Next Article in Journal
Biodiversity during Pre and Post Hula Valley (Israel) Drainage
Previous Article in Journal
Inocybe istriaca sp. nov. from Brijuni National Park (Croatia) and Its Position within Inocybaceae Revealed by Multigene Phylogenetic Analysis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diversity
Volume 15
Issue 6
10.3390/d15060757
diversity-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

Diversity of True Bugs (Hemiptera: Heteroptera) on Common Ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) in Southern Slovakia

by
Peter Tóth
1,*,
Monika Tóthová
1,
Veronika Krchňavá
1 and
Jana Ščevková
2
1
Institute of Agronomic Sciences, Faculty of Agrobiology and Food Resources, Slovak University of Agriculture, 94976 Nitra, Slovakia
2
Faculty of Natural Sciences, Department of Botany, Comenius University, 84215 Bratislava, Slovakia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diversity 2023, 15(6), 757; https://doi.org/10.3390/d15060757
Submission received: 2 May 2023 / Revised: 5 June 2023 / Accepted: 7 June 2023 / Published: 8 June 2023
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia Linnaeus 1800) is an exceptionally invasive species. The information on true bugs occurring on ragweed plants is limited in the invasion region. The objective of this study was to determine the species composition of Heteroptera associated with A. artemisiifolia, to assess their vectoring potential based on a literature review, and to compare species similarity in the surveyed fields. Field surveys were conducted in 2020–2021 at 10 sites in southern Slovakia. Sweeping and visual observations were conducted in field margins, weedy agricultural fields, and mowed meadows infested with A. artemisiifolia. In the study, food specialization, the abundance of individual species, and their assignment to families were precisely determined. The Jaccard similarity index was used to evaluate similarities in species composition among the sites studied. A total of 2496 true bugs were recorded, representing 47 species of Heteroptera from 12 families. The most common phytophagous species were Nysius ericae ericae (Schilling, 1829) (Pentatomomorpha, Lygaeidae), Adelphocoris lineolatus (Goeze, 1778), Lygus rugulipennis (Poppius, 1911), Lygus pratensis (Linnaeus, 1758) (Cimicomorpha, Miridae), and a zoophagous species Nabis (Dolichonabis) limbatus (Dahlbom, 1851) (Cimicomorpha, Nabidae). The species similarities in pair-wise combined localities were low, with a dominance of highly migratory and polyphagous species able to traverse the field from the adjacent landscape. A. artemisiifolia is a known host for plant viruses and phytoplasmas, and several Heteroptera species are carriers of these plant pathogens. Halyomorpha halys was the only detected vector of phytoplasmas, and its abundance on A. artemisiifolia was extremely low.

1. Introduction

The common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia/Linnaeus 1800/Asteraceae) is an invasive North American plant found in Europe and elsewhere [1,2,3,4,5]. The species has serious negative impacts on agriculture [6] and human health [7,8] and threatens biodiversity [9]. It produces allergenic pollen that is hazardous to the human respiratory system [10,11], and is a major cause of allergic rhinitis [12]. The native insect guild that is associated with common ragweed in Europe is mostly polyphagous and causes little damage. Only 18 insect species have been proposed as candidates for the biological control of A. artemisiifolia in Europe [13]. True bugs/Heteroptera (Insecta: Hemiptera: Heteroptera) are a large, cosmopolitan suborder of Hemiptera that includes over 45,000 described species. This is a diverse, abundant, and globally successful group. Their trophic behavior is also diverse, ranging from herbivores to predators [14]. Most true bugs are phytophagous [15], and the habitat characteristics are important for the structure of their guilds [16]. Their herbivorous species include some destructive pests, while their predatory species can be useful in agriculture, horticulture, and forestry [15]. Numerous sap-sucking bugs are involved in plant disease transmission [17,18]. Accurate data on the occurrences of true bugs are scarce, e.g., on sandy grasslands [19], in agricultural landscapes [20,21], or on litter and soil [22], but the occurrence of heteropterans on common ragweed in its introduced range in Eurasia is an area that remains poorly studied [23,24,25,26]. Since the occurrence of heteropterans on ragweed is common, we hypothesized that they might serve as carriers or vectors of ragweed diseases. Therefore, we decided to conduct a survey in southern Slovakia to determine the species composition of Heteroptera on A. artemisiifolia, their trophic preferences, and their ability to transmit and/or carry diseases. We also investigated the effects of geographic regions and local habitats on true bugs’ guild.

2. Materials and Methods

Heteropterans were collected with an insect net (30 cm diameter) by sweeping the canopy of A. artemisiifolia or by beating the plants (3 × 30 plants per locality). The species caught in situ were euthanized in the field with ethyl acetate (C4H8O2). The insects were monitored at 10 localities in southern Slovakia in 2020 and 2021 (Table 1, Figure 1). Screening was conducted from mid-July (beginning of flowering) to mid-late August (end of flowering) in three habitat types—field margins, weedy agricultural fields, and mowed meadows. The localities had low elevation, sandy-loam, or loamy soils, warm to very warm climates, moderately moist to very dry areas, and mild to cool winters [27]. The aerial distance between the westernmost (Balvany) and easternmost locality (Malé Trakany) was 310 km. The Jaccard similarity index was used to assess the true bugs species’ composition similarities between the two localities [28,29]. The trophic preferences and vectoring ability were determined using information published in the literature. Relevant entomological identification keys were used to identify the true bugs, and the identification was confirmed by Heteroptera expert Jozef Cunev, Nitra, Slovakia.

3. Results and Discussion

During the field surveys in 2020–2021 at 10 localities throughout southern Slovakia, 2496 Heteroptera individuals were detected in sweep samples from stands of invasive A. artemisiifolia. A total of 47 species from the 12 families Nabidae, Miridae, Tingidae (Cimicomorpha), Coreidae, Rhopalidae, Stenocephalidae, Berytidae, Lygaeidae, Oxycarenidae, Rhyparochromidae, Pentatomidae, and Scutelleridae (Pentatomomorpha) were detected (Table 2).
The phytophagous true bugs guild was the most abundant, with 41 species (2102 specimens). The polyphagous guild comprised 23 different species (2029 specimens). These species were generalists with a wide range of host plants; therefore, it was difficult to determine their trophic preferences in detail. However, a more detailed analysis of trophic relationships revealed the dominance of polyphagous species with a trophic affinity for Asteraceae (16 species, 1979 specimens). The most common polyphagous species without a trophic affinity to Asteraceae was Trigonotylus pulchellus (Hahn, 1834) which occurred at most of the localities examined in this study. The remaining polyphagous species occurred in low numbers and at random in the habitats studied. The abundance of specialized species (oligophagous and monophagous) was extremely low compared to generalists. A total of 17 oligophagous species (71 specimens) were identified, of which only 4 (24 specimens) were trophically linked to Asteraceae. The trophic preferences of monophagous species (2 specimens) were not associated with Asteraceae (Table 2).
The four most abundant herbivorous species were Nysius ericae ericae (Schilling, 1829) (Pentatomomorpha: Lygaeidae) 44.07%, Adelphocoris lineolatus (Goeze, 1778) 19.27%, Lygus rugulipennis (Poppius, 1911) 7.57%, and Lygus pratensis (Linnaeus, 1758) 6.85% (Cimicomorpha: Miridae). All of the species are polyphagous with trophic relationships to Asteraceae, and are widespread and native to Europe [31]. In Italy, N. ericae ericae was common in dry grasslands with shrubs and invasive plant invasion [26]. N. ericae has also been identified as a feeder on green mustard pods, and is a carrier of the plant pathogen Nematospora coryli [67]. According to Judd and Hodkinson [68], this species is associated with Asteraceae on early successional sites, sand dunes, marshes, heaths, and wastelands, and on abandoned or weedy agricultural fields. Despite their polyphagy, many species of mirid bugs (Miridae) show specific feeding preferences for host plants and plant parts [69]. A. lineolatus shows a strong preference for Medicago sativa—a host plant that is important for overwintering and early season development [70,71]. The preferred host plants of L. rugulipennis are nitrophilous wild plants (Urtica dioica, Artemisia vulgaris, Tripleurospermum inodorum, Matricaria matricarioides, and Senecio vulgaris), and the most reported cultivated host plants are Fabaceae (Medicago sativa and Trifolium pratense), which symbiotically fix nitrogen [37]. L. pratensis is biologically and ecologically close to L. rugulipennis, has a similar range of host plants, and often co-occurs with the latter, although usually in smaller numbers [72]. The four most common herbivore species are known to be vectors or carriers of plant pathogens (viruses, phytoplasmas, bacteria, and fungi) (Table 3).
L. pratensis has been identified as a carrier of potato viruses—potato leaf roll virus (PLRV), potato virus Y (PVY), potato virus A (PVA), potato virus S (PVS), and potato virus M (PVM) [77,78]. The recognized vectors for these viruses are aphids. PVRL is transmitted in a persistent circulative manner; all the other viruses are non-persistently transmitted and spread through tubers as well as mechanically [82,83,84,85]. A. artemisiifolia serves as a reservoir for the PVY virus [77,78]. L. rugulipennis and A. lineolatus were recently identified as new carriers of Ca. Phytoplasma solani [73]. Although Ca. P. solani has a broad host plant range, including weeds [86], direct evidence of A. artemisiifolia as a host plant has only recently been confirmed [87]. Asteraceae (including A. artemisiifolia) are known to be hosts for the Aster yellows phytoplasma (AYp). This phytoplasma was detected in A. lineolatus and L. rugulipennis collected in southern Moravia (Czech Republic) [74]. In another study conducted in vineyards in the same region, AYp was not present in these two true bugs [73]. The X-disease phytoplasma found in L. rugulipennis infects most Prunus species and potentially a wide host range of herbaceous plants, including annual and perennial weeds [88]. Recently, a phytoplasma of the X-disease group, ribosomal subgroup 16SrIII-B, was detected in some perennial herbaceous plants of the Asteraceae family, Echinacea purpurea (L.) Moench, which is native to North America [89], Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. [90], and Arnica montana L., native to Europe [91]. It is important to note that the isolation of phytoplasmas from A. lineolatus, L. rugulipennis, and L. pratensis does not guarantee their ability to transmit the disease [17]. The vectoring ability of Stephanitis typica (Tingidae), the only Cimicomorpha species previously classified as a phytoplasma vector, has not been confirmed [92]. True bug species belonging to the infraorder Cimicomorpha (Heteroptera) are characterized by a non-sheath-forming cell rupture feeding type [93]. Non-phloem feeding Lygus species preferentially feed on plant meristem tissue or developing reproductive organs [94]. The plant meristematic tissue is usually free of pathogens [95]. Meristematic tissues in terminal buds are the main source of auxin [96]. A loss of auxin-producing tissues due to feeding by Lygus bugs can lead to altered vegetative growth. Altered plant architecture is a result of suppressed apical dominance and an increased growth of lateral branches from the axillary buds [94]. These morphological changes can be referred to as corymb-like plant habits with a flat-topped appearance, as described for Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh. inflorescence [97].
Since phytoplasmas are phloem-limited, phloem-feeding insects can potentially acquire and transmit the pathogen [98]. Phloem feeding is usually associated with the formation of stylet salivary sheaths [99]. In Heteroptera, the formation of salivary sheaths is a common feature of the infraorder Pentatomomorpha, but their target sites include mesophyll or reproductive tissue (mature seeds, developing endosperm) in addition to vascular tissue. In the case of seed feeding, sheath formation is minimal [17]. Aster yellows phytoplasma (ribosomal subgroup Srl-A) has recently been detected in the seeds and seedlings of Zea mays L. [100], Brassica napus L., and B. rapa L. [101]. Many Lygaeidae species feed on nutrient-rich seeds, but also on plant sap [102,103]. The most numerous seed-feeding species in our collection was N. ericae ericae. Their ability to acquire phytoplasmas from seeds or other plant parts is not known, but phytoplasmic DNA was found in two Lygaeoidea species, Nysius vinitor Bergroth and Oxycarenus maculatus Stal [104,105]. However, there is evidence that phytoplasmas may be pathogens or beneficial symbionts of hemipteran insects [106]. In Slovakia, the highly polyphagous invasive Halyomorpha halys Stål, 1855 (Pentatomomorpha: Pentatomidae) was present in the guild of species associated with A. artemisiifolia. H. halys transmits the Paulownia witches’ broom phytoplasma. Phytoplasma isolates found from China, Korea, and Japan belonged to ribosomal subgroup 16SrI (Aster yellows and related phytoplasmas) [81].
The fifth most abundant species was the predatory true bug Nabis (Dolichonabis) limbatus Dahlbom, 1851 (Nabidae), with a relative abundance of 13.46%. Nabids are predators of leafhoppers (Auchenorrhyncha), aphids (Sternorrhyncha), leaf beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), and the eggs and larvae of Lepidoptera. Several species are also predators of Miridae, especially on the genus Lygus [107]. N. limbatus occurred at all of the observed localities, except Svätuše. In Svätuše, only one specimen of N. rugosus (Linnaeus, 1758) was found at the field margins. There is evidence that nabids respond to habitat manipulation. Higher populations are found in more diverse agroecosystems where insecticides are not used [108]. Since there is evidence that nabids feed on plants to obtain water [109], the use of systemic insecticides may negatively affect their populations [110].
A few specimens of Zicrona caerulea (Linnaeus, 1758) (Pentatomidae) found at two surveyed localities were predaceous. The species is usually associated with Oenothera biennis L. (Onagraceae), infested by herbivores outside of agricultural land. O. biennis may act as a companion plant that maintains this predatory true bug in the field margin and inside the crop field [65].
The predominantly phytophagous Miridae included a zoophagous species, Deraeocoris (Deraeocoris) ruber (Linnaeus, 1758), and a few specimens of the zoophytophagous Deraeocoris (Camptobrochis) punctulatus (Fallén, 1807). D. punctulatus was most abundant on solanaceous plants [35], and frequently fed on the whitefly Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius, 1889) (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) [111]—an important and versatile vector of plant viruses [112].
The highest similarity of true bug species was observed in pair combinations of distant localities with low species diversity—Sikenička, Gemerský Jablonec, and Strážne (60–70%) (Table 4). These localities were situated in different geographical areas of south Slovakia (the western, central, and eastern parts) with a warm humid climate that has been defined as very dry, dry and moderately humid, with mild to cool winters (Table 1). The lowest similarity of true bug species was found in the pair combination of locality Svätuše, with all others (8–27%) differing in habitat, georelief, and humidity (Table 1 and Table 4). During the studied period (2020–2021), the localities in western Slovakia (Balvany, Malá nad Hronom, and Sikenička) had a mean annual temperature of 11.6 °C and a mean annual precipitation of 485 mm; the localities in central Slovakia (Gemerský Jablonec and Tachty) had a mean annual temperature of 10.8 °C with a mean annual precipitation of 636 mm; and the localities in eastern Slovakia (Strážne, Veľký Horeš, Svätuše, Brehov, and Malé Trakany) had a mean annual temperature of 10.6 °C with a mean annual precipitation of 620 mm [113,114]. Regardless of the mean annual temperature, precipitation, and winter season, most of the pair-wise combined localities had low species similarity with a median of Jaccard index as 28% (ranging from 8 to 70%) (Table 4). This suggests differences in the Heteroptera species composition at the localities studied, and a weak relationship with selected habitats and A. artemisiifolia.
We studied three habitats; the most predominant ones were field margins, ragweed/weed-infested agricultural fields, and a mowed meadow, in three geographical areas of southern Slovakia (Table 1). No relationship between habitats or climate region and Heteropterans species similarity using the Jaccard index were found. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the composition of the landscape surrounding each field studied had a stronger influence on the composition and abundance of insect species than the field vegetation itself. The main reason for this could be the prevalence of polyphagous species and the presence of oligophagous species without a trophic affinity to Asteraceae (Table 2). Like other pest species, heteropterans are good flyers and colonizers that use and traverse different habitat types during their life cycle [115]. In the summer, A. artemisiifolia provided a suitable food source (maturing seeds on the main inflorescence and terminal buds on lateral shoots) for both infraorder representatives. Weeds are an important alternative food source, and play a significant role in promoting biodiversity in agroecosystems [116,117].

4. Conclusions

The studied localities in southern Slovakia showed low species similarity of true bugs with a Jaccard index median of 28%, and a weak relationship with habitats and A. artemisiifolia. The community of true bugs was composed of 16 species of the infraorder Cimicomorpha (51.48%) and 31 species of infraorder Pentatomomorpha (48.52%). The Cimicomorpha species, Adelphocoris lineolatus and Lygus pratensis, were recorded at all 10 localities, with Nabis limbatus at 9, and Lygus rugulipennis and Trigonotylus pulchellus at 8 localities. Nysius ericae ericae occurred at 6 localities and accounted for 90.83% of all Pentatomomorpha species. The remaining species occurred irregularly. Therefore, we assume that the landscape surrounding each studied field had a stronger influence on the species composition and abundance of the true bugs than the vegetation of the field. We found that 69.6% of the polyphagous species had trophic relationships with Asteraceae. The most numerous herbivorous Cimicomorpha species (A. lineolaris, L. rugulipennis, and L. pratensis) are known to be carriers of plant viruses or phytoplasmas. The only documented vector of phytoplasmas is Halyomorpha halys (Pentatomomorpha), which transmits Aster yellows and related phytoplasmas to Paulownia trees. A. artemisiifolia is a known reservoir for several plant viruses and phytoplasmas, including Aster yellows disease. From our results and the literature review, we can conclude that Heteroptera remains a less important vector of phytoplasmas. A. artemisiifolia serves as an important reservoir for plant pests and provides an alternative food source for true bugs in the summer, after crop harvest. Therefore, it plays an important role in maintaining populations of polyphagous true bugs in the studied agricultural habitats in southern Slovakia.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.T.; methodology, P.T.; validation, P.T. and M.T.; formal analysis, P.T. and M.T.; investigation, P.T., V.K. and J.Š.; resources, P.T.; data maintenance, P.T., V.K. and J.Š.; preparation of original draft, P.T. and M.T.; revision and editing, P.T. and M.T.; supervision, P.T.; project management, P.T. and M.T.; acquisition of funding, P.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The research was supported by the Scientific Grant Agency of the Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport of the Slovak Republic VEGA 1/0467/22, and the Slovak Agency for Research and Development under contract number SK-SRB-21-0045.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

Relevant entomological identification keys were used to identify the true bugs, and the identification was confirmed by Jozef Cunev, Nitra, Slovakia.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. There are no competing interests. The authors have no relevant financial or nonfinancial interests to disclose.

References

  1. Essl, F.; Biró, K.; Brandes, D.; Broennimann, O.; Bullock, J.M.; Chapman, D.S.; Chauvel, B.; Dullinger, S.; Fumanal, B.; Guisan, A.; et al. Biological Flora of the British Isles: Ambrosia artemisiifolia. J. Ecol. 2015, 103, 1069–1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Chauvel, B.; Cadet, E. Introduction and spread of an invasive species: Ambrosia artemisiifolia in France. Acta Bot. Gall. Bull. De La Société Bot. De Fr. 2011, 158, 309–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Guillemin, J.P.; Chauvel, B. Effects of the seed weight and burial depth on the seed behavior of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia). Weed Biol. Manag. 2011, 11, 217–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kazinczi, G.; Novák, R. Integrated Methods for Suppression of Common Ragweed; National Food Chain Safety Office, Directorate of Plant Protection Soil Conservation and Agri-environment: Budapest, Hungary, 2014; p. 226. ISBN 978-963-89968-4-8. [Google Scholar]
  5. Weber, E. Invasive Plant Species of the World: A Reference Guide to Environmental Weeds, CABI 2nd ed.; CABI Publishing: Wallingford, UK, 2017; p. 596. [Google Scholar]
  6. Kazinczi, G.; Béres, I.; Pathy, Z.; Novák, R. Common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.): A review with special regards to the results in Hungary: II. Importance and harmful effect, allergy, habitat, allelopathy, and beneficial characteristics. Herbologia 2008, 9, 93–118. [Google Scholar]
  7. Storms, W.; Meltzer, E.O.; Nathan, R.A.; Selner, J.C. The economic impact of allergic rhinitis. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 1997, 99, 820–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Simard, M.J.; Benoit, D.L. Distribution and abundance of an allergenic weed, common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.), in rural settings of southern Quebec, Canada. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2010, 90, 549–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Zisenis, M. Alien plant species: A real fear for urban ecosystems in Europe? Urban Ecosyst. 2015, 18, 355–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bordas-Le Floch, V.; Le Mignon, M.; Bouley, J. Identification of Novel Short Ragweed Pollen Allergens Using Combined Transcriptomic and Immunoproteomic Approaches. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e013625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Smith, M.; Cecchi, L.; Skjøth, C.A.; Karrer, G.; Šikoparija, B. Common ragweed: A threat to environmental health in Europe. Environ. Int. 2013, 61, 115–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Hamaoui-Laguel, L.; Vautard, R.; Liu, L.; Solmon, F.; Viovy, N.; Khvorostyanov, D.; Essl, F.; Chuine, I.; Colette, A.; Semenov, M.; et al. Effects of climate change and seed dispersal on airborne ragweed pollen loads in Europe. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2015, 5, 766–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Gerber, E.; Schaffner, U.; Gassmann, A.; Hinz, H.L.; Seier, M.; Müller-Schärer, H. Prospects for biological control of Ambrosia artemisiifolia in Europe: Learning from the past. Weed Res. 2011, 51, 559–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Cassis, G. True Bugs (Insecta: Hemiptera: Heteroptera): Evolution, Classification, Biodiversity and Biology, Reference Module in Life Sciences; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Dolling, W.R. Hemiptera. Oxford Natural History Museum Publications; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1991; p. 274. ISBN 9780198540168. [Google Scholar]
  16. Zurbrügg, C.; Frank, T. Factors influencing bug diversity (Insecta: Heteroptera) in semi-natural habitats. In Arthropod Diversity and Conservation. Topics in Biodiversity and Conservation; Hawksworth, D.L., Bull, A.T., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2006; Volume 15, p. 525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Mitchell, P.L. Heteroptera as vectors of plant pathogens. Neotrop. Entomol. 2004, 33, 519–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Mitchell, P.L.; Zeilinger, A.; Medrano, E.G.; Esquivel, J.F. Pentatomoids as vectors of plant pathogens. In Invasive Stink Bugs and Related Species (Pentatomoidea): Biology, Higher Systematics, Semiochemistry, and Management; McPherson, J.E., Ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2018; pp. 611–640. [Google Scholar]
  19. Torma, A.; Bozsó, M.; Tölgyesi, C.; Gallé, R. Relationship of different feeding groups of true bugs (Hemiptera: Heteroptera) with habitat and landscape features in Pannonic salt grasslands. J. Insect Conserv. 2017, 21, 645–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gibicsár, S.; Keszthelyi, S. Topographical Based Significance of Sap-Sucking Heteropteran in European Wheat Cultivations: A Systematic Review. Diversity 2023, 15, 109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Laterza, I.; Dioli, P.; Tamburini, G. Semi-natural habitats support populations of stink bug pests in agricultural landscapes. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. AGR 2023, 342, 108223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Abukenova, V.S.; Slavchenko, N.P.; Kartbayeva, G.T.; Myrzabayev, A.B.; Yeshmagambetova, A.B.; Duzbayeva, N.M.; Kabbassova, M.T.; Abukenova, A.K. Composition and Ecological Structure of the Fauna of Litter and Soil True Bugs (Insecta, Heteroptera) in Kazakh Upland (Central Kazakhstan) Pine Forests. Diversity 2022, 14, 618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Maceljski, M.; Igrc, J. The Phytophagous Insect Fauna of Ambrosia artemisiifolia in Yugoslavia. In Proceedings of the VII International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, Rome, Italy, 6–11 March 1988. [Google Scholar]
  24. Kiss, B.; Koczor, S.; Rédei, D. Occurrence and feeding of hemipterans on common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) in Hungary. Bull. Insectol. 2008, 61, 195–196. [Google Scholar]
  25. Franin, K.; Franin, G.K.; Maričić, B.; Marcelić, Š.; Pavlović, M.; Kos, T.; Barić, B.; Laznik, Z. True bugs (Heteroptera) assemblage and diversity in the ecological infrastructures around the Mediterranean vineyards. Bull. Insectology 2021, 74, 65–78. [Google Scholar]
  26. Limonta, L.; Gaini, P.; Dioli, P. First Results on Heteroptera (Hemiptera) of Dry Grassland in Malpaga-Basella Nature Reserve (Italy). Diversity 2022, 14, 981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zaťko, M. Land Structure. In Landscape Atlas of the Slovak Republic; Abaffy, D., Miklós, L., Eds.; Slovak Environmental Agency, Banská Bystrica: Slovakia, Bratislava, 2002; p. 344. [Google Scholar]
  28. Costa, L.D.F. Further Generalizations of the Jaccard Index. 2022. Available online: https://hal.science/hal-03384438v4 (accessed on 17 February 2023).
  29. Glen, S. “Jaccard Index/Similarity Coefficient” From StatisticsHowTo.com: Elementary Statistics for the Rest of Us! 2023. Available online: https://www.statisticshowto.com/jaccard-index/ (accessed on 17 February 2023).
  30. Malenovský, I.; Baňař, P.; Kment, P.A. Contribution to the faunistic of the Hemiptera (Cicadomorpha, Fulgoromorpha, Het-eroptera, and Psylloidea) associated with dry grassland sites in southern Moravia (Czech Republic). Acta Musei Morav. Sci. Biol. 2011, 96, 41–187. [Google Scholar]
  31. Saulich, A.K.; Musolin, D.L. Seasonal Development of Plant Bugs (Heteroptera, Miridae): Subfamily Mirinae, Tribe Mirini. Entomol. Rev. 2020, 100, 135–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Yazıcı, G.; Yildirim, E. Prefered host plants species by Miridae (Hemiptera: Heteroptera) species in Erzurum Province of Turkey. Entomofauna 2017, 38, 193–212. [Google Scholar]
  33. Collyer, E. Biology of some Predatory Insects and Mites Associated with the Fruit Tree Red Spider Mite (Metatetranychus ulmi (Koch)) in South-Eastern England II. Some Important Predators of the Mite. Hortic. Sci. 1953, 28, 85–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Chinajariyawong, A.; Harris, V.E. Inability of Deraeocoris signatus (Distant) (Hemiptera: Miridae) to survive and reproduce on cotton without prey. Aust. J. Entomol. 1987, 26, 37–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Sanchez, J.-A.; Martinez-Cascales, J.I.; Lacasa, A. Abundance and wild host plants of predator mirids (Heteroptera: Miridae) in horticultural crops in the Southeast of Spain. IOBC/WPRS Bull. 2003, 26, 147–151. [Google Scholar]
  36. Eyles, A.C. New genera and species of the Lygus-Complex (Hemiptera: Miridae) in the New Zealand subregion compared with subgenera (now genera) studied by Leston (1952) and Niastama, Reuter, New Zealand. J. Zool. 1999, 26, 303–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Holopainen, J.K.; Varis, A.L. Host plants of the European tarnished plant bug Lygus rugulipennis Poppius (Het., Miridae). J. Appl. Entomol. 1991, 111, 484–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hradil, K.; Psota, V.; Štastná, P. Species diversity of true bugs on apples in terms of plant protection. Plant Prot. Sci. 2013, 49, 73–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Kivan, M.; Dirik, E. Edirne ili buğday ekiliş alanlarında tespit edilen Heteroptera türleri. Türkiye Entomoloji Bülteni 2016, 6, 357–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Rabitsch, W. Alien True Bugs of Europe (Insecta: Hemiptera: Heteroptera). Zootaxa 2008, 1827, 1–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Stehlík, J.L. Results of the investigations on Hemiptera in Moravia made by the Moravian Museum (Tingidae). Acta Musei Morav. Sci. Biol. 2002, 87, 87–149. [Google Scholar]
  42. Pekár, S.; Hrušková, M. How granivorous Coreus marginatus (Heteroptera: Coreidae) recognises its food. Acta Ethol. 2006, 9, 26–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Aukema, B. Rhopalus tigrinus (Rhopalidae) en Eurydema ornatum (Pentatomidae) nieuw voor de Nederlandse fauna (Heteroptera). Entomol. Ber. 1993, 53, 19–22. [Google Scholar]
  44. Stewart, A.J.A.; Bantock, T.M.; Beckmann, B.C.; Botham, M.S.; Hubble, D.; Roy, D.B. The role of ecological interactions in determining species ranges and range changes. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. Lond. 2015, 115, 647–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Vilímová, J.; Rohanová, M. The external morphology of eggs of three Rhopalidae species (Hemiptera: Heteroptera) with a review of the eggs of this family. Acta Entomol. Musei Natl. Pragae 2010, 50, 75–95. [Google Scholar]
  46. Stehlík, J.L.; Vavřínová, I. Results of the investigations on Hemiptera in Moravia made by the Moravian Museum (Coreoidea 2). Acta Musei Morav. Sci. Biol. 1989, 74, 175–200. [Google Scholar]
  47. Honěk, A.; Štys, P.; Martinková, Z. Arthropod community of dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) capitula during seed dispersal. Biologia 2013, 68, 330–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ellis, W.N. (2001–2022) Leafminers and Plant Galls of Europe. Plant Parasites of Europe: Leafminers, Gallers and Fungi. Available online: https://bladmineerders.nl (accessed on 20 November 2022).
  49. Gierlasiński, G.; Taszakowski, A.; Lis, B. Stilt bugs (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Berytidae) of Poland: Checklist, distribution, bionomics. Fragm. Faunist. 2019, 62, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Laukkanen, L.; Mutikainen, P.; Muola, A.; Leimu, R. Plant-species diversity correlates with genetic variation of an oligophagous seed predator. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e94105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Linnavuori, R.E. Studies on the Cimicomorpha and Pentatomomorpha (Hemiptera: Heteroptera) of Khuzestan and the adjacent provinces of Iran. Acta Entomol. Musei Natl. Pragae 2011, 51, 21–48. [Google Scholar]
  52. Stehlík, J.L.; Vavřínová, I. Results of the investigations on Hemiptera in Moravia made by the Moravian Museum (Lygaeidae I). Acta Musei Morav. Sci. Biol. 1997, 81, 231–298. [Google Scholar]
  53. Redei, D. True Bug (Heteroptera) Assemblages of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants. Ph.D. Thesis, Corvinus University, Budapest, Hungary, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  54. Stehlík, J.L.; Vavřínová, I. Results of the investigations on Hemiptera in Moravia made by the Moravian Museum (Lygaeidae III). Acta Musei Morav. Sci. Biol. 1998, 83, 21–70. [Google Scholar]
  55. Stehlík, J.L. Results of the investigations on Hemiptera in Moravia made by the Moravian Museum (Pentatomoidea 4). Acta Musei Morav. Sci. Biol. 1995, 70, 147–175. [Google Scholar]
  56. Halászfy, É. Poloskák II. Heteroptera II. In Magyarország Állatvilága (Fauna Hungariae); Akadémiai Kiadó: Budapest, Hungary, 1959; pp. 1–87. [Google Scholar]
  57. Kment, P.; Hradil, K.; Baňař, P.; Balvín, P.; Cunev, J.; Ditrich, T.; Jindra, Z.; Roháčová, M.; Straka, M.; Sychra, J. New and interesting records of true bugs (Hemiptera: Heteroptera) from the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Acta Musei Morav. Sci. Biol. 2013, 98, 495–541. [Google Scholar]
  58. Stehlík, J.L. Results of the investigations on Hemiptera in Moravia made by the Moravian Museum (Pentatomoidea 5). Acta Musei Morav. Sci. Biol. 1986, 71, 147–178. [Google Scholar]
  59. Linnavuori, R.E. Studies on the Acanthosomatidae, Scutelleridae and Pentatomidae (Heteroptera) of Gilan and the adjacent provinces in northern Iran. Acta Entomol. Musei Natl. Pragae 2008, 48, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Gözüaçik, C.; Konuksal, A. Investigations on Heteroptera (Hemiptera) Species in Cereal Agroecosystem of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Kafkas Univ. Inst. Nat. Appl. Sci. J. 2019, 12, 56–67. [Google Scholar]
  61. Hemala, V.; Cunev, J.; Franc, V. On the occurrence of the stink bug Eysarcoris ventralis (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Pentatomidae) in Slovakia, with notes on its distribution in neighboring countries. Klapalekiana 2014, 50, 51–59. [Google Scholar]
  62. Stehlík, J.L. Results of the investigations on Hemiptera in Moravia made by the Moravian Museum (Pentatomoidea 3). Acta Musei Morav. Sci. Biol. 1984, 69, 163–185. [Google Scholar]
  63. Ghahari, H.; Moulet, P.; Rider, D.A. An annotated catalog of the Iranian Pentatomoidea (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Pentatomomorpha). Zootaxa 2014, 3837, 1–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Khadka, A.; Hodges, A.C.; Leppla, N.C.; Tillman, P.G. Halyomorpha halys (Stål) (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) Nymph Survival and Adult Feeding Preferences for Crop Plants in Florida. Fla. Entomol. 2021, 104, 136–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Noge, K.; Tamogami, S. Isovaleronitrile co-induced with its precursor, l-leucine, by herbivory in the common evening primrose stimulates foraging behavior of the predatory blue shield bug. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem. 2018, 82, 395–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  66. Stehlík, J.L. Results of the investigations on Hemiptera in Moravia made by the Moravian Museum (Pentatomoidea VII). Acta Musei Morav. Sci. Biol. 1995, 79, 85–96. [Google Scholar]
  67. Burgess, L.; Dueck, J.; Mckencie, D. Insect vectors of the yeast Nematospora coryli in mustard, Brassica juncea, crops in southern Saskatchewan. Can. Entomol. 1993, 115, 25–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Judd, S.; Hodkinson, I. The Biogeography and Regional Biodiversity of the British Seed Bugs (Hemiptera: Lygaeidae). J. Biogeogr. 1998, 25, 227–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Wheeler, A.G. Biology of the Plant Bugs (Hemiptera: Miridae): Pests, Predators, Opportunists; Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2001; 528p. [Google Scholar]
  70. Lu, Y.; Jiao, Z.; Li, G.; Wyckhuys, K.A.G.; Wu, K. Comparative overwintering host range of three Adelphocoris species (Hemiptera: Miridae) in northern China. Crop Prot. 2011, 30, 1455–1460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Pan, H.; Lu, Y.; Wyckhuys, K.A.G. Early-Season Host Switching in Adelphocoris spp. (Hemiptera: Miridae) of Differing Host Breadth. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e59000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Puchkov, V.G. Glavneishie klopy-slepnyaki—Vrediteli sel’skokhozyaistvennykh kul’tur (Major Capsid Bugs Important as Agricultural Pests); Naukova Dumka: Kyiv, Ukraine, 1966. [Google Scholar]
  73. Šafářová, D.; Lauterer, P.; Starý, M.; Válová, P.; Navrátil, M. Insight into epidemiological importance of phytoplasma vectors in vineyards in South Moravia, Czech Republic. Plant Prot. Sci. 2018, 54, 234–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Korbášová, Z. Výskyt a Variabilita Fytoplasmy Stolburu v Hyalestes obsoletus a Dalších Potenciálních Vektorech. Diploma Thesis, Palackého University, Olomouc, Czech Republic, 20 April 2012. [Google Scholar]
  75. Emmett, B.J.; Baker, L.A.E. Insect Transmission of Fireblight. Plant Dis. 1971, 20, 41–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Březíková, M.; Linhartová, Š. First report of potato stolbur phytoplasma in hemipterans in southern Moravia—Short Communication. Plant Prot. Sci. 2007, 43, 73–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Sobko, O.A.; Matsishina, N.V.; Fisenko, P.V.; Kim, I.V.; Didora, A.S.; Boginskay, N.G.; Volkov, D.I. Viruses in the agrobiocenosis of the potato fields. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 677, 052093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Sobko, O.; Matsishina, N.; Fisenko, P.; Kim, I.; Boginskaya, N. Phytoviruses in the Potato Field Tripartite Agroecosystem. In Fundamental and Applied Scientific Research in the Development of Agriculture in the Far East (AFE-2021). Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems; Muratov, A., Ignateva, S., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; Volume 353, p. 1176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Orságová, H.; Březíková, M.; Schlesingerová, G. Presence of phytoplasmas in hemipterans in Czech vineyards. Bull. Insectology 2011, 64, S119–S120. [Google Scholar]
  80. Ratnadass, A.; Deguine, J.P. Three-way interactions between crop plants, phytopathogenic fungi, and mirid bugs. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2020, 6640, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Hiruki, C. Paulownia witches’-broom disease important in East Asia. Acta Horti. 1999, 496, 63–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Kumar, R.; Tiwari, R.K.; Sundaresha, S.; Kaundal, P.; Raigond, B. Potato Viruses and Their Management. In Sustainable Management of Potato Pests and Diseases; Chakrabarti, S.K., Sharma, S., Shah, M.A., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2022; p. 922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Lacomme, C.; Glais, L.; Bellstedt, D.U.; Dupuis, B.; Karasev, A.V. (Eds.) Potato Virus Y: Biodiversity, Pathogenicity, Epidemiology, and Management; Springer International Publishing: Basel, Switzerland, 2017; p. XI. 261p. [Google Scholar]
  84. Agindotan, B.O.; Shiel, P.J.; Berger, P.H. Simultaneous detection of potato viruses, PLRV, PVA, PVX and PVY from dormant potato tubers by TaqMan real-time RT-PCR. J. Virol. Methods 2007, 142, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Fuentes, S.; Gibbs, A.J.; Adams, I.P.; Wilson, C.; Botermans, M.; Fox, A.; Kreuze, J.; Boonham, N.; Kehoe, M.A.; Jones, R.A.C. Potato Virus A Isolates from Three Continents: Their Biological Properties, Phylogenetics, and Prehistory. Phytopathology 2021, 111, 217–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Quaglino, F. Candidatus Phytoplasma solani (Stolbur phytoplasma), CABI Compendium. CABI Compendium 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Kosovac, A.; Ćurčić, Ž.; Stepanović, J.; Rekanović, E.; Duduk, B. Epidemiological role of novel and already known ‘Ca. P. solani’ cixiid vectors in rubbery taproot disease of sugar beet in Serbia. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 1433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Jensen, D.D. Herbaceous Host Plants of Western X-Disease Agent. Phytopathology 1971, 61, 1465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Fránová, J.; Špak, J.; Šimková, M. First report of a 16SrIII-B subgroup phytoplasma associated with leaf reddening, virescence and phyllody of purple coneflower. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2013, 136, 7–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Rančić, D.; Paltrinieri, S.; Toševski, I.; Petanović, R.; Stevanović, B.; Bertaccini, A. First report of multiple inflorescence disease of Cirsium arvense and its association with a 16SrIII-B subgroup phytoplasma in Serbia. Plant Pathol. 2005, 54, 561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Pavlovic, S.; Pljevljakusic, D.; Starovic, M.; Stojanovic, S.; Josic, D. First Report of 16SrIII-B Phytoplasma Subgroup Associated with Virescence of Arnica montana in Serbia. Plant Dis. 2012, 96, 1691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Edwin, B.T.; Mohankumar, C. Kerala wilt disease phytoplasma: Phylogenetic analysis and identification of a vector, Proutista moesta. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2007, 71, 41–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Tingey, W.M.; Pillimer, E.A. Lygus Bugs: Crop Resistance and Physiological Nature of Feeding Injury. Bull. Entomol. Soc. Am. 1977, 23, 277–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Strong, F.E. Physiology of Injury Caused by Lygus hesperus. J. Econ. Entomol. 1970, 63, 808–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Laimer, M.; Bertaccini, A. Phytoplasma Elimination from Perennial Horticultural Crops. In Phytoplasmas: Plant Pathogenic Bacteria–II; Bertaccini, A., Weintraub, P., Rao, G., Mori, N., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 185–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Müller, D.; Leyser, O. Auxin, cytokinin and the control of shoot branching. Ann. Bot. 2011, 107, 1203–1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  97. Suzuki, M.; Takahashi, T.; Komeda, Y. Formation of corymb-like inflorescences due to delay in bolting and flower development in the corymbosa2 mutant of Arabidopsis. Plant Cell Physiol. 2002, 43, 298–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  98. Weintraub, P.; Beanland, L. Insect vectors of phytoplasmas. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2006, 51, 91–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Backus, E.A. Sensory systems, and behaviors which mediate hemipteran plant-feeding: A taxonomic overview. J. Insect Physiol. 1988, 34, 151–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Nipah, J.O.; Jones, P.; Hodgetts, J.; Dickinson, M. Detection of phytoplasma DNA in embryos from coconut palms in Ghana, and kernels from maize in Peru. Bull. Insectol. 2007, 60, 385–386. [Google Scholar]
  101. Olivier, C.Y.; Galka, B.; Sèguin-Swartz, G. Detection of aster yellows phytoplasma DNA in seed and seedlings of canola (Brassica napus and B. rapa) and AY strain identification. Can. J. Plant Pathol. 2010, 32, 298–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Péricart, J. Hemipteres Lygaeidae euro-mediterraneens 1-3. In Faune de France; Fédération Française des Sociétés de Sciences Naturelles: Paris, France, 1998; Volume 84A–C, pp. 453, 468, 487. [Google Scholar]
  103. Schuh, R.T.; Slater, J.A. True Bugs of the World (Hemiptera: Heteroptera): Classification and Natural History; Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY, USA, 1995; p. 336. [Google Scholar]
  104. White, D.T.; Billington, S.J.; Walsh, K.B.; Scott, P.T. DNA sequence analysis supports the association of phytoplasmas with papaya (Carica papaya) dieback, yellow crinkle, and mosaic. Australas. Plant Pathol. 1997, 26, 28–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Wieczorek, A.; Wright, M. PCR detection of phytoplasma from witches’ broom disease on Protea spp. (Proteaceae) and associated arthropods. Acta Hortic. 2003, 602, 161–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Hogenhout, S.A.; Oshima, K.; Ammar, E.; Kakizawa, S.; Heather, N.; Kingdom, H.N.; Namba, S. Phytoplasmas: Bacteria that manipulate plants and insects. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2008, 9, 403–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Lattin, J.D. Bionomics of the Nabidae. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1989, 34, 383–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Hammond, R.B.; Stinner, B.R. Soybean Foliage Insects in Conservation Tillage Systems: Effects of Tillage, Previous Cropping History, and Soil Insecticide Application. Environ. Entomol. 1987, 16, 524–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Ridgway, R.L.; Jones, S.L. Plant Feeding by Geocoris pallens and Nabis americoferus. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 1968, 61, 232–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Lentz, G.L.; Chambers, A.Y.; Hayes, R.M. Effects of Systemic Insecticide-Nematicides on Midseason Pest and Predator Populations in Soybean. J. Econ. Entomol. 1983, 76, 836–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Stam, P.A.; Elmosa, H. The role of predators and parasites in controlling populations of Earias insulana, Heliothis armigera and Bemisia tabaci on cotton in the Syrian Arab Republic. Entomophaga 1990, 35, 315–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Fiallo-Olivé, E.; Pan, L.L.; Liu, S.S.; Navas-Castillo, J. Transmission of Begomoviruses and Other Whitefly-Borne Viruses: Dependence on the Vector Species. Phytopathology 2020, 110, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. SHMÚ (Slovak Hydrometeorological Institute). The Ministry of the Environment of the Slovak Republic. 2023. Available online: https://www.shmu.sk/en/ (accessed on 2 May 2023).
  114. AMET (Association Litschmann & Suchý). Meteorological Stations. 2023. Available online: http://www.amet.cz/ (accessed on 2 May 2023).
  115. Fauvel, G. Diversity of Heteroptera in agroecosystems: Role of sustainability and bioindication. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1999, 74, 275–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Capinera, J. Relationships between insect pests and weeds: An evolutionary perspective. Weed Sci. 2005, 53, 892–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Marshall, E.J.P.; Brown, V.K.; Boatman, N.D.; Lutman, P.J.W.; Squire, G.R.; Ward, L.K. The role of weeds in supporting biological diversity within crop fields. Weed Res. 2003, 43, 77–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Diversity 15 00757 g001 550
Figure 1. Location of research sites in Slovakia in 2020–2021. (Google maps 2022, edited by Peter Tóth, 2023).
Figure 1. Location of research sites in Slovakia in 2020–2021. (Google maps 2022, edited by Peter Tóth, 2023).
Diversity 15 00757 g001
Diversity 15 00757 g002 550
Figure 2. Sunflower field margin along the field path in Balvany (photo P. Tóth).
Figure 2. Sunflower field margin along the field path in Balvany (photo P. Tóth).
Diversity 15 00757 g002
Diversity 15 00757 g003 550
Figure 3. Weedy agricultural field near Malá and Hronom (photo P. Tóth).
Figure 3. Weedy agricultural field near Malá and Hronom (photo P. Tóth).
Diversity 15 00757 g003
Diversity 15 00757 g004 550
Figure 4. Weedy corn field margin in Sikenička (photo P. Tóth).
Figure 4. Weedy corn field margin in Sikenička (photo P. Tóth).
Diversity 15 00757 g004
Diversity 15 00757 g005 550
Figure 5. Mowed semi-natural meadow in Gemerský Jablonec (photo P. Tóth).
Figure 5. Mowed semi-natural meadow in Gemerský Jablonec (photo P. Tóth).
Diversity 15 00757 g005
Diversity 15 00757 g006 550
Figure 6. Weedy field margin along the field road at Tachty (photo P. Tóth).
Figure 6. Weedy field margin along the field road at Tachty (photo P. Tóth).
Diversity 15 00757 g006
Diversity 15 00757 g007 550
Figure 7. Heavily infested sunflower field, Brehov (photo P. Tóth).
Figure 7. Heavily infested sunflower field, Brehov (photo P. Tóth).
Diversity 15 00757 g007
Diversity 15 00757 g008 550
Figure 8. Weed-infested field margin along the trees in the dike area near Malé Trakany (photo P. Tóth).
Figure 8. Weed-infested field margin along the trees in the dike area near Malé Trakany (photo P. Tóth).
Diversity 15 00757 g008
Diversity 15 00757 g009 550
Figure 9. Heavily infested corn field in Strážne (photo P. Tóth).
Figure 9. Heavily infested corn field in Strážne (photo P. Tóth).
Diversity 15 00757 g009
Diversity 15 00757 g010 550
Figure 10. Weedy agricultural field in Veľký Horeš (photo P. Tóth).
Figure 10. Weedy agricultural field in Veľký Horeš (photo P. Tóth).
Diversity 15 00757 g010
Table
Table 1. Geographical coordinates and habitat characteristics of the studied localities in southern Slovakia in 2020–2021.
Table 1. Geographical coordinates and habitat characteristics of the studied localities in southern Slovakia in 2020–2021.
LocationsLatitude, LongitudeAltitude (m/a.s.l.)Habitats, Geo ReliefClimate Region
Western Slovakia
Balvany (Figure 2)47°50′24″ N, 17°59′57″ E110Field margins, planeWarm, very dry, mild winter
Malá nad Hronom (Figure 3)47°51′25″ N, 18°40′40″ E140Weedy agricultural field, hilly countryWarm, very dry, mild winter
Sikenička (Figure 4)47°55′42″ N, 18°41′34″ E140Field margins, hilly countryWarm, very dry, mild winter
Central Slovakia
Gemerský Jablonec (Figure 5)48°11′57″ N, 19°59′22″ E239Mowed meadow, hilly countryWarm, moderate humid, cool winter
Tachty (Figure 6)48°09′23″ N, 19°56′59″ E262Field margins, hilly countryWarm, moderate humid, cool winter
Eastern Slovakia
Brehov (Figure 7)48°29′59″ N, 21°48′29″ E112Field margins, hilly countryWarm, dry, cool winter
Malé Trakany (Figure 8)48°23′58″ N, 22°07′54″ E110Field margins, planeWarm, dry, cool winter
Strážne (Figure 9)48°22′23″ N, 21°50′47″ E100Weedy agricultural field, planeWarm, dry, cool winter
Svätuše48°25′16″ N, 21°55′10″ E110Field margins, planeWarm, dry, cool winter
Veľký Horeš (Figure 10)48°22′22″ N, 21°54′10″ E100Weedy agricultural field, planeWarm, dry, cool winter
Table
Table 2. True bugs (Hemiptera: Heteroptera) fauna of flowering Ambrosia artemisiifolia during 2020–2021 in southern Slovakia.
Table 2. True bugs (Hemiptera: Heteroptera) fauna of flowering Ambrosia artemisiifolia during 2020–2021 in southern Slovakia.
Infraorder/Family/SpeciesFood SpecializationReferencesBalvanyMalá nad
Hronom		SikeničkaGemerský
Jablonec		TachtyBrehovMalé
Trakany		StrážneSvatušeVeľký
Horeš		TOTALRelative
Occurrence
(%)
CIMICOMORPHA
NABIDAE
Nabis (Dolichonabis) limbatus Dahlbom, 1851zoophagous(Wachmann et al. 2006 [30])5318547142251223233613.46
Nabis rugosus (Linnaeus, 1758)zoophagous(Wachmann et al. 2006 [30]) 1 10.04
MIRIDAE
Adelphocoris lineolatus (Goeze, 1778)phyto, poly (Fabaceae, eggs are laid to some Asteraceae)(Puchkov 1972 [31])7014953220653351110048119.27
Adelphocoris vandalicus (Rossi, 1790)phyto, poly (incl. Asteraceae)[32] 1 10.04
Adelphocoris seticornis (Fabricius, 1775)phyto, oligo (Fabaceae)(Wachmann et al. 2004: [30]) 1 3 40.16
Deraeocoris (Deraeocoris) ruber (Linnaeus, 1758)zoophagous[33] 1 10.04
Deraeocoris (Camptobrochis) punctulatus (Fallén, 1807)phytozoophagous (mostly Solanaceae)[34,35]12 30.12
Lygocoris (Lygocoris) pabulinus (Linnaeus, 1761)phyto, poly(Southwood & Leston 1959 [36]) 1 1 1 30.12
Lygus pratensis (Linnaeus, 1758)phyto, poly (incl. Asteraceae)(Lu & Wu 2008 [31])47371865423126131716.85
Lygus rugulipennis Poppius, 1911phyto, poly (Asteraceae among the most important)[37]54922361231251897.57
Orthops (Orthops) campestris (Linnaeus, 1758)phyto, oligo (Apiaceae)(Wachmann et al. 2004 [30]) 1 321 70.28
Orthotylus sp.various, indefinite 50 502.00
Stenodema (Brachystira) calcarata (Fallén, 1807)phyto, poly (Poaceae rarely Cyperaceae and Juncaceae)[38] 2 1 2 50.20
Trigonotylus pulchellus (Hahn, 1834)phyto, poly Amaranthaceae, Fabaceae, Vitis vinifera (Lodos et al. 2003 [39])31111 362 4311.24
TINGIDAE
Corythucha ciliata (Say, 1832)phyto, oligo (Platanus spp.)[40] 1 10.04
Dictyla echii (Schrank, 1782)phyto, oligo (Boraginaceae)[41] 1 10.04
PENTATOMOMORPHA
COREIDAE
Coreus marginatus marginatus (Linnaeus, 1758)phyto, poly (Polygonaceae, Asteraceae)(Putshkov 1962 [42]) 5 1 60.24
Gonocerus juniperi (Herrich-Schaeffer, 1839)phyto, oligo (Cupressaceae)[40] 1 10.04
RHOPALIDAE
Brachycarenus tigrinus Schilling, 1829 phyto, poly (mostly Brassicaceae, Chenopodioideae, Amaranthaceae, Ericaceae)[43] 7 70.28
Corizus hyoscyami hyoscyami (Linnaeus, 1758)phyto, poly (incl. Asteraceae)[44] 1 10.04
Chorosoma schillingii (Schilling, 1829)phyto, oligo (Poaceae)[45] 1 10.04
Myrmus miriformis miriformis (Fallén, 1807)phyto, oligo (Poaceae)[46] 2 20.08
Stictopleurus abutilon abutilon (Rossi, 1790)phyto, oligo (Asteraceae)[47] 31 40.16
Stictopleurus punctatonervosus (Goeze, 1778)phyto, oligo (Asteraceae)[46]1 4 1 60.24
Rhopalus (Rhopalus) parumpunctatus Schilling, 1829phyto, poly (incl. Asteraceae)[46,48] 7 11 90.36
Rhopalus (Rhopalus) subrufus (Gmelin, 1790)phyto, poly (incl. Asteraceae, some preference for Lamiaceae)[46,48] 3 360.24
STENOCEPHALIDAE
Dicranocephalus medius (Mulsant a Rey, 1870)phyto, oligo (Euphorbia)[48] 3 30.12
BERYTIDAE
Berytinus (Berytinus) minor minor (Herrich-Schaeffer, 1835)phyto, poly (mainly Fabaceae) [48,49]1 10.04
LYGAEIDAE
Lygaeus equestris (Linnaeus, 1758)phyto, mono (Vincetoxicum hirundinaria)[50] 1 1 20.08
Nysius ericae ericae (Schilling, 1829)phyto, poly (incl. Asteraceae)[48,51]63100412 11 19110044.07
Nysius helveticus (Herrich-Schaeffer, 1850)phyto, poly (incl. Asteraceae)[48] 1 10.04
Nysius senecionis senecionis (Schilling, 1829)phyto, oligo (Asteraceae, preference for Senecio) [48,52] 2 20.08
OXYCARENIDAE
Metopoplax origani (Kolenati, 1845)phyto, oligo (Asteraceae)[53] 4 53120.48
RHYPAROCHROMIDAE
Rhyparochromus vulgaris (Schilling, 1829) phyto, poly (seed feeder)[48,54] 2 20.08
PENTATOMIDAE
Aelia acuminata (Linnaeus, 1758)phyto, oligo (Poaceae)[55] 12 1 1 140.56
Aelia klugii Hahn, 1833phyto, oligo (Poaceae)[56] 1 10.04
Aelia rostrata (Boheman, 1852)phyto, oligo (Poaceae)[57] 2 20.08
Carpocoris (Carpocoris) purpureipennis (De Geer, 1773)phyto, poly (incl. Asteraceae)[58,59]2 1 30.12
Dolycoris baccarum (Linnaeus, 1758)phyto, poly (incl. Asteraceae)[60] 440.16
Eurydema (Eurydema) oleracea (Linnaeus, 1758)phyto, oligo (Brassicaceae)[58]14 50.20
Eysarcoris ventralis (Westwood, 1837)phyto, poly (incl. Asteraceae)[61] 1 10.04
Graphosoma italicum (Müller, 1766) phyto, oligo (Apiaceae)[62] 1 1 350.20
Peribalus (Peribalus) strictus strictus (Fabricius, 1803)phyto, poly (incl. Asteraceae)[63] 2 20.08
Piezodorus lituratus (Fabricius, 1794)phyto, poly (mainly Fabaceae)[48] 1 10.04
Halyomorpha halys Stål, 1855phyto, poly (incl. Asteraceae)[64] 2 20.08
Zicrona caerulea (Linnaeus, 1758)zoophagous[65] 2 1 30.12
SCUTELLERIDAE
Eurygaster testudinaria testudinaria (Geoffroy, 1785)phyto, poly (mostly Poaceae, Cyperaceae, incl. Asteraceae)[48,66] 220.08
29615943254501813478322082496100.00
Table
Table 3. Vectoring potential and presence of viruses and Mollicutes in true bugs (Hemiptera: Heteroptera) associated with flowering Ambrosia artemisiifolia during 2020–2021 in Slovakia.
Table 3. Vectoring potential and presence of viruses and Mollicutes in true bugs (Hemiptera: Heteroptera) associated with flowering Ambrosia artemisiifolia during 2020–2021 in Slovakia.
Infraorder/Family/SpeciesFood Specialization Carrier/Vector ReferencesAbundance (pcs)Abundance (%)
CIMICOMORPHA
MIRIDAE
Adelphocoris lineolatus (Goeze, 1778)phyto, poly (Fabaceae, eggs are laid to some Asteraceae)Ca. P. solani (16Sr XII) (carrier) [73]48119.27
Aster yellows phytoplasma (16SrI-C and 16SrI-F) (carrier)[74]
Lygocoris (Lygocoris) pabulinus (Linnaeus, 1761)phyto, polyErwinia amylovora (pear shoots) (vector)[75]30.12
Lygus pratensis (Linnaeus, 1758)phyto, poly (incl. Asteraceae)Ca. P. solani (16Sr XII) (mixed sample of L. pratensis and L. rugulipennis) (carrier)[76]1716.85
Potato leaf roll virus (PLRV), Potato virus Y (PVY), Potato virus S (PVS), Potato virus M (PVM), Potato virus A (PVA) (carrier)[77,78]
Lygus rugulipennis (Poppius, 1911)phyto, poly (Asteraceae among the most important)Potato leaf roll virus (PLRV), Potato virus M (PVM) (vector) (Turka 1978 [17])1897.57
X-disease 16SrIII-B (in larva) (carrier) [79]
Ca. P. solani (16Sr XII) (carrier)[73]
Aster yellows phytoplasma (16SrI-C and 16SrI-F) (carrier)[74]
Pseudomonas syringae pv. aptata (sugar beet) (carrier)(Bilewicz-Pawińska 1967 [69])
Orthops (Orthops) campestris (Linnaeus, 1758)phyto, oligo (Apiaceae)Stemphylium radicinum (vector)(Bech 1967 in [80])70.28
PENTATOMOMORPHA
LYGAEIDAE
Nysius ericae ericae (Schilling, 1829)phyto, poly (incl. Asteraceae)Nematospora coryli (on Brassica juncea) (carrier)[67]110044.07
PENTATOMIDAE
Halyomorpha halys (Stål, 1855)phyto, poly (incl. Asteraceae)Paulownia witches’ broom phytoplasma (16SrI-D) (vector)[81]20.08
Table
Table 4. Jaccard similarity index (%) of true bug species on Ambrosia artemisiifolia by pairwise compared sites and quantitative characteristics of the heteropteran guild. Heteroptera were collected throughout southern Slovakia in 2020–2021.
Table 4. Jaccard similarity index (%) of true bug species on Ambrosia artemisiifolia by pairwise compared sites and quantitative characteristics of the heteropteran guild. Heteroptera were collected throughout southern Slovakia in 2020–2021.
SitesBalvanyMalá n/HronommSikeničkaGemerský JablonecTachtyBrehovMalé TrakanyStrážneSvätušeVeľký Horeš
Balvany•245043283328461737
Malá n/Hronom9/28 *•232215172727821
Sikenička6/127/30•60405022672750
GemerskýJablonec6/147/226/10•334017701242
Tachty4/144/334/114/12•5033362338
Brehov5/126/305/85/105/8•23441833
MaléTrakany7/2511/375/235/247/216/20•262528
Strážne6/138/306/97/104/115/96/23•1346
Svätuše5/165/364/144/165/134/138/244/15•17
VeľkýHoreš6/167/346/126/145/125/127/246/135/17•
* The number of same species on both sites/amount of all species in both sites. • not applicable—data for the same location.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tóth, P.; Tóthová, M.; Krchňavá, V.; Ščevková, J. Diversity of True Bugs (Hemiptera: Heteroptera) on Common Ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) in Southern Slovakia. Diversity 2023, 15, 757. https://doi.org/10.3390/d15060757

AMA Style

Tóth P, Tóthová M, Krchňavá V, Ščevková J. Diversity of True Bugs (Hemiptera: Heteroptera) on Common Ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) in Southern Slovakia. Diversity. 2023; 15(6):757. https://doi.org/10.3390/d15060757

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tóth, Peter, Monika Tóthová, Veronika Krchňavá, and Jana Ščevková. 2023. "Diversity of True Bugs (Hemiptera: Heteroptera) on Common Ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) in Southern Slovakia" Diversity 15, no. 6: 757. https://doi.org/10.3390/d15060757

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