of predator species. Dry hedges were sun exposed, whereas humid hedges were at shady locations, often close to a water course. Locations and plant species of each hedge are shown in Table 1.

2.2. Exposure of D. suzukii Pupae in the Field

Laboratory rearing of D. suzukii were established in the infrastructures of the authors’ affiliations, at Agroscope and FiBL. Adult flies were kept on an artificial banana-based diet (for a detailed recipe, see Boycheva et al. [26]) for oviposition. The diet containing eggs was replaced every 2–3 days, stored in ventilated jars, and kept for preparation of sample pupae or emergence of adult flies. For sample preparation, tissue paper was placed into the jars with last instar larvae for 24 h. During this time, larvae crawled onto the paper and pupated. The paper was then cut to contain the desired number of pupae for experiments. Rearing was conducted in climate chambers at 22 ± 1 °C, 70–75% RH and 16:8 L:D.
Exposure of pupae in the hedges took place at each location simultaneously in both hedge types at intervals of about one month between June and October 2019, accounting for four sampling periods: First: 17 June–4 July; Second: 5 July–26 July; Third: 12 August–2 September; Fourth: 17 September–18 October (Table 1). Three sets of thirty pupae per exposure period and per hedge were prepared. The samples were placed on the bottom of small plastic Petri dishes (5 cm diameter; Conthey, Reckenholz, Wädenswil) or plastic cylinders (10 cm diameter; Changins, Frick) and enclosed in a metal grid (1.5 cm diameter mesh size) to exclude larger predators such as mice. One sample was clamped between two branches at a height of 1.5 to 1.8 m and the two others were installed on the ground. One of the latter two served as a control and was protected from predation by a ventilated plastic jar (0.8 L). Care was taken to place the samples in locations protected from rain and direct sunlight. The samples were exposed in the hedges for four days, but the period was prolonged or shortened on a few occasions to two or five days in the case of cold weather, and thus low predator activity, or to avoid the emergence of adult flies when high temperatures prevailed. After field exposure, the samples were collected and the pupae were counted and classified into: Intact pupae, damaged pupae and missing pupae. The samples were then put into plastic jars and transferred into climate chambers to check for the capacity of collected pupae to complete their development and allow adults to emerge.

2.3. Collection of Arthropod Predators

Predators were captured at each location in both hedges at several meters distance from the exposed pupae at intervals of about one month between June and October 2019 (Table 1). Predators were collected by three different trap types: pitfall traps, i.e., vertically buried soil traps filled with vegetal material (a 10 cm diameter PVC tube completed with a plastic bottle (200 mL) and a funnel connecting the top of the soil with the top of the bottle, two traps per hedge), bamboo pipes (0.5–1.0 cm diameter and 10–15 cm long, five pipes per hedge), and corrugated cardboard strips (band of 2 × 30 cm wrapped around a branch, five strips per hedge). Traps were inspected 12 and 24 h after deployment and then removed until the following scheduled collection. Additionally, predators were collected by beating the shrubs and gathering the fallen arthropods from a net placed below. Approximately 15–30 min of beating were invested per hedge and sampling date. Each predator was directly trapped into an Eppendorf tube (1.5 mL) and put on ice until reaching the laboratory where the samples were stored at −20 °C. Predators were morphologically determined to family or order level while being kept on crushed ice. Spiders were imaged with a high-resolution 4K numeric microscope camera, series VHX-7000 (Keyence, Osaka, Japan) and determined to family level using the photographs.

2.4. Molecular Gut Content Analysis

Field sampled predators were subjected to analyses using a PCR-based approach based on the Dro-suz-S390 and Dro-suz-A380 primers (Eurofins Genomics, Ebersberg, Germany), and a modified protocol based on Wolf et al. [22]. Although the whole body of the predator was used in the analyses, we refer to common terminology and use the term molecular gut content analyses for this approach. The used primers specifically target a 171 bp sequence of the COI gene from D. suzukii. To avoid any contamination of the predators’ body surface with D. suzukii DNA, samples were washed with bleach and water prior to analysis [27,28]. To each 1.5 mL tube containing a single predator, 1 mL bleach 1–1.5% solution (1 part 10–15 % sodium hypochlorite (VWR Chemicals, Radnor, PA, USA) 9 parts Milli-Q water, and Tween 20 (0.1%) was added and the tubes were then shaken for 30 s. They were then rinsed twice with 1 mL Milli-Q water and shaken for another 15 s.

2.4.1. DNA-Extraction

The whole predator body was added to 180 μL TES buffer (0.1 M TRIS, 10 mM EDTA, 2% SDS, pH 8) and 20 μL Proteinase K (20 mg/mL) and crushed manually with sterilized pipette tips. The samples were then centrifuged for 5 min at 17,000× g and incubated overnight on a rocking platform (500 rpm; Hettlich Benelux, Geldermalsen, The Netherlands) at 56 °C. DNA was extracted with the DNeasy blood & tissue Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) following the manufacturer’s instructions, except for the lysis step described above and the elution with 1× TE buffer. To determine the samples’ DNA concentrations, the Nanodrop 1000 Spectrophotometer (Thermo Fischer Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) was used. Each sample was adjusted to the same concentration of DNA (5 ng/μL) using the PIPETMAX® device (Gilson, Lewis Center, OH, USA).

2.4.2. PCR

The COI target sequence was amplified from all samples using the Tap PCR Core Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany): 1 μL reaction buffer (10×), 0.2 μL dNTP mix (10 mM each), 0.1 μL MgCl2 (25 mM), 0.2 μL primer Dro-suz-S390 (10 μM), 0.2 μL primer Dro-suz-A380 (10 μM), 0.025 μL Taq polymerase (250 Units), 0.5μL BSA (10 mg/mL), and 5.775 μL of sterilized, filtered, and UV exposed H20 were prepared and poured in each well, followed by the addition of 2 μL of the corresponding DNA template. The 10 μL PCR samples were processed by the PCR C1000 Touch Thermal Cycler (BioRad, Hercules, California, USA) with the following conditions: Initial denaturation for 15 min at 95 °C, followed by 35–40 cycles of 30 s at 94 °C, 90 s at 62 °C, 60 s at 72 °C and a final extension for 10 min at 72 °C.

2.4.3. Gel Electrophoresis

To determine presence of D. suzukii in a sample, 3 μL of the PCR product were analyzed on a 2% agarose gel. Visualization of the PCR product was performed with a UV analyser Quantum (Vilber, Collégien, France). A sample was defined as containing D. suzukii DNA if the PCR product of 171 bp was visible. To obtain a positive control, 5 earwigs were collected in the field and then kept individually in petri dishes (5 cm) for 24 h with a humid cotton pad only. The next day, they were fed two D. suzukii pupae and were observed during 3 h. Finally, their gut content was analyzed as described above. The DNA isolated from an earwig that had eaten both D. suzukii pupae and thus produced a strong band on the gel was kept and used as a positive control. Water instead of DNA was added for the negative control. To exclude false-positives, all positive samples were re-analyzed. Only samples that tested positive twice were considered to have fed D. suzukii.

2.5. Statistical Analyses

The proportion of predated pupae and the number of predators per group were analyzed with generalized linear mixed models using the R-package lme4 [29] in R version 4.0.1. [30] The model for the analysis of the proportion of predated pupae used binomial-distributed errors, the model for the number of predators used Poisson-distributed errors. The models used the fixed effects hedge type (dry and humid) and exposure period (1–4). The model analyzing predation further included the fixed effects exposure place (control, ground and branch) and exposure time (2–5 days). The model analyzing the number of predators additionally included the fixed effect predator group. Non-significant interactions and the non-significant variable exposure time and its quadratic term were removed from the models in a stepwise process. The random effect location explained a significant proportion of the variance only in the model for the analysis of the proportion of predated pupae. A random effect observational level was included in both models because of overdispersion. For better convergence, the models used the optimizer “bobyqa” instead of “Nelder-Mead” for the second phase. Tukey post-hoc multiple comparisons were performed using the R-package lsmeans [31]. Model assumptions were validated.
The composition of predator groups and Araneae families was analyzed with transformation-based redundancy analyses with the R package vegan [32]. Data was Hellinger transformed. The models used the describing variables hedge type (dry and humid) and sampling period (1–4) and the random effect location. Because of unbalanced data from different dates and sites, permutation tests used type III sum of squares. The number of permutations was 999.

3. Results

3.1. Exposure of D. suzukii Pupae in the Field

Overall 2113 pupae of D. suzukii were exposed to predation in the hedges. Adults emerged from 33.1 ± 4.0% of them after taking them back to the laboratory, and 43.7 ± 4.1% were considered to be predated (pupae were missing or damaged) while the fate of 23.2 ± 3.1% remained unaccounted for (pupae were returned visibly undamaged but no adult flies emerged; Table 2). From the 1090 control pupae, 67.4 ± 4.9% yielded adult flies, while 1.9 ± 1.1% were lost and 29.6 ± 4.7% remained unaccounted for. Mean predation over the whole assessment period varied largely among hedges and ranged from 6.7 ± 3.8% on the ground at the humid site in Wädenswil to 70.0 ± 21.3% on branches at the dry site in Changins.
The proportion of predated pupae was significantly higher at dry than at humid sites (χ21,103 = 4.206, P = 0.040; Figure 1A). Furthermore, predation significantly differed between exposure sites (χ22,103 = 67.295, P < 0.001): predation on pupae exposed on the ground (z = 6.965, P < 0.001) or on branches (z = 7.871, P < 0.001) was significantly higher as compared to the control pupae kept in enclosed plastic jars (Figure 1B). However, predation on pupae exposed on branches or the ground did not differ significantly (z = 1.215, P = 0.444). The proportion of predated pupae did not significantly vary between sampling periods (χ21,103 = 1.915, P = 0.590).

3.2. Collection of Arthropod Predators

In total, 1101 predator individuals were collected. The number of predators differed significantly between groups (χ29,345 = 178.298, P < 0.001; Figure 2). The highest numbers of arthropods collected were insects of the families Forficulidae (357), Myrmicidae (160) and Carabidae (74), as well as 383 spiders of the main families Tetragnathidae (61), Thomisidae (58), Philodromidae (34), and Anyphaenidae (34). The number of collected predators differed significantly between sampling periods (χ23,345 = 10.504, P = 0.015), as more predators were collected in the first sampling period than in the last (z = 3.206, P = 0.007). The number of predators did not differ significantly between dry and humid hedges (χ21,345 = 0.086, P = 0.769). Hedge type (F1 = 1.565, P = 0.158; Figure S1A) and sampling period (F3 = 1.692, P = 0.053; Figure S1B) only explained 15.0% of the variance in the composition of predator groups. Alike, hedge type (F1 = 1.746, P = 0.065; Figure S2A) and sampling period (F1 = 1.480, P = 0.071; Figure S2B) only explained 23.0% of the variance in the composition of Araneae families.

3.3. Molecular Gut Content Analyses

Out of 1101 predators, 20 (=1.8%) tested positive to D. suzukii DNA; among them 12 (=3.4%) Forficulidae, 7 (=1.8%) Araneae and 1 (=1.6%) Heteroptera. Among the positive tested Forficulidae, one was collected in the dry hedge in Frick (25.06), four in the dry and two in the humid hedge in Conthey (all 16.07, except one in the dry hedge on 27.08), each two in the dry and humid hedge in Changins (all 26.8 except one in the humid hedge on 22.07) and one in the humid hedge in Wädenswil (04.09). Two positive tested Araneae were collected in the dry hedge in Frick (a Thomisidae on 25.06 and a Pisauridae on 18.9), one in the humid (a Clubionidae on 03.10) and all others in the dry hedge in Wädenswil (each one Thomisidae on 04.09 and 03.10 and two Dictynidae on 3.10). The Heteroptera was collected on 04.09 in the humid hedge in Wädenswil.
The proportion of collected predators that were tested positive for the presence of D. suzukii DNA over the four sampling periods was 0.78% in period 1 (17.06–04.07; n = 258; positive 2), 2.08% in period 2 (08.07–25.07; n = 288; positive 6), 2.44% in period 3 (12.08–04.09; n = 287; positive 7), and 1.87% in period 4 (17.09–16.10; n = 268; positive 5). When only Heteroptera, Araneae, and Forficulidae were considered, the percentage of D. suzukii positive individuals ranged from 1.14 to 3.70. Although the percentage of positive individuals was lowest during the first sampling period, no considerable differences could be identified over the four sampling periods and the proportion of positive predators did not change over the season.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

Our field survey at five different locations in two types of hedges showed that, on average, 44% of the exposed D. suzukii pupae were predated with few incidences of up to 95% of the provided pupae unrecovered. Predation took place on the ground as well as in the branches and across all sampling periods. However, although several families of predatory arthropods were present in the hedges and more than thousand individuals were collected and analyzed, less than 2% of the captured predators tested positive for the D. suzukii COI marker and only earwigs, spiders, and one predatory bug were identified to have recently fed on this invasive pest species.
Although web spiders may mainly capture adult flies and predatory bugs mainly feed on eggs, immobile pupae are probably the life stage of D. suzukii most vulnerable to predation [22,24,33]. Developing eggs and larvae are well hidden within the fruits, whereas pupae often protrude through the skin of the fruit or are found on the ground. Even though pupae might have been more exposed and aggregated in our study than under natural conditions, the observed predation rate of 44% of exposed pupae is considerable and likely affects the fly’s population dynamic. The calculated predation rate largely exceeds OECD requirements of a 10% reduction in the pest population for the registration of an invertebrate biocontrol agent [34]. Moreover, the calculated rates of predation are in accordance with previous studies. Woltz and Lee [35] observed a decrease of 61–91% in the number of recovered pupae exposed on the soil in strawberry, blueberry, and blackberry fields. Similarly, Ballman et al. [36] found predation rates on exposed pupae from 34 to up to 100% in wild blueberry fields. Considering all three studies, it seems that generalist predators might have a higher impact on population dynamics of D. suzukii in Europe and North America than the more specialized parasitoids, whose natural parasitism rates rarely exceed 10 % [33,37,38]. Since parasitoids in the invaded areas mainly attack pupae, an additive effect of the two guilds of natural enemies is plausible [39,40].
We observed a high spatial variability in predation between hedges at the five locations, with calculated mean predation rates ranging from 6.7 ± 3.8% on the ground of a humid hedge to 70.0 ± 21.3% on the branches of a dry hedge. Significantly more D. suzukii pupae were predated in dry than humid hedges, but there was no significant difference in predation between pupae that were exposed on the ground and on branches. Likewise, predation did not significantly vary among the four sampling periods. These findings indicate that dry and sunny hedges harbor more voracious or higher densities of pupal predators than wet and shady hedges. Overall, dry hedges also hosted a higher plant diversity (see Table 1), which might thereby provide more food and alternative prey to generalist predators [21]. Accordingly, a general relationship between plant diversity and predation also became visible. In Conthey and Frick, where humid hedges showed a high plant diversity, higher predation in humid hedges was also observed, whereas in Changins and Wädenswil, the lower plant diversity in humid hedges was accompanied by less predation. In addition, pupal predators on the ground and on branches were of comparable voracity or even consisted of similar complexes of species. The latter might be the case, since in particular ants and earwigs are assumed to be important predators of D. suzukii pupae [22,24,25,35,41]. Typically, they live and forage on the ground as well as in the canopy and both are probably able to remove pupae entirely [35], which could explain the missing 34.4 ± 3.6% of the exposed pupae. Furthermore, ants and earwigs are present and active over the whole vegetative season, which might further explain the lack of significant differences between exposure periods. Yet, the presence of the D. suzukii COI marker could only be confirmed in the gut of earwigs but not in any one of the 160 collected ants. Since ants usually carry captured prey to their colonies where it is fed to larvae and shared among its members, it might, however, be difficult to actually detect any D. suzukii DNA in ants.
Earwigs, ants, spiders, and ground beetles were the most collected predator taxa. The composition of the predator communities and their abundance did not significantly differ between hedge types. Similarly, hedge type did not significantly influence the taxonomic composition of spiders at the family level. It can be assumed that the rather coarse identification up to the genus or family level, as was limited by the sample preservation for molecular analyses, does not permit to find more subtle habitat-specific differences at the species level. Although predator abundance was significantly higher in June to early July, as compared to late September to October; species composition of predator groups and Araneae families did not vary between sampling periods. The former could be due to warmer temperatures in summer than in fall, which is similar to the higher predation rates found in dry and warm hedgerows compared to humid hedges.
In the 1,101 captured predators, the presence of the D. suzukii COI marker could be confirmed in fewer than 2% of the tested individuals and only in the three orders Forficulidae, Araneae, and Heteroptera. The proportion of individuals that had fed on D. suzukii was highest in earwigs, whereas fewer proportions tested positive among spiders and bugs. The same predator orders, and furthermore rove beetles (Staphylinidae), have also been identified to feed on D. suzukii in the study by Wolf et al. [22]. The proportion of predators that tested positive for the D. suzukii COI marker was, however, considerably higher in the study of Wolf et al. [22] with 43.4% for earwigs and around 15 % for spiders and bugs. This might in part be explained by higher D. suzukii density in the study of Wolf et al. [22], in which arthropod predators have been captured in the immediate vicinity of heavily infested cherries, blackberries, and raspberries, whereas we also collected many specimens on non-fruiting plant species. In order to prevent effects of volatiles on the predators and to avoid reducing prey availability, we deliberately refrained from setting up D. suzukii traps in the monitored hedges. We therefore have no observational data on the effective abundance of D. suzukii in the studied hedges. Furthermore, semi-natural habitats are known to harbor alternative prey to generalist predators [21]. Thus, D. suzukii density might have been lower in our study, while alternative prey was more common, which probably reflects the natural pattern of predation in agricultural hedges.
The proportion of predators that was tested positive for the D. suzukii COI marker was surprisingly low in comparison to the observed predation rate. It is likely that we did not cover the full range of predators in our molecular analyses, either because they carried away the prey such as ants or because they were not analyzed, such as predatory flies or mollusks. Furthermore, the relatively small proportion of positive samples can be explained by the detection limits of the analysis. Molecular gut content analyses allow the detection of prey DNA before it is digested to below the detection limit, which usually takes between several hours to a few days [42]. Under laboratory conditions, the DNA of D. suzukii was detectable in the gut of the common earwig for up to 48 h [43]. Moreover, we also decided to use a conservative approach to effectively validate the presence of D. suzukii DNA in the gut of predators, since individuals had to be tested positive twice in independent PCR runs. Hence, we might have dismissed samples where a very small amount of D. suzukii DNA failed to be confirmed in the repetition. It can therefore be assumed that our molecular assay underestimated the proportion of predators, which had fed on D. suzukii pupae.
Overall, a rather high proportion of exposed pupae was preyed by generalist predators in the studied hedgerows. Due to their broad prey range, the identified predators might however be less suited for targeted biological control attempts compared to more specialist parasitoid species from D. suzukii’s native range or even from invaded regions [44]. Furthermore, high densities of some predators like the omnivorous earwigs can also inflict damage to thin-skinned fruits such as cherries or grapes [45,46,47]. Nonetheless, these generalist predators might provide a non-negligible background regulation of D. suzukii and their presence in hedgerows in the agricultural landscape may contribute to the regulation of pest populations [33,48]. Differences in composition of the predator community and the predation of pupae between sites were high, indicating that landscape context and hedge quality affect the extent of biological control provided by natural enemies, and suggesting a still underexploited potential to improve natural pest regulation. However, whether an individual hedge functions as a sink or a source for D. suzukii may also depend on the community of host plant species. For example, plants from the genus Cornus, Prunus, Rubus, or Sambucus are attractive and favorable to D. suzukii [4] and probably enhance its spillover from hedges to nearby crops (e.g.,: [10,11,49,50]). Hedges with less suited plant species or even harboring dead-end hosts (i.e., fruits that are used for oviposition but do not support larval development) might however function as sinks [5,51,52]. Moreover, hedgerows might provide other ecosystem services such as wind breaks, the conservation of biodiversity, the control of other pests, the supply of edible fruits, and attractiveness for recreation, thereby enhancing the overall quality of agricultural landscapes.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/insects12040305/s1, Figure S1: Transformation-based redundancy analyses of the composition of predator groups in dry and humid hedges and over four sampling periods, Figure S2. Transformation-based redundancy analyses of the composition of Araneae families in dry and humid hedges and over four sampling periods.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.K., J.C., and D.M.; methodology, A.S and F.W.; statistical analysis, F.C.; investigation, A.S. (Reckenholz, molecular samples), J.F. (Frick), N.S. (Wädenswil), C.M., V.D. (Conthey), P.K. (Changins); resources, J.C. and F.W.; data curation, A.S. and J.C.; writing—original draft preparation, J.C., A.S., F.C., and P.K.; writing—review and editing, C.D., B.E., and D.M.; visualization, F.C.; supervision, F.W., J.C.; project administration, J.C. and D.M.; funding acquisition, D.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Swiss Federal Office for Agriculture as part of the Drosophila suzukii R&D Task Force.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data for this study are available at: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14096693.v1 (accessed on 29 March 2021).

Acknowledgments

Claudia Gack and Mario Waldburger for insect identification, Urs Büchler for help in the molecular laboratory, and Denis Pasquier for helping collecting insects.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Walsh, D.B.; Bolda, M.P.; Goodhue, R.E.; Dreves, A.J.; Lee, J.; Bruck, D.J.; Walton, V.M.; O’Neal, S.D.; Zalom, F.G. Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae): Invasive Pest of Ripening Soft Fruit Expanding its Geographic Range and Damage Potential. J. Integr. Pest Manag. 2011, 2, G1–G7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Mazzi, D.; Bravin, E.; Meraner, M.; Finger, R.; Kuske, S. Economic Impact of the Introduction and Establishment of Drosophila suzukii on Sweet Cherry Production in Switzerland. Insects 2017, 8, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Poyet, M.; Le Roux, V.; Gibert, P.; Meirland, A.; Prévost, G.; Eslin, P.; Chabrerie, O. The Wide Potential Trophic Niche of the Asiatic Fruit Fly Drosophila suzukii: The Key of its Invasion Success in Temperate Europe? PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0142785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Kenis, M.; Tonina, L.; Eschen, R.; Van Der Sluis, B.; Sancassani, M.; Mori, N.; Haye, T.; Helsen, H. Non-crop plants used as hosts by Drosophila suzukii in Europe. J. Pest Sci. 2016, 89, 735–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Wolf, S.; Boycheva-Woltering, S.; Romeis, J.; Collatz, J. Trichopria drosophilae parasitizes Drosophila suzukii in seven common non-crop fruits. J. Pest Sci. 2019, 93, 627–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Santoiemma, G.; Trivellato, F.; Caloi, V.; Mori, N.; Marini, L. Habitat preference of Drosophila suzukii across heterogeneous landscapes. J. Pest Sci. 2018, 92, 485–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Rossi-Stacconi, M.V.; Kaur, R.; Mazzoni, V.; Ometto, L.; Grassi, A.; Gottardello, A.; Rota-Stabelli, O.; Anfora, G. Multiple lines of evidence for reproductive winter diapause in the invasive pest Drosophila suzukii: Useful clues for control strategies. J. Pest Sci. 2016, 89, 689–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Holland, J.M.; Bianchi, F.J.; Entling, M.H.; Moonen, A.-C.; Smith, B.M.; Jeanneret, P. Structure, function and management of semi-natural habitats for conservation biological control: A review of European studies. Pest Manag. Sci. 2016, 72, 1638–1651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Tscharntke, T.; Karp, D.S.; Chaplin-Kramer, R.; Batáry, P.; DeClerck, F.; Gratton, C.; Hunt, L.; Ives, A.; Jonsson, M.; Larsen, A.; et al. When natural habitat fails to enhance biological pest control—Five hypotheses. Biol. Conserv. 2016, 204, 449–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Cahenzli, F.; Bühlmann, I.; Daniel, C.; Fahrentrapp, J. The distance between forests and crops affects the abundance of Dro-sophila suzukii during fruit ripening, but not during harvest. Environ. Entomol. 2018, 47, 1274–1279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hennig, E.I.; Mazzi, D. Spotted Wing Drosophila in Sweet Cherry Orchards in Relation to Forest Characteristics, Bycatch and Resource Availability. Insects 2018, 9, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Rodriguez-Saona, C.; Firbas, N.; Hernández-Cumplido, J.; Holdcraft, R.; Michel, C.; Palacios-Castro, S.; Silva, D.B. Interpreting Temporal and Spatial Variation in Spotted-Wing Drosophila (Diptera: Drosophilidae) Trap Captures in Highbush Blueberries. J. Econ. Entomol. 2020, 113, 2362–2371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Schmidt, J.M.; Whitehouse, T.S.; Green, K.; Krehenwinkel, H.; Schmidt-Jeffris, R.; Sial, A.A. Local and landscape-scale heterogeneity shape spotted wing drosophila (Drosophila suzukii) activity and natural enemy abundance: Implications for trophic interactions. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 2019, 272, 86–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Chaplin-Kramer, R.; O’Rourke, M.E.; Blitzer, E.J.; Kremen, C. A meta-analysis of crop pest and natural enemy response to landscape complexity. Ecol. Lett. 2011, 14, 922–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Bianchi, F.; Booij, C.; Tscharntke, T. Sustainable pest regulation in agricultural landscapes: A review on landscape composition, biodiversity and natural pest control. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2006, 273, 1715–1727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Fischer, C.; Schlinkert, H.; Ludwig, M.; Holzschuh, A.; Gallé, R.; Tscharntke, T.; Batáry, P. The impact of hedge-forest con-nectivity and microhabitat conditions on spider and carabid beetle assemblages in agricultural landscapes. J. Ins. Cons. 2013, 17, 1027–1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Holland, J.M. Contribution of hedgerows to biological control. In The Ecology of Hedgerows and Field Margins, 1st ed.; Dover, J.W., Ed.; Routledge: Oxford, UK, 2019; pp. 123–146. [Google Scholar]
  18. Gillespie, M.A.; Gurr, G.M.; Wratten, S.D. Beyond nectar provision: The other resource requirements of parasitoid biological control agents. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2016, 159, 207–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Landis, D.A.; Wratten, S.D.; Gurr, G.M. Habitat Management to Conserve Natural Enemies of Arthropod Pests in Agriculture. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2000, 45, 175–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Gurr, G.M.; Wratten, S.D.; Landis, D.A.; You, M. Habitat Management to Suppress Pest Populations: Progress and Prospects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2017, 62, 91–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Rusch, A.; Bommarco, R.; Ekbom, B. Conservation Biological Control in Agricultural Landscapes. Adv. Bot. Res. 2017, 81, 333–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Wolf, S.; Zeisler, C.; Sint, D.; Romeis, J.; Traugott, M.; Collatz, J. A simple and cost-effective molecular method to track predation on Drosophila suzukii in the field. J. Pest. Sci. 2018, 91, 927–935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Symondson, W.O.C.; Sunderland, K.D.; Greenstone, M.H. Can generalist predators be effective biocontrol agents? Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2002, 47, 561–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Bourne, A.; Fountain, M.T.; Wijnen, H.; Shaw, B. Potential of the European earwig (Forficula auricularia) as a biocontrol agent of the soft and stone fruit pest Drosophila suzukii. Pest Manag. Sci. 2019, 75, 3340–3345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Englert, C.; Herz, A. Acceptability of Drosophila suzukii as prey for common predators occurring in cherries and berries. J. Appl. Entomol. 2018, 143, 387–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Woltering, S.B.; Romeis, J.; Collatz, J. Influence of the Rearing Host on Biological Parameters of Trichopria drosophilae, a Potential Biological Control Agent of Drosophila suzukii. Insects 2019, 10, 183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Greenstone, M.H.; Weber, D.C.; Coudron, T.A.; Payton, M.E.; Hu, J.S. Removing external DNA contamination from arthropod predators destined for molecular gut-content analysis. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 2012, 12, 464–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Wallinger, C.; Staudacher, K.; Schallhart, N.; Peter, E.; Dresch, P.; Juen, A.; Traugott, M. The effect of plant identity and the level of plant decay on molecular gut content analysis in a herbivorous soil insect. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 2012, 13, 75–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Bates, D.; Maechler, M.; Bolker, B.; Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 2015, 67, 1–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. R Version 4.0.1 (2020-06-06)—“See Things Now”, Copyright (C) 2020 The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Platform: i386-w64-mingw32/i386 (32-Bit). Index of /bin/windows/base/old/4.0.1 (r-project.org). Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/bin/windows/base/old/4.0.1/ (accessed on 29 March 2021).
  31. Lenth, R.V. Least-Squares Means: The R Package lsmeans. J. Stat. Softw. 2016, 69, 1–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Oksanen, J.; Blanchet, F.G.; Friendly, M.; Kindt, R.; Legendre, P.; McGlinn, D.; Wagner, H. Vegan: Community Ecology Package. 2019. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan (accessed on 29 March 2021).
  33. Lee, J.C.; Wang, X.; Daane, K.M.; Hoelmer, K.A.; Isaacs, R.; Sial, A.A.; Walton, V.M. Biological control of spotted-wing dro-sophila (Diptera: Drosophilidae)-current and pending tactics. J. Integr. Pest Manag. 2019, 10, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Van Lenteren, J.C.; Sexsmith, W. Guidance for information requirements for regulation of invertebrates as biological control agents (IBCAs). OECD Ser. Pestic. 2004, 21, 1–22. [Google Scholar]
  35. Woltz, J.M.; Lee, J.C. Pupation behavior and larval and pupal biocontrol of Drosophila suzukii in the field. Biol. Control. 2017, 110, 62–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Ballman, E.S.A.; Collins, J.A.; Drummond, F. Pupation Behavior and Predation on Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae) Pupae in Maine Wild Blueberry Fields. J. Econ. Entomol. 2017, 110, 2308–2317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Rossi Stacconi, V.M.; Ouantar, M.; Grassi, A.; Baser, N.; Loni, A.; Walton, V.V.; Ioriatti, C.; Anfora, G. Field collection and laboratory efficacy of parasitoids adapted to Drosophila suzukii in newly invaded areas of Trentino, Italy. IOBC WPRS Bull. 2015, 109, 177–179. [Google Scholar]
  38. Miller, B.; Anfora, G.; Buffington, M.; Daane, K.M.; Dalton, D.T.; Hoelmer, K.M.; Rossi Stacconi, M.V.; Grassi, A.; Ioriatti, C.; Loni, A.; et al. Seasonal occurrence of resident parasitoids associated with Drosophila suzukii in two small fruit production re-gions of Italy and the USA. Bull. Insectol. 2015, 68, 255–263. [Google Scholar]
  39. Chabert, S.; Allemand, R.; Poyet, M.; Eslin, P.; Gibert, P. Ability of European parasitoids (Hymenoptera) to control a new invasive Asiatic pest, Drosophila suzukii. Biol. Control. 2012, 63, 40–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Knoll, V.; Ellenbroek, T.; Romeis, J.; Collatz, J. Seasonal and regional presence of hymenopteran parasitoids of Drosophila in Switzerland and their ability to parasitize the invasive Drosophila suzukii. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 40697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Gabarra, R.; Riudavets, J.; Rodríguez, G.A.; Pujade-Villar, J.; Arnó, J. Prospects for the biological control of Drosophila suzukii. BioControl 2015, 60, 331–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. King, R.A.; Read, D.S.; Traugott, M.; Symondson, W.O.C. Molecular analysis of predation: A review of best practice for DNA-based approaches. Mol. Ecol. 2008, 17, 947–963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kraft, K. Molekular Biologischer Nachweis von Drosophila suzukii Matsumura (Diptera: Drosophilidae) in räuberisch lebenden Arthropoden. Ph. D. Thesis, Julius Kühn Institut, Darmstadt, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  44. Schetelig, M.F.; Lee, K.-Z.; Otto, S.; Talmann, L.; Stökl, J.; Degenkolb, T.; Vilcinskas, A.; Halitschke, R. Environmentally sustainable pest control options for Drosophila suzukii. J. Appl. Entomol. 2018, 142, 3–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Huth, C.; Schirra, K.; Seitz, A.; Louis, F. A beneficial species becomes a pest—The common earwig Forficula auricularia (Linnaeus 1758). IOBC WPRS Bull. 2011, 67, 249–256. [Google Scholar]
  46. Orpet, R.J.; Crowder, D.W.; Jones, V.P. Biology and Management of European Earwig in Orchards and Vineyards. J. Integr. Pest Manag. 2019, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Quarrell, S.R.; Corkrey, R.; Allen, G.R. Cherry damage and the spatial distribution of European earwigs, (Forficula auricularia L.) in sweet cherry trees. Pest Manag. Sci. 2021, 77, 159–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Nyffeler, M.; Benz, G. Spiders in natural pest control: A review. J. Appl. Entomol. 1987, 103, 321–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Tonina, L.; Mori, N.; Sancassani, M.; Dall’Ara, P.; Marini, L. Spillover of Drosophila suzukii between noncrop and crop areas: Implications for pest management. Agric. For. Entomol. 2018, 20, 575–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Weißinger, L.; Schrieber, K.; Breuer, M.; Müller, C. Influences of blackberry margins on population dynamics of Drosophila suzukii and grape infestation in adjacent vineyards. J. Appl. Entomol. 2019, 143, 802–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Shelton, A.; Badenes-Perez, F. Concepts and applications of trap cropping in pest management. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2006, 51, 285–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  52. Alhmedi, A.; Clymans, R.; Van Kerckvoorde, V.; Bylemans, D.; Beliën, T. Preference and performance of Drosophila suzukii on Prunus species: A potential eco-friendly pest management tool. Crop. Prot. 2019, 122, 35–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Insects 12 00305 g001 550
Figure 1. Percent predation on pupae of Drosophila suzukii exposed during 2–5 days in 10 hedges across Switzerland. Predation according to (A) type of hedge and (B) according to exposure site. Different letters indicate significant differences (Tukey multiple comparisons: P < 0.05). The solid line indicates the median, the box goes from the first to the third quartile, whiskers indicate 1.5 × the interquartile distance and circles outliers.
Figure 1. Percent predation on pupae of Drosophila suzukii exposed during 2–5 days in 10 hedges across Switzerland. Predation according to (A) type of hedge and (B) according to exposure site. Different letters indicate significant differences (Tukey multiple comparisons: P < 0.05). The solid line indicates the median, the box goes from the first to the third quartile, whiskers indicate 1.5 × the interquartile distance and circles outliers.
Insects 12 00305 g001
Insects 12 00305 g002 550
Figure 2. Mean number of individuals per sampling period (period 1: 17 June–4 July; period 2: 8 July–25 July; period 3: 12 August–4 September; period 4: 17 September–16 October) and predator group. Different letters indicate significant differences (Tukey multiple comparisons: P < 0.05) between levels of the different predator groups (A–D, above the bars) and sampling periods (a–b, in brackets).
Figure 2. Mean number of individuals per sampling period (period 1: 17 June–4 July; period 2: 8 July–25 July; period 3: 12 August–4 September; period 4: 17 September–16 October) and predator group. Different letters indicate significant differences (Tukey multiple comparisons: P < 0.05) between levels of the different predator groups (A–D, above the bars) and sampling periods (a–b, in brackets).
Insects 12 00305 g002
Table
Table 1. Locations, exposure periods of Drosophila suzukii pupae, sampling dates, and plant species of hedges in five different locations in Switzerland. Exposure and sampling periods are followed in brackets by the scaling level for statistical analysis. VD: Vaud; VS: Valais; AG: Aargau; ZH: Zurich.
Table 1. Locations, exposure periods of Drosophila suzukii pupae, sampling dates, and plant species of hedges in five different locations in Switzerland. Exposure and sampling periods are followed in brackets by the scaling level for statistical analysis. VD: Vaud; VS: Valais; AG: Aargau; ZH: Zurich.
Location (Canton)Exposure PeriodSampling PredatorsHedge TypeLat. [N]/ Lon. [E]Host Plant Species
Changins (VD)1.7–4.7 (1)
22.7–25.7 (2)
27.8–30.8 (3)
3.10–6.10 (4)		1.7–4.7 (1)
22.7 (2)
26.8–27.8 (3)
30.9 (4)
3.10–4.10 (4)		dry46°24′09.1″/
6°13′42.4″		Cornus sanguinea, Euonymus europaeus, Hedera helix, Lonicera xylosteum, Prunus avium, P. spinosa, Rosa spp., Rubus spp., Sambucus nigra, Viburnum lantana, V. opulus
humid46°23′47.3″/
6°13′42.0″		Bryonia dioica, Cornus sanguinea, Rubus spp., Sambucus nigra
Conthey (VS)16.7–18.7 (2)
12.8–15.8 (3)
4.10–7.10 (4)		16.7 (2)
12.8–13.8 (3)
27.8 (3)
2.10–4.10 (4)		dry46°12′37.6″/
7°18′02.6″		Cornus spp., Sambucus nigra, Viburnum lantana, V. opulus
humid46°14′07.5″/
7°18′35.7″		Hipophae rhamnoides, Prunus avium, P. cerasifera, P. mahaleb, Rosa spp., Sambucus nigra
Frick (AG)24.6–28.6 (1) *
21.7–26.7 (2)
13.8–16.8 (3)
17.9–20.9 (4)
15.10–18.10 (4)		25.6 (1)
23.7–25.7 (2)
12.8–14.8 (3)
17.9, 18.9 (4)
16.10 (4)		dry47°30′58.3″/
8°1′26.6″		Amelanchier ovalis, Cornus spp., Crataegus spp., Euonymus europaeus, Ligustrum spp., Lonicera xylosteum, P. spinosa, Rhamnus frangula, Rosa spp., Rubus spp., Sambucus nigra, Viburnum opulus
humid47°30′58.28″/
8°1′26.62″		Cornus spp., Crataegus spp., Euonymus europaeus, Ligustrum spp., Prunus spinosa, Rhamnus frangula, Rosa spp., Rubus spp., Sambucus nigra, Viburnum opulus
Reckenholz (ZH)25.6–28.6 (1)
8.7–12.7 (2)
22.8–26.8 (3)
4.10–8.10 (4)		17.6. (1)
8.7–9.7 (2)
22.8 (3)
4.10 (4)		dry47°25′34.9″/
8°31′02.4″		Cornus sanguinea, Crataegus spp., Ligustrum vulgare, Lonicera xylosteum, Rosa canina, Rhamnus cathartica
humid47°25′32.9″/
8°31′18.8″		Crataegus spp., Prunus spinosa
Wädenswil (ZH)5.7–8.7 (2)
30.8–2.9 (3) *
1.10–4.10 (4)		9.7 (2)
4.9 (3)
3.10–4.10 (4)		dry47°21′8.11″/
8°68′24.2″		Amelanchier ovalis, Cornus spp., Crataegus spp., Euonymus europaeus, Hedera helix, Ligustrum vulgare, Prunus padus, P. spinosa, Rhamnus cathartica, Rosa spp., Rubus spp., Sambucus nigra, S. racemosa, Taxus baccata, Viburnum opulus
humid47°22′37.5″/
8°67′59.3″		Cornus spp., Hedera helix, Ligustrum vulgare, Rubus spp., Sambucus nigra
* Only 15 instead of 30 pupae were exposed due to rearing limitations.
Table
Table 2. Detailed results for all 10 hedges in different locations in Switzerland, where Drosophila suzukii pupae were exposed for predation. D: dry; H: humid, SE: standard error.
Table 2. Detailed results for all 10 hedges in different locations in Switzerland, where Drosophila suzukii pupae were exposed for predation. D: dry; H: humid, SE: standard error.
ChanginsContheyFrickReckenholzWädenswil
DHDHDHDHDH
Number exposed210243180190270270240240150120
Number predated1142777871091241521447817
Mean predation [%]54.310.742.847.540.346.063.360.052.212.7
SE predation16.66.415.412.810.710.56.39.921.48.1
Mean unaccounted [%]18.125.612.220.845.046.315.48.86.77.3
SE unaccounted10.76.45.06.011.511.43.01.84.83.1
Samples786610108865
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Siffert, A.; Cahenzli, F.; Kehrli, P.; Daniel, C.; Dekumbis, V.; Egger, B.; Furtwengler, J.; Minguely, C.; Stäheli, N.; Widmer, F.; et al. Predation on Drosophila suzukii within Hedges in the Agricultural Landscape. Insects 2021, 12, 305. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12040305

AMA Style

Siffert A, Cahenzli F, Kehrli P, Daniel C, Dekumbis V, Egger B, Furtwengler J, Minguely C, Stäheli N, Widmer F, et al. Predation on Drosophila suzukii within Hedges in the Agricultural Landscape. Insects. 2021; 12(4):305. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12040305

Chicago/Turabian Style

Siffert, Alexandra, Fabian Cahenzli, Patrik Kehrli, Claudia Daniel, Virginie Dekumbis, Barbara Egger, Jana Furtwengler, Camille Minguely, Nicola Stäheli, Franco Widmer, and et al. 2021. "Predation on Drosophila suzukii within Hedges in the Agricultural Landscape" Insects 12, no. 4: 305. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12040305

APA Style

Siffert, A., Cahenzli, F., Kehrli, P., Daniel, C., Dekumbis, V., Egger, B., Furtwengler, J., Minguely, C., Stäheli, N., Widmer, F., Mazzi, D., & Collatz, J. (2021). Predation on Drosophila suzukii within Hedges in the Agricultural Landscape. Insects, 12(4), 305. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12040305

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