Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:30:48.438Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

AGE-SPECIFIC PATTERN OF HOST DISCRIMINATION BY THE APHID PARASITOID EPHEDRUS CALIFORNICUS BAKER (HYMENOPTERA: APHIDIIDAE)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

W. Völkl  and
M. Mackauer
W. Völkl
Affiliation:
Lehrstuhl für Tierökologie I, Universität Bayreuth, D-8580 Bayreuth, West Gemany
M. Mackauer*
Affiliation:
Centre for Pest Management, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada V5A 1S6
*
1 Author to whom reprint requests should be addressed.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The solitary aphid parasitoid Ephedrus californicus Baker is able to discriminate between unparasitized and parasitized third-instar nymphs of the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris). Superparasitism varied with the number of mature eggs (which is age-dependent) present in the ovaries as well as with the number and the quality of any hosts encountered. Conspecific superparasitism varied with wasp age; older females, with a large egg supply, accepted hosts parasitized by a conspecific female if unparasitized aphids were unavailable. Self superparasitism occurred at all ages; it was the least likely behaviour compared with egg deposition in unparasitized and conspecific-parasitized hosts. Prior experience (learning) was not necessary for host discrimination, but it did influence the search rate, which was higher in inexperienced than experienced females. In choice experiments, wasps preferred conspecific- over self-parasitized aphids and thus were able to distinguish between them. It is suggested that oviposition markers vary among conspecific females. The data are discussed with reference to theories about oviposition decisions and progeny allocation in solitary hymenopteran parasitoids.

Résumé

Le parasitoïde solitaire Ephedrus californicus Baker est capable de discriminer entre des nymphes de troisième stade parasitées et non-parasitées du puceron du pois, Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris). Le niveau de superparasitisme a varié avec le nombre d’oeufs (qui dépend de l’âge) présents dans les ovaires ainsi qu’avec le nombre et la qualité de tout hôte rencontré. Le niveau de superparasitisme con-spécifique a varié avec l’âge des guêpes; des femelles âgées et possédant une grande réserve d’oeufs ont accepté des hôtes parasités par une femelle con-spécifique si des pucerons non-parasités n’étaient pas disponibles. Le superparasitisme personnel s’est produit à tous les âges; c’était le comportement le moins probable lorsque comparé à la ponte d’oeufs dans des hôtes non-parasités ou parasités par des individus con-spécifiques. Une expérience antérieure (apprentissage) n’a pas été nécessaire pour la discrimination d’hôtes, mais a influencé le taux de recherche, lequel était plus élevé chez les femelles sans expérience. Dans des tests de choix, les guêpes ont préféré des pucerons parasités par des individus con-spécifiques à des pucerons parasités par elles-mêmes et étaient donc capables de distinguer entre les deux. Il est suggéré que les marqueurs d’oviposition varient entre les femelles con-spécifiques. Les données sont discutées dans le contexte des théories concernant les décisions d’oviposition et l’allocation de la progéniture chez des hyménoptères parasitoïdes solitaires.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 122 , Issue 2 , April 1990 , pp. 349 - 361
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1990

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

Alphen, J.J.M. van. 1988. Patch time allocation by insect parasitoids: superparasitism and aggregation. pp. 215–221in de Jong, G. (Ed.), Population Genetics and Evolution. Springer Verlag, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alphen, J.J.M. van, van Dijken, M.J., and Waage, J.K.. 1987. A functional approach to superparasitism: host discrimination needs not be learnt. Neth. J. Zool. 37: 167–179.Google Scholar
Alphen, J.J.M. van, and Nell, H.W.. 1982. Superparasitism and host discrimination by Asobara tabida Nees (Braconidae, Alysiinae), a larval parasitoid of Drosophilidae. Neth. J. Zool. 32: 232–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alphen, J.J.M. van, and Vet, L.E.M.. 1986. An evolutionary approach to host finding and selection. pp. 23–61in Waage, J., and Greathead, D. (Eds.), Insect Parasitoids. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Bakker, K., J.J.M. van Alphen, van Batenburg, F.H.D.van der Hoeven, N., Nell, H.W., van Strienvan Liempt, W.F.T.H., and Turlings, T.C.J.. 1985. The function of host discrimination and superparasitism in parasitoids. Oecologia 67: 572–576.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bakker, K., Eijsackers, H.J.P., van Lenteren, J.C., and Meelis, E.. 1972. Some models describing the distribution of eggs of the parasitoid Pseudeucoila bochei (Hym.: Cynip.) over its host, larvae of Drosophila melanogaster. Oecologia 10: 29–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birgersson, G., Schlyter, F., Bergström, G., and Löfqvist, J.. 1988. Individual variation in aggregation pheromone content of the bark beetle Ips typographus. J. chem. Ecol. 14: 1737–1761.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bishop, Y.M.M., Fienberg, S.E., and Holland, P.W.. 1975. Discrete Multivariate Analysis: Theory and Practice. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Breed, M.D., Stiller, T.M., and Moor, M.J.. 1988. The ontogeny of kin discrimination cues in the honey bee, Apis mellifera. Behav. Gen. 18: 439–448.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Charnov, E.L., and Skinner, S.W.. 1984. Evolution of host selection and clutch size in parasitoid wasps. Flor. Ent. 67: 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charnov, E.L., and Skinner, S.W.. 1985. Complementary approaches to the understanding of parasitoid oviposition decisions. Environ. Ent. 14: 383–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chow, F.J., and Mackauer, M.. 1984. Inter- and intraspecific larval competition in Aphidius smithi and Praon pequodorum (Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae). Can. Ent. 116: 1097–1107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chow, F.J., and Mackauer, M.. 1986. Host discrimination and larval competition in the aphid parasite Ephedrus californicus. Entomologia exp. appl. 41: 243–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cloutier, C. 1984. The effect of host density on egg distribution by the solitary parasitoid Aphidius nigripes (Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae). Can. Ent. 116: 805–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cloutier, C., Dohse, L.A., and Bauduin, F.. 1984. Host discrimination in the aphid parasitoid Aphidius nigripes. Can. J. Zool. 62: 1367–1372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, M.B., and Mackauer, M.. 1987. Intrinsic rate of increase and temperature coefficients of the aphid parasite Ephedrus californicus Baker (Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae). Can. Ent. 119: 231–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, M.D., and Dixon, A.F.G.. 1986. The effect of egg depletion on the foraging behaviour of an aphid parasitoid. J. appl. Ent. 102: 342–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijken, M.J. van, and Waage, J.K.. 1987. Self and conspecific superparasitism in Trichogramma evanescens. Entomologia exp. appl. 43: 183–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doutt, R.L., Annecke, D.P., and Tremblay, E.. 1976. Biology and host relationships of parasitoids. pp. 143–168in Huffaker, C.B., and Messenger, P.S. (Eds.), Theory and Practice of Biological Control. Academic Press, New York, NY.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fienberg, S.E. 1981. The Analysis of Cross-Classified Categorical Data, 2nd ed. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Fisher, R.C. 1971. Aspects of the physiology of endoparasitic Hymenoptera. Biol. Rev. 46: 243–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzpatrick, S.M., Miller, D., Weatherston, I., and McNeil, J.N.. 1985. Determining pheromone content of hair-pencils from individual virgin males of Pseudaletia unipuncta (Haw.) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J. chem. Ecol. 11: 207–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Force, D.C., and Messenger, P.S.. 1965. Laboratory studies on competition among three parasites of the spotted alfalfa aphid Therioaphis maculata (Buckton). Ecology 46: 853–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, S.M., Ward, S.A., and Dixon, A.F.G.. 1984. Limitation of superparasitism by Aphidius rhopalosiphi: a consequence of aphid defensive behaviour. Ecol. Ent. 9: 149–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greany, P.D., and Oatman, E.R.. 1972. Analysis of host discrimination in the parasite Orgilus lepidus (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 65: 377–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guillot, F.S., and Vinson, S.B.. 1972. Sources of substances which elicit a behavioural response from the insect parasitoid Campoletis perdistinctus. Nature 235: 169–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, J.'t, de Jonge, J., Colle, C., Dicks, M., van Lenteren, J.C., and Ramakers, P.. 1978. Host selection, host discrimination and functional response of Aphidius matricariae Haliday (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), a parasite of the green peach aphid Myzus persicae (Sulz.). Med. Fac. Landbouww. Rijksuniv. Gent. 43: 441–453.Google Scholar
Hofsvang, T., and Hågvar, E.B.. 1983. Superparasitism and host discrimination by Ephedrus cerasicola (Hym.: Aphidiidae), an aphid parasitoid of Myzus persicae (Hom.: Aphididae). Entomophaga 28: 379–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubbard, S.F., Marris, G., Reynolds, A., and Rowe, G.W.. 1987. Adaptive patterns in the avoidance of superparasitism by solitary parasitic wasps. J. Anim. Ecol. 56: 387–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, R.N. 1979. Optimal diets under the energy maximization principle: the effects of recognition time and learning. Am. Nat. 113: 209–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivanova-Kasas, O.M. 1956. Vergleichende Studien an Embryonal-Entwicklung von Aphidius und Ephedrus (Hymenoptera, Aphidiidae). Ent. Obozr. 35: 245–261. [In Russian.]Google Scholar
Iwasa, Y., Suzuki, Y., and Matsuda, H.. 1984. Theory of oviposition strategy of parasitoids. I. Effect of mortality and limited egg number. Theor. Pop. Biol. 26: 205–227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackson, D.J. 1966. Observations on the biology of Caraphractus cinctus Walker (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae), a parasitoid of the eggs of Dytiscidae. III. The adult life and the sex ratio. Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 118: 23–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kambhampati, S., Mackauer, M., and Panno, J.P.. 1987. Evaluation of egg frequency distributions in the pea-aphid parasite Aphidius smithi (Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae) by pattern analysis. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 80: 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klomp, H., Teerink, B.J., and Wei Chung Ma, . 1980. Discrimination between parasitized and unparasitized hosts in the egg parasite Trichogramma embryophagum (Hym.: Trichogrammatidae): a matter of learning and forgetting. Neth. J. Zool. 30: 254–277.Google Scholar
Lenteren, J.C. van. 1976. The development of host discrimination and the prevention of superparasitism in the parasite Pseudeucoila bochei Weld (Hym.: Cynipidae). Neth. J. Zool. 26: 1–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenteren, J.C. van. 1981. Host discrimination by parasitoids. pp. 153–179in Nordlund, D.A., Jones, R.L., and Lewis, W.J. (Eds.), Semiochemicals: Their Role in Pest Control. Wiley-Interscience, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Lenteren, J.C. van, and Bakker, K.. 1975. Discrimination between parasitized and unparasitized hosts in the parasitic wasp Pseudeucoila bochei: a matter of learning. Nature 254: 417–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, S.-S., and Morton, R.. 1986. Distribution of superparasitism in the aphid parasite Aphidius sonchi. Entomologia exp. appl. 40: 141–145.Google Scholar
Löfstedt, C., Lanne, B.S., Lindqvist, J., Appelgren, M., and Bergström, G.. 1985. Individual variation in the pheromone of the turnip moth, Agrotis segetum. J. chem. Ecol. 11: 1181–1196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mackauer, M. 1983. Quantitative assessment of Aphidius smithi (Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae): fecundity, intrinsic rate of increase, and functional response. Can. Ent. 115: 399–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackauer, M. 1990. Host discrimination and larval competition in solitary endoparasitoids. pp. 41–62in Mackauer, M., Ehler, L.E., and Roland, J. (Eds.), Critical Issues in Biological Control. Intercept, Andover, Hants.Google Scholar
Moritz, R.F.A. 1988. Group relatedness and kin discrimination in honey bees Apis mellifera. Anim. Beh. 36: 1334–1340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, P.W. 1970. Trail odors: recognition by insects parasitic on cocoons. Science 170: 546–547.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rabb, R.L., and Bradley, J.R.. 1970. Marking host eggs by Telenomus sphingis. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 63: 1053–1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, D. 1972. The ichneumon wasp Venturia canescens: oviposition and avoidance of superparasitism. Entomologia exp. appl. 15: 190–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sachs, L. 1978. Angewandte Statistik, 5th ed. Springer Verlag, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salt, G. 1937. The sense used by Trichogramma to distinguish between parasitized and unparasitized hosts. Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 122: 57–75.Google Scholar
Salt, G. 1961. Competition among insect parasites. Symp. Soc. exp. Biol. 15: 96–119.Google Scholar
Singh, R., and Sinha, T.B.. 1982. Factors responsible for the superparasitic ability of the parasitoid wasp Trioxys indicus (Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae). Ent. gen. 7: 295–300.Google Scholar
Singh, R., and Sinha, T.B.. 1983. The development of the ability of host discrimination in the parasitoid wasp Trioxys indicus (Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae). Ent. gen. 8: 225–234.Google Scholar
Smith, H.S. 1916. An attempt to redefine the host relationships exhibited by entomophagous insects. J. econ. Ent. 12: 288–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sokal, R.R., and Rohlf, F.J.. 1981. Biometry, 2nd ed. Freeman, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
Sorokina, A.P. 1970. Structure and development of the reproductive organs and potential fecundity in the female of some aphid parasites (Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae). Ent. Rev., Wash. 49: 27–31.Google Scholar
Sugimoto, T., Uenichi, M., and Machida, F.. 1986. Foraging for patchily-distributed leaf-miners by the parasitoid, Dapsilarthra rufiventris (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). I. Discrimination of previously searched leaflets. Appl. Ent. Zool. 21: 500–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takasu, K., and Hirose, Y.. 1988. Host discrimination in the parasitoid Ooencyrtus nezarae: the role of the egg stalk as an external marker. Entomologia exp. appl. 47: 45–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waage, J.K. 1986. Family planning in parasitoids: adaptive patterns of progeny and sex allocation. pp. 63–95in Waage, J., and Greathead, D. (Eds.), Insect Parasitoids. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Waage, J.K., and Godfray, H.C.J.. 1985. Reproductive strategies and population ecology of insect parasitoids. pp. 449–470in Sibly, R.M., and Smith, R.H. (Eds.), Behavioural Ecology. Ecological Consequences of Adaptive Behaviour. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Wylie, H.G. 1971. Oviposition restraint of Muscidifurax zaraptor (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) on parasitized housefly pupae. Can. Ent. 103: 1537–1544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar