ライフサイエンスコーパス: natural enemy

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

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

3 n interaction between induced defenses and a natural enemy.

4 roduced ranges when plants escape from their natural enemies.

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

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

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

8 icrobial symbionts that protect them against natural enemies.

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

10 cological damage by promoting evenness among natural enemies.

11 intraspecific competition and the effects of natural enemies.

12 bilizing populations of herbivores and their natural enemies.

13 grain are temperature management and use of natural enemies.

14 evels, suffered the highest vulnerability to natural enemies.

15 he interactions between herbivores and their natural enemies.

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

17 alization in interactions between plants and natural enemies.

18 nella defensa, which confers defense against natural enemies.

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

20 on by competitor species and exploitation by natural enemies.

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

22 g beneficial insects such as pollinators and natural enemies.

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

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

25 ous arthropods are regulated solely by their natural enemies.

26 vity, litter decomposition and resistance to natural enemies.

27 y altering the relative success of different natural enemies.

28 adaptations, such as increased resistance to natural enemies.

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

30 reproduction, longevity, and defense against natural enemies.

31 tions between herbivore arthropods and their natural enemies.

32 ropland expansion on cereal aphids and their natural enemies.

33 the endophyte, other microbial colonists and natural enemies.

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

35 tal heterogeneity, resource partitioning and natural enemies.

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

37 and evolution, including protection against natural enemies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

71 Natural enemies are important ecological and evolutionar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

80 at directly improve herbivore survival after natural enemy attack.

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

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

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

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

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

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

87 Natural enemies can be significant sources of mortality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

99 The evolution of natural enemy defense shapes evolutionary trajectories o

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

127 Negative natural enemy interactions thus constrained pest control

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

140 Specialised natural enemies maintain forest diversity by reducing tr

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

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

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

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

145 Escape from natural enemies might contribute to successful invasion,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

157 Natural enemies of herbivorous arthropods generally are

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

196 Identifying natural enemies that can maintain pests at low abundance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

215 Natural enemy-victim interactions are of major applied i

216 Two natural enemies were added separately to replicate popul

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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