ライフサイエンスコーパス: natural enemy

1 by the degree of cross-resistance to another natural enemy.

2 n interaction between induced defenses and a natural enemy.

3 , this insecticide is not selective for this natural enemy.

4 d and foraging was increased for a parasitic natural enemy.

5 the endophyte, other microbial colonists and natural enemies.

6 lead to host shifts of these herbivores and natural enemies.

7 tal heterogeneity, resource partitioning and natural enemies.

8 g the behaviour of both herbivores and their natural enemies.

9 roduced ranges when plants escape from their natural enemies.

10 s or indirect defenses via the attraction of natural enemies.

11 elter and food in return for protection from natural enemies.

12 ts against parasitoid wasps, which are major natural enemies.

13 icrobial symbionts that protect them against natural enemies.

14 serve as cues to locate those herbivores by natural enemies.

15 cological damage by promoting evenness among natural enemies.

16 intraspecific competition and the effects of natural enemies.

17 bilizing populations of herbivores and their natural enemies.

18 grain are temperature management and use of natural enemies.

19 evels, suffered the highest vulnerability to natural enemies.

20 he interactions between herbivores and their natural enemies.

21 most by entering new habits to escape their natural enemies.

22 nella defensa, which confers defense against natural enemies.

23 uals, or indirectly, by influencing food and natural enemies.

24 on by competitor species and exploitation by natural enemies.

25 s, which encompass both herbivores and their natural enemies.

26 g beneficial insects such as pollinators and natural enemies.

27 actions between host plants, gall wasps, and natural enemies.

28 l risks, especially risks imposed by various natural enemies.

29 ous arthropods are regulated solely by their natural enemies.

30 l insecticides that are relatively benign to natural enemies.

31 ific volatile organic compounds that attract natural enemies.

32 ts are able to impact one another via shared natural enemies.

33 at account for more than 85% of all recorded natural enemies.

34 e important services such as protection from natural enemies.

35 lenged Wolbachia-infected aphids with common natural enemies.

36 so confers indirect resistance by attracting natural enemies.

37 ransient dynamics due to distance-responsive natural enemies.

38 in the evolution of resistance in herbivore natural enemies.

39 vity, litter decomposition and resistance to natural enemies.

40 and evolution, including protection against natural enemies.

41 alization in interactions between plants and natural enemies.

42 y altering the relative success of different natural enemies.

43 adaptations, such as increased resistance to natural enemies.

44 ractions among plants, herbivores, and their natural enemies.

45 reproduction, longevity, and defense against natural enemies.

46 tions between herbivore arthropods and their natural enemies.

47 ropland expansion on cereal aphids and their natural enemies.

48 which species can interact is through shared natural enemies, a process called apparent competition.

49 g the effects of these pathways on pests and natural enemies above and belowground holds great potent

50 are based on whether indirect defences boost natural enemy abundance via food or shelter resources, o

51 tal demonstration for the obligatory role of natural enemies across the initiation, expansion and rec

52 ion occurs in agricultural systems, in which natural enemies adapt to crop resistance introduced by b

53 proportion of aphids killed by the specific natural enemies against which they have been shown to pr

54 been attributed to escape from their native natural enemies, allowing reallocation of resources from

55 ive, when a resistance mechanism against one natural enemy also offers resistance to another; or nega

56 to provide resources such as food for adult natural enemies, alternative prey or hosts, and shelter

57 Recent studies have examined the impact of natural enemies, although spatial patterns resulting fro

58 y effects on host location and acceptance by natural enemies, an increasing number of studies examine

59 argest land mammals, elephants have very few natural enemies and are active during both day and night

60 cts such as parasitoid wasps, which serve as natural enemies and are crucial for ecosystem functionin

61 in identifying the importance of resources, natural enemies and behaviour in the regulation of anima

62 are not well understood, and their impact on natural enemies and biological control are difficult to

63 ella) by an increase in mortality from other natural enemies and by the cost of carrying the symbiont

64 olution of broader debates about the role of natural enemies and climate as forces that structure foo

65 parsing the contributions of the introduced natural enemies and endemic fungal pathogens to the cont

66 cologically based approach aimed at favoring natural enemies and enhancing biological control in agri

67 ntegrate the goals of habitat management for natural enemies and nature conservation is discussed.

68 We furthermore show that enhancing natural enemies and pest control through increasing land

69 systems the effect of landscape structure on natural enemies and pest suppression is often poorly und

70 ution is necessary to predict how to combine natural enemies and plant resistance for the best long-t

71 Although combining natural enemies and plant resistance may slow the adapta

72 hat is spatially and temporally favorable to natural enemies and practical for producers to implement

73 on phenomenon, influencing interactions with natural enemies and providing insight into the tritrophi

74 compounds in fruit mediate interactions with natural enemies and seed dispersers, influencing plant s

75 ial symbionts can provide protection against natural enemies and stress induced by elevated temperatu

76 ical control of arthropod pests by arthropod natural enemies and summarize economic evaluations in cl

77 ies, but its effects on interactions between natural enemies and the consequences for crop damage and

78 insect pest pressure because of the loss of natural enemies and the increased size and connectivity

79 gical interactions among different pests and natural enemies and understanding the role of abiotic fa

80 cies led to it being able to escape from its natural enemy and increase in density.

81 sm, which influences their susceptibility to natural enemies, and the carotenoid torulene occurs only

82 rthropods, focusing mainly on honey bees and natural enemies, and we describe the methods used in the

83 mates and protection from a prominent deadly natural enemy, and (2) testing alternative hypotheses ab

84 negative indirect effects mediated by shared natural enemies (apparent competition), may be important

85 Providing resistance against natural enemies appears to be a particularly common way

86 agricultural systems, insect pests and their natural enemies are forced to persist as a metapopulatio

87 Natural enemies are important ecological and evolutionar

88 The interactions between plants and their natural enemies are influenced by environmental conditio

89 ssociations with ants that protect them from natural enemies are less likely to carry symbionts that

90 t has emerged from laboratory studies, where natural enemies are often isolated from all elements of

91 Natural enemies are often more abundant in fine-grained

92 ence in this temperate forest and that which natural enemies are responsible depends on the mycorrhiz

93 ia confer on their hosts (protection against natural enemies) are enhanced, reduced or unaltered by t

94 via the use of pest-susceptible refugia and natural enemies, are discussed.

95 ive density-dependent feedbacks, mediated by natural enemies, are key to maintaining the high diversi

96 understanding the distribution of microbial natural enemies associated with invasive pests during th

97 ol service through proliferating the role of natural enemies at multiple scales.

98 nd such herbivore outbreaks is disruption of natural enemy attack that releases herbivores from top-d

99 s that invaders' impacts result from reduced natural enemy attack.

100 at directly improve herbivore survival after natural enemy attack.

101 Among biological control approaches, natural enemy augmentation is an effective alternative w

102 driven by density-dependent mortality due to natural enemies, because pathogens and predators cause h

103 ide regarding the understanding of pests and natural enemy biologies and, to a limited extent, contro

104 s are a heterogeneous and versatile class of natural enemies, blending traits characteristic of preda

105 Landscape complexity is known to benefit natural enemies, but its effects on interactions between

106 potential for both generalist and specialist natural enemies, but the enemies' behavior and other fac

107 portunities to increase the effectiveness of natural enemies by incorporating natural enemy-enhancing

108 icit tests are required to determine whether natural enemies can act as selective forces on plant def

109 he ability of an insect to survive attack by natural enemies can be modulated by the presence of defe

110 Natural enemies can be significant sources of mortality

111 of biological control agents with their own natural enemies can disrupt the effective control of her

112 Our study highlights that natural enemies can hasten an ecosystem's resilience to

113 tion rate is high; (ii) that with increasing natural enemy colonization rate, the fragmentation level

114 presence of a relatively minor difference in natural enemy communities between Bt and non-Bt maize, t

115 ng positive and negative interactions within natural enemy communities in order to optimize beneficia

116 l as more diverse and chronic pressures from natural enemy communities.

117 effect of transgenic cry1Ie maize exerts on natural enemy community biodiversity in the field is unr

118 its near isoline (Zong 31, non-Bt maize) on natural enemy community biodiversity were compared with

119 c cry1Ie maize had little, if any, effect on natural enemy community biodiversity.

120 DS) indicated substantial differences in the natural enemy community structure among the examined gen

121 ime-dependent effect on the entire arthropod natural enemy community, and also no effect on community

122 ost-plant Brassica oleracea, and its primary natural enemy Cotesia glomerata.

123 especially in the Neotropical forests where natural enemies could maintain the huge plant diversity

124 aterids within landscapes; and the impact of natural enemies, cultivation practices, and environmenta

125 The evolution of natural enemy defense shapes evolutionary trajectories o

126 Declines often appear driven by natural enemies, diseases or evolutionary adaptations th

127 Natural enemy diversity indices (Shannon-Wiener', Simpso

128 Our results suggest that natural enemies drive conspecific density dependence in

129 oecosystems are unfavorable environments for natural enemies due to high levels of disturbance.

130 effects of transgenic cultivars on pest and natural enemy dynamics.

131 d suggest avenues for further integration of natural enemy ecology and integrated pest management.

132 The view of natural enemy ecology that has emerged from laboratory s

133 tiveness of natural enemies by incorporating natural enemy-enhancing traits into crop plants.

134 ars are under strong selection pressure from natural enemies, especially parasitoid wasps.

135 maintain submaximal levels of resistance to natural enemies, even in the presence of substantial gen

136 A better understanding of plant/pest/natural enemy evolution is necessary to predict how to c

137 on; (e) the influence of invasive plants and natural enemies; (f) habitat fragmentation and coalescen

138 odels of a tri-trophic (plant, herbivore and natural enemy) food chain.

139 trophic interactions allow plants to recruit natural enemies for protection against herbivory.

140 elter resources, or, alternatively, increase natural enemy foraging efficiency via information or alt

141 al systems will thus require analysis across natural enemy genotypes and levels of environmental etha

142 Moreover, evenness effects among natural enemy groups were independent and complementary.

143 f the flower visitors to beans and potential natural enemy guilds also made use of non-crop plants, i

144 ther than by the effectiveness of individual natural enemy guilds.

145 The preexisting community of aphid natural enemies has been highly effective in suppressing

146 the subterranean ento-mopathogenic nematode natural enemy Heterorhabditis amazonensis.

147 interactions between a plant and individual natural enemies (i.e. coevolution is often likely to be

148 y use these horns to protect themselves from natural enemies (i.e., predators and parasitoids).

149 at are associated with success of introduced natural enemies in establishing and controlling pest ins

150 As parasitoids, they are important natural enemies in most terrestrial ecological communiti

151 that counteract such hyperdominance include natural enemies in nature and wealth-equalizing institut

152 alistic ants can protect their partners from natural enemies in nature.

153 tudy indicates that manipulating habitat for natural enemies in rice landscapes enhances pest suppres

154 tion of life and points to the importance of natural enemies in the macroevolution of species.

155 orted fire ant (Solenopsis invicta), without natural enemies in the United States, widely infests the

156 or B. hilaris exist, nor are there effective natural enemies in the United States.

157 e widely assumed to thrive because they lack natural enemies in their new ranges.

158 on size, and the nature of interactions with natural enemies in tritrophic niche space.

159 enopteran parasitoid, Aphidius ervi, a major natural enemy in field populations.

160 on and/or eradication of pests using various natural enemies, in particular, via deliberate infection

161 defensive symbionts protect their hosts from natural enemies, including parasites.

162 mbionts influence their host's resistance to natural enemies, including parasitoid wasps and a pathog

163 ion of both release from and accumulation of natural enemies, including pathogens.

164 coexistence mechanism suggests host-specific natural enemies inhibit seedling recruitment at high con

165 A predicts that biogeographical release from natural enemies initiates a trade-off in which exotic sp

166 landscape scale is driven by differences in natural enemy interactions across landscapes, rather tha

167 idering the broader scope of plant-herbivore-natural enemy interactions that comprise indirect defenc

168 Negative natural enemy interactions thus constrained pest control

169 These results show that, by altering natural enemy interactions, landscape complexity can pro

170 n to favor herbivores that escape from their natural enemies into enemy-free space.

171 nvasive species, and yet the success rate of natural enemy introductions to control them is low.

172 Escape from the effects of natural enemies is a frequent explanation given for the

173 Biological control of pests by natural enemies is a major ecosystem service delivered t

174 Biological pest control by natural enemies is an important component of sustainable

175 The potential of these and other natural enemies is discussed with respect to olive fruit

176 le emission and the subsequent attraction of natural enemies is facilitated by fatty acid-amino acid

177 Co-evolution between plants and their natural enemies is generally believed to have generated

178 evolution of resistance against one class of natural enemies is largely independent of evolution of r

179 ical, and behavioral interaction between the natural enemy, its host (prey), and the plant.

180 robber bee Lestrimelitta limao, an important natural enemy, larger workers were able to fight for lon

181 interactions with native species, including natural enemies, limit invaders' impacts.

182 y formation and density-dependent control by natural enemies, mainly a parasitic fly.

183 Specialised natural enemies maintain forest diversity by reducing tr

184 Phytophagous insects and their natural enemies make up one of the largest and most dive

185 ons is often driven by abiotic soil factors, natural enemies may also contribute.

186 gests that fruit toxicity against generalist natural enemies may be common in Central Panama.

187 between habitats in climate, competition or natural enemies may result in populations with varying d

188 Natural-enemy-mediated conspecific density dependence af

189 Escape from natural enemies might contribute to successful invasion,

190 host tree that can be induced, we extended a natural-enemy model to allow for spatial variability in

191 d predators cause high mortality and because natural-enemy models reproduce fluctuations in defoliati

192 Natural-enemy models, however, fail to explain gypsy mot

193 dels explain defoliation data no better than natural-enemy models.

194 in which indirect defence generates a plant-natural enemy mutualism.

195 ced frass volatiles, which attracted the TPW natural enemies, Nesidiocoris tenuis (predator) and Neoc

196 bionts provided protection against different natural enemies, no alteration in protection was observe

197 ed primarily because they have escaped their natural enemies, not because of novel interactions with

198 -natural habitats and the subsequent loss of natural enemies of agricultural pests.

199 ists alike as one of the principal groups of natural enemies of caterpillars feeding on plants.

200 Effects on natural enemies of cereal aphids are described that appe

201 Besides providing food and shelter to natural enemies of crop pests, plants used in conservati

202 Field surveys revealed that the primary natural enemies of H. japonica larvae were Polistes wasp

203 can deter subsequent herbivores [4], attract natural enemies of herbivores [5], or transmit informati

204 Natural enemies of herbivores are expected to adapt to t

205 provide indirect plant defence by attracting natural enemies of herbivores, enhancing top-down contro

206 tant host-location cues for insects that are natural enemies of herbivores.

207 Natural enemies of herbivorous arthropods generally are

208 Symbiont-mediated defense against natural enemies of hosts is increasingly recognized as a

209 nt volatiles can function as attractants for natural enemies of insect herbivores.

210 rial ecological communities, particularly as natural enemies of larval Lepidoptera.

211 Parasitoids are the most important natural enemies of many insect species.

212 d beetles and spiders were the most abundant natural enemies of N. lugens with landscape effects obse

213 ittle is known of such interactions with the natural enemies of nematodes in the rhizosphere.

214 hid), but also many beneficial species (e.g. natural enemies of pests).

215 bute to indirect plant defense by attracting natural enemies of pests.

216 rophic plant-insect interactions, attracting natural enemies of phytophagous insects.

217 idae are one of the most important groups of natural enemies of soft scale insects and have been used

218 iterpenes, that are implicated in attracting natural enemies of the attacking insects.

219 se of plant volatiles, which in turn attract natural enemies of the caterpillar.

220 and release volatile chemicals that attract natural enemies of the herbivore.

221 se signal that most likely serves to attract natural enemies of the herbivore.

222 tting volatile chemical signals that attract natural enemies of the herbivore.

223 response to caterpillar feeding that attract natural enemies of the herbivores, a tri-trophic interac

224 at have been implicated in the attraction of natural enemies of the herbivores.

225 onid Diaeretiella rapae (M'Intosh), a common natural enemy of the cabbage aphid (Brevicoryne brassica

226 undating a host-vector disease system with a natural enemy of the vector has little or no effect on r

227 trophic cascades in which strong impacts of natural enemies on herbivores cascade to influence prima

228 the surprising strength of forces exerted by natural enemies on herbivorous insects, and thus the nec

229 Biological control of vectors using natural enemies or competitors can reduce vector density

230 ch benefit hosts by conferring resistance to natural enemies or to heat, are transmitted maternally w

231 be increased by using specific host-plants, natural enemies, or pathogens.

232 Can herbivore natural enemies overcome sequestered plant defense metab

233 herbivorous insects, improving herbivore and natural enemy performance on crop plants.

234 by triggering multi-trophic interactions for natural enemies, plants and herbivores.

235 e factors affect pest mites as well as their natural enemy populations and their interactions.

236 landscape-level factors, with pollinator and natural enemy populations often associated with semi-nat

237 But inbred plants recruited fewer herbivore natural enemies (predators and parasitoids) when damaged

238 bda-cyhalothrin, on the performance of three natural enemies (predators: Coleomegilla maculata and Eu

239 topolophium dirhodum (Wlk.)) populations and natural enemy presence (parasitised mummified aphids, la

240 appears to be a major mode of adaptation to natural enemy pressure in these insects.

241 ot associated with a decrease in aboveground natural enemy pressure.

242 Herbivore natural enemies protect plants by regulating herbivore p

243 ion between a symbiotic bacterium and a host natural enemy provides a mechanism for the persistence a

244 Here, we show that pressure from natural enemies regulates an ecosystem's resilience to s

245 nd pathogens measured for seven species in a natural enemy removal experiment.

246 st status (e.g. capacity to vector diseases, natural enemy resistance).

247 nzen-Connell effects, in which host-specific natural enemies restrict the recruitment of juveniles ne

248 , when an increase in resistance against one natural enemy results in a decrease in resistance agains

249 ft behind by arthropod, avian, and mammalian natural enemies reveal higher instances of predation in

250 es of biological control programs, including natural enemy selection, efficacy testing and quantifica

251 The benefits of indirect defences to natural enemies should be further explored to establish

252 h edge density, 70% of pollinator and 44% of natural enemy species reached highest abundances and pol

253 Connell hypothesis suggests that specialized natural enemies such as insect herbivores and fungal pat

254 rmance of native insect herbivores and their natural enemies such as parasitoids and predators, and t

255 h the release of non-native populations from natural enemies, such as parasites, and the genetic dive

256 as functioning primarily as defenses against natural enemies, such as pathogens and herbivores.

257 ucalyptus plantations and those selective to natural enemies, such as the endoparasitoid Palmistichus

258 along with other effects of global change on natural enemies suggest that biological control and othe

259 ific seed and tree density due to specialist natural enemies that attack seeds and seedlings ('Janzen

260 eals a new facet of the biology of herbivore natural enemies that boosts their predation success by i

261 Identifying natural enemies that can maintain pests at low abundance

262 cialized interactions among plants and their natural enemies that result in conspecific negative dens

263 tism (i.e., male killing) or defense against natural enemies (the parasitic wasp Leptopilina heteroto

264 When organisms are attacked by multiple natural enemies, the evolution of a resistance mechanism

265 standing of BMSB biology and ecology and its natural enemies, the identification of the male-produced

266 t top trophic levels are least vulnerable to natural enemies, the inclusion of parasites revealed tha

267 Upon tissue rupture by natural enemies, the myrosinase enzyme hydrolyses glucos

268 mbionts provided protection against the same natural enemy, the level of protection corresponded to t

269 defensa, which protects against an important natural enemy, the parasitic wasp Aphidius ervi.

270 te the deeper appreciation of complexity-the natural enemies themselves constitute a complex system.

271 However, with the impact of insecticides on natural enemies, there is an urgent need to develop auto

272 any animals are capable of learning to avoid natural enemies, these results offer hope that other wil

273 iency but also reduce their vulnerability to natural enemies through a form of "biochemical crypsis."

274 othis subflexa reduce their vulnerability to natural enemies through adaptation to a remarkable and p

275 Pea aphids thus obtain protection from natural enemies through association with a wider range o

276 The responses of natural enemies to cropland expansion were asymmetric an

277 res of potential toxicity against generalist natural enemies to examine the effect of fruit toxicity

278 plicators or the environment and allow other natural enemies to function.

279 r understanding of the capacity of herbivore natural enemies to resist plant defence metabolites.

280 cape diversity, altering the supply of aphid natural enemies to soybean fields and reducing biocontro

281 In contrast, the use of natural enemies to suppress crop pests has the potential

282 Instead, both natural enemies (top-down effects) and resources (bottom

283 e), and 'outside the box' strategies such as natural enemies, traps, and repellants.

284 for the presence of four different microbial natural enemies; two nucleopolyhedroviruses, Spodoptera

285 l control of a pest depends on the number of natural enemies used.

286 thways, bdelloids may have evolved to resist natural enemies using antimicrobial mechanisms absent fr

287 ioral manipulation of insect pests and their natural enemies via the integration of stimuli that act

288 Natural enemy-victim interactions are of major applied i

289 Two natural enemies were added separately to replicate popul

290 A total of 17,279 natural enemies were collected and identified across gen

291 The main species of natural enemies were identical in Bt and non-Bt maize pl

292 In contrast, natural enemies were not affected when fed aphids reared

293 vity, head width and metatibia length of the natural enemy were evaluated.

294 cals that attract their herbivores' specific natural enemies, while insect herbivores may carry endos

295 nt as a physical or chemical defense against natural enemies, while others actively distance themselv

296 ght regimes experienced by insects and their natural enemies will result in unstable dynamics beyond

297 e evolution of a resistance mechanism to one natural enemy will be influenced by the degree of cross-

298 mpromise the function of parasitoid wasps as natural enemies with potentially dire consequences for e

299 We predicted that other species that share natural enemies with the two removed species would exper

300 the direct effects of symbiont infection on natural enemies without studying community-wide effects.