Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T03:19:48.479Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Species and sexual differences in behavioural responses of a specialist and generalist parasitoid species to host-related volatiles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 May 2012

E. Ngumbi  and
H. Fadamiro
E. Ngumbi
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849, USA
H. Fadamiro*
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849, USA
*
*Author for correspondence Fax:+1 334 844 5005 E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The relationship between the degree of specialization of parasitoids and their responses to host-related volatiles is an important and current evolutionary question. Specialist parasitoids which have evolved to attack fewer host species are predicted to be more responsive to host-related volatiles than generalists. We tested the above prediction by comparing behavioural responses of both sexes of two parasitoids (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) with different degrees of host specificity, Microplitis croceipes (Cresson) (specialist) and Cotesia marginiventris (generalist), to different suites of synthetic host-related volatile compounds. The compounds tested at two doses (1 and 100μg) include two green leaf volatiles (GLVs: hexanal and (Z)-3-hexen-1-ol) and four herbivore-induced plant volatiles (HIPVs: (Z)-3-hexenyl acetate, linalool, (Z)-3-hexenyl butyrate and (E,E)-α-farnesene). Two hypotheses were tested: (i) M. croceipes (specialist) would show relatively greater behavioural responses to the HIPVs, whereas C. marginiventris (generalist) would show greater behavioural responses to the GLVs, and (ii) females of both species would show greater responses than conspecific males to the host-related volatiles. At the low dose (1μg), females of the specialist showed significantly greater responses than females of the generalist to three of the tested HIPVs, (Z)-3-hexenyl acetate, linalool and (Z)-3-hexenyl butyrate. In contrast, females of the generalist showed relatively greater responses to the GLVs. The same trends were recorded at the high dose but fewer significant differences were detected. In general, similar results were recorded for males, with the exception of linalool (an HIPV) which elicited significantly greater response in the generalist than the specialist. Comparing the sexes, females of both species showed greater responses than conspecific males to most of the tested volatiles. The ecological significance of these findings is discussed.

Keywords

Microplitis croceipesCotesia marginiventrisspecialistgeneralist behaviourherbivore-induced plant volatiles
Type
Research Paper
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 102 , Issue 6 , December 2012 , pp. 710 - 718
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bernays, E.A. (2001) Neural limitations in phytophagous insects: implications for diet breadth and evolution of host affiliation. Annual Review of Entomology 46, 703–727.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, L. & Fadamiro, H.Y. (2007) Differential electroantennogram response of females and males of two parasitoid species to host-related green leaf volatiles and inducible compounds. Bulletin of Entomological Research 97, 515–522.Google Scholar
Cortesero, A.M., De Moraes, C.M., Stapel, J.O., Tumlinson, J.H. & Lewis, W.J. (1997) Comparisons and contrasts in host foraging strategies of two larval parasitoids with different degrees of host specificity. Journal of Chemical Ecology 23, 1589–1606.Google Scholar
D'Alessandro, M. & Turlings, T.C.J. (2005) In situ modification of herbivore-induced plant odors: a novel approach to study the attractiveness of volatile organic compounds to parasitic wasps. Chemical Senses 30, 1–15.Google Scholar
De Boer, J.G. & Dicke, M. (2004) The role of methyl salicylate in prey searching behaviour of the predatory mite Phytoseiulus persimilis. Journal of Chemical Ecology 30, 255–271.Google Scholar
De Moraes, C.M., Lewis, W.J., Pare, P.W., Alborn, H.T. & Tumlinson, J.H. (1998) Herbivore-infested plants selectively attract parasitoids. Nature 393, 570–573.Google Scholar
Dicke, M. (1994) Local and systemic production of volatile herbivore-induced terpenoids: their role in plant-carnivore mutualism. Journal of Plant Physiology 143, 465–472.Google Scholar
Dicke, M. & Sabelis, W.M. (1988) How plants obtain predatory mites as bodyguards. Netherlands Journal of Zoology 38, 148–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dicke, M., Van Baarlen, P., Wessels, R. & Dijkman, H. (1993) Herbivory induces systemic production of plant volatiles that attract predators of the herbivore: extraction of endogenous elicitor. Journal of Chemical Ecology 19, 581–599.Google Scholar
Du, Y.J., Poppy, G.M., Powell, W., Pickett, J.A., Wadhams, L.J. & Woodcock, C.M. (1998) Identification of semiochemicals released during aphid feeding that attract parasitoid Aphidius ervi. Journal of Chemical Ecology 24, 1355–1368.Google Scholar
Eller, F.J. (1990) Foraging behavior of Microplitis croceipes, a parasitoid of Heliothis species. PhD thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.Google Scholar
Elzen, G.W., Williams, H.J., Vinson, S.B. & Powell, J.E. (1987) Comparative flight behaviour of parasitoids Campoletis sonorensis and Microplitis croceipes. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 45, 175–180.Google Scholar
Geervliet, J.B.F., Vet, L.E.M. & Dicke, M. (1996) Innate responses of the parasitoids Cotesia glomerata and C. rubecula (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) to volatiles from different plant herbivore complexes. Journal of Insect Behavior 9, 525–538.Google Scholar
Gouinguené, S.P., Pickett, J.A., Wadhams, L.J., Birkett, M.A. & Turlings, T.C.J. (2005) Antennal electrophysiological responses of three parasitic wasps to caterpillar-induced volatiles from maize (Zea mays mays), cotton, (Gossypium herbaceum), and cowpea (Vigna unguiculata). Journal of Chemical Ecology 31, 1023–1038.Google Scholar
Hoballah, M.E. & Turlings, T.C.J. (2005) The role of fresh versus old leaf damage in the attraction of parasitic wasps to herbivore-induced maize volatiles. Journal of Chemical Ecology 31, 2003–2018.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoballah, M.E, Tamo, C. & Turlings, T.C.J. (2002) Differential attractiveness of induced odors emitted by eight maize varieties for the parasitoid Cotesia marginiventris: is quality or quantity important? Journal of Chemical Ecology 28, 951–968.Google Scholar
Jalali, S.K., Singh, S.K. & Ballal, C.R. (1987) Studies on host age preference and biology of exotic parasite, Cotesia marginiventris (Cresson) (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Entomon 12, 59–62.Google Scholar
Jyothi, K.N., Prasuna, A.L., Sighamony, S., Kumari, B.K., Prasad, A.R. & Yadav, J.S. (2002) Electroantennogram responses of Apanteles obliquae (Hym., Braconidae) to various infochemicals. Journal of Applied Entomology 126, 175–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, E.G., Powell, J.E. & Coleman, R.J. (1985) A high incidence of parasitism of Heliothis spp. (Lepidoptera:Noctuidae) larvae in cotton in southeastern Arkansas. Entomophaga 30, 419–426.Google Scholar
Lewis, W.J. & Burton, R.L. (1970) Rearing Microplitis croceipes in the laboratory with Heliothis zea as host. Journal of Economic Entomology 63, 656–658.Google Scholar
Li, Y., Dickens, J.C. & Steiner, W.W.M. (1992) Antennal olfactory responsiveness of Microplitis croceipes (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) to cotton plant volatiles. Journal of Chemical Ecology 18, 1761–1773.Google Scholar
Loughrin, J.H., Manukian, A., Heath, R.R. & Tumlinson, J.H. (1994) Diurnal cycle emission of induced volatile terpenoids by herbivore-injured cotton plants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 91, 11836–11840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCall, P.J., Turlings, T.C.J., Loughrin, J., Proveaux, A.T. & Tumlinson, J.H. (1994) Herbivore-induced volatile emissions from cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) seedlings. Journal of Chemical Ecology 20, 3039–3050.Google Scholar
Ngumbi, E.N., Chen, L. & Fadamiro, H.Y. (2009) Comparative GC-EAD responses of a specialist (Microplitis croceipes) and a generalist (Cotesia marginiventris) parasitoid to cotton volatiles induced by two caterpillar species. Journal of Chemical Ecology 35, 1009–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ngumbi, E.N., Chen, L. & Fadamiro, H.Y. (2010) Electroantennogram (EAG) responses of Microplitis croceipes and Cotesia marginiventris and their lepidopteran hosts to a wide array of host-related and non host-related compounds: correlation between EAG response and degree of host specificity. Journal of Insect Physiology 56, 1260–1268.Google Scholar
Park, K.C., Zhu, J., Harris, J., Ochieng, S.A. & Baker, T.C. (2001) Electroantennogram responses of a parasitic wasp Microplitis croceipes, to host related volatile and anthropogenic compounds. Physiological Entomology 26, 69–77.Google Scholar
Powell, W., Pennacchio, F., Poppy, G.M. & Tremblay, E. (1998) Strategies involved in the location of hosts by the parasitoid Aphidius ervi Haliday (Hymenoptera: Braconidae: Aphidiinae). Biological Control 11, 104–112.Google Scholar
Reisenman, C.E., Christensen, T.A., Francke, W. & Hildebrand, J.G. (2004) Enantioselectivity of projection neurons innervating identified olfactory glomeruli. The Journal of Neuroscience 24, 2602–2611.Google Scholar
Röse, U.S.R., Lewis, W.J. & Tumlinson, J.H. (1998) Specificity of systemically released cotton volatiles as attractants for specialist and generalist parasitic wasps. Journal of Chemical Ecology 24, 303–319.Google Scholar
SAS Institute (2007) JMP1 7.0.1. SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Shorey, H.H. &. Hale, R.L. (1965) Mass rearing of the larvae of nine noctuid species on a simple artificial medium. Journal of Economic Entomology 58, 55–68.Google Scholar
Smid, H.A., Van Loon, J.J.A., Posthumus, M.A. & Vet, L.E.M. (2002) GC-EAG-analysis of volatiles from brussels sprouts plants damaged by two species of Pieris caterpillars: olfactory receptive range of a specialist and a generalist parasitoid wasp species. Chemoecology 12, 169–176.Google Scholar
Stadelbacher, E.A., Powell, J.E. & King, E.H. (1984) Parasitism of Heliothis zea and Heliothis virescens (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) larvae in wild and cultivated host plants in the Delta of Mississippi. Environmental Entomology 13, 1167–1172.Google Scholar
Turlings, T.C.J., Tumlinson, J.H. & Lewis, J. (1990) Exploitation of herbivore-induced plant odors by host seeking parasitic wasps. Science 250, 1251–1253.Google Scholar
Turlings, T.C.J., Tumlinson, J.H., Eller, F.J. & Lewis, W.J. (1991) Larval damaged plants: source of volatile synomones that guide the parasitoid Cotesia marginiventris to the microhabitat of its hosts. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 58, 75–82.Google Scholar
Vet, L.E.M. & Dicke, M. (1992) Ecology of infochemical use by natural enemies in a tritrophic context. Annual Review of Entomology 37, 141–172.Google Scholar
Vet, L.E.M., Sokolowski, M.B., Macdonald, D.E. & Snellen, H. (1993) Responses of a generalist and a specialist parasitoid (Hymenoptera: Eucoilidae) to Drosophilid larval kairomones. Journal of Insect Behavior 6, 615–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitman, D.W. & Eller, F.J. (1990) Parasitic wasps orient to green leaf volatiles. Chemoecology 1, 69–75.Google Scholar
Whitman, D.W. & Eller, F.J. (1992) Orientation of Microplitis croceipes (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) to green leaf volatiles: dose-response curves. Journal of Chemical Ecology 18, 1743–1753.Google Scholar