A Nonlethal Method to Examine Non-Apis Bees for Mark-Capture Research

Studies of bee movement and activities across a landscape are important for developing an understanding of their behavior and their ability to withstand environmental stress. Recent research has shown that proteins, such as egg albumin, are effective for mass-marking bees. However, current protein mass-marking techniques require sacrificing individual bees during the data collection process. A nonlethal sampling method for protein mark-capture research is sorely needed, particularly for vulnerable, sensitive, or economically valuable species. This study describes a nonlethal sampling method, in which three non-Apis bee species (Bombus bifarius Cresson [Hymenoptera: Apidae], Osmia lignaria Say [Hymenoptera: Megachilidae], and Megachile rotundata Fabricius [Hymenoptera: Megachilidae]) were tested for a unique protein marker by immersing them momentarily in saline buffer and releasing them. Results showed that an egg albumin-specific enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay was 100% effective at detecting the protein on bees that were sampled nonlethally. Furthermore, this sampling method did not have an impact on bee survivorship, suggesting that immersing bees in buffer is a reliable and valid surrogate to traditional, destructive sampling methods for mark-capture bee studies

Foraging behavior and prey interactions by a guild of predators on various lifestages of Bemisia tabaci

The sweetpotato whitefly, Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) is fed on by a wide variety of generalist predators, but there is little information on these predator-prey interactions. A laboratory investigation was conducted to quantify the foraging behavior of the adults of five common whitefly predators presented with a surfeit of whitefly eggs, nymphs, and adults. The beetles, Hippodamia convergens Guérin-Méneville and Collops vittatus (Say) fed mostly on whitefly eggs, but readily and rapidly preyed on all of the whitefly lifestages. The true bugs, Geocoris punctipes (Say) and Orius tristicolor (Say) preyed almost exclusively on adult whiteflies, while Lygus hesperus Knight preyed almost exclusively on nymphs. The true bugs had much longer prey handling times than the beetles and spent much more of their time feeding (35-42%) than the beetles (6-7%). These results indicate that generalist predators vary significantly in their interaction with this host, and that foraging behavior should be considered during development of a predator-based biological control program for B. tabaci

(A) Mean (±S D) frequency of feeding on the various whitefly lifestages or on the cotton leaf

<p><b>Copyright information:</b></p><p>Taken from "Foraging behavior and prey interactions by a guild of predators on various lifestages of "</p><p>Journal of Insect Science 2004;4():-.</p><p>Published online 9 Jan 2004</p><p>PMCID:PMC455675.</p><p>Copyright © 2004. Open access; copyright is maintained by the authors.</p> The letters above the error bars indicate significant differences as determined by the Student Newman-Keuls multiple comparison test (P = 0.05) (n = 18 individuals observed for 1 hour each). (B) The mean (± SD) amount of time spent feeding on the various whitefly lifestages or on the cotton leaf. The numbers inside the vertical bars are the total number of observations recorded during 18 hours of observation. The letters above the error bars indicate significant differences as determined by Dunn's multiple comparison test (P = 0.05). (C) Time budgets for in the feeding arena. Results are expressed as the percentage of total time spent in each behavioral element and on each feeding substrate over 18 hours of observation (n = 18 individuals)

(A) Mean (± SD) frequency of feeding on the various whitefly lifestages or on the cotton leaf

<p><b>Copyright information:</b></p><p>Taken from "Foraging behavior and prey interactions by a guild of predators on various lifestages of "</p><p>Journal of Insect Science 2004;4():-.</p><p>Published online 9 Jan 2004</p><p>PMCID:PMC455675.</p><p>Copyright © 2004. Open access; copyright is maintained by the authors.</p> The letters above the error bars indicate significant differences as determined by the Student Newman-Keuls multiple comparison test (P = 0.05, n = 27 individuals observed for 1 hour each). (B) The mean (± SD) amount of time spent feeding on the various whitefly lifestages or on the cotton leaf. The numbers inside the vertical bars are the total number of observations recorded during 27 hours of observation. The letters above the error bars indicate significant differences as determined by Dunn's multiple comparison test (P = 0.05). (C) Time budgets for in the feeding arena. Results are expressed as the percentage of total time spent in each behavioral element and on each feeding substrate over 27 hours of observation (n = 27 individuals)