Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T17:54:39.106Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CONSPECIFIC SUPERPARASITISM IN TWO PARASITOID WASPS, APHIDIUS ERVI HALIDAY AND APHELINUS ASYCHIS WALKER: REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGIES INFLUENCE HOST DISCRIMINATION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

B. Bai
B. Bai
Affiliation:
Centre for Pest Management, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada V5A 1S6
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Conspecific host discrimination and larval competition in two aphid parasitoid species were studied in the laboratory using the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris) (Homoptera: Aphididae), as a host. Aphidius ervi Haliday (Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae) used internal host cues to discriminate between unparasitized and conspecific parasitized hosts. When only parasitized hosts were available, females oviposited into recently parasitized ones where their progeny had a good chance to survive, but rejected those parasitized ≥24 h earlier where their offspring normally died. Competitions occurred only after both eggs had hatched. Larvae eliminated supernumeraries by means of physical combat and physiological suppression. In Aphelinus asychis Walker (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae), factors, or changes in host internal condition, associated with hatching of the first egg resulted in suppression of conspecific competitors which could be in either larval or egg stage. The older larvae always won competitions through physiological means. A wasp’s oviposition decision is shown to be influenced by the probability of its progeny’s survival. Species that have different reproductive strategies may respond differently to identical host conditions.

Résumé

La discrimination des hôtes par des individus de la même espèce et la compétition entre larves de deux parasitoïdes du puceron du pois ont été étudiées au laboratoire, en utilisant le puceron du pois, Acyrthosipon pisum (Harris) (Homoptère : Aphididae), comme hôte. Aphidius ervi Haliday (Hymenoptère : Aphidiidae) utilisait des indications internes pour distinguer les hôtes non parasités de ceux parasités par des guêpes de la même espèce. Lorsque les hôtes parasités étaient seul disponibles, les femelles déposaient leurs oeufs dans ceux qui étaient les plus récemment parasités dans lesquels leur progéniture avait une meilleure chance de survivre, mais rejetaient ceux parasités plus de 24 h plus tôt où la descendance mourait. La compétition avait lieu seulement après éclosion des oeufs. Les larves de l’espèce en plus grand nombre étaient éliminées par combat physique et suppression physiologique. Dans Aphelinus asychis Walker (Hymenoptère : Aphidiidae), les facteurs associés à l’éclosion du premier oeuf entrainaient la suppression des compétiteurs de la même espèce qui pouvaient être soit au stade larvaire, soit à l’état d’oeuf. Les larves les plus âgées gagnaient les compétitions toujours par des moyens physiologiques. Il a été montré que la décision d’une guêpe de déposer un oeuf est influencée par la probabilité de survie de la progéniture. Des espèces ayant différentes reproductives stratégies pourraient repondre differemment à d’identiques conditions d’hôtes.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 123 , Issue 6 , December 1991 , pp. 1229 - 1237
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1991

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, 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
Alphen, J.J.M. van, and Visser, M.E.. 1990. Superparasitism as an adaptive strategy for insect parasitoids. A. Rev. Ent. 35: 59–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bai, B., and Mackauer, M.. 1990. Host discrimination by the aphid parasitoid Aphelinus asychis (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae): When superparasitism is not adaptive. Can. Ent. 122: 363–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bai, B., and Mackauer, M.. 1991. Recognition of heterospecific parasitism: Competition between aphidiid (Aphidius ervi) and aphelinid (Aphelinus asychis) parasitoids of aphids. J. Insect Behav. 4: 333–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, K., Peulet, P.H., and Visser, M.E.. 1990. The ability to distinguish between hosts containing different numbers of parasitoid eggs by the solitary parasitoid Leptopilina heterotoma (Thomas) (Hym., Cynip.). Neth. J. Zool. 40: 514–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charnov, E.L., and Stephens, D.W.. 1988. On the evolution of host selection in solitary parasitoids. Am. Nat. 132: 707–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chow, F.J., and Mackauer, M.. 1985. Multiparasitism of the pea aphid: Stage of development of parasite determines survival of Aphidius smithi and Praon pequodorum (Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae). Can. Ent. 117: 133–134.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
Dijken, M.J. van, and Waage, J.D.. 1987. Self and conspecific superparasitism by the egg parasitoid Trichogramma evanescens. Entomologia exp. appl. 43: 183–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R.C. 1961. A study in insect multiparasitism. II. The mechanisms and control of competition for possession of the host. J. Exp. Biol. 38: 605–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R.C. 1971. Aspects of the physiology of endoparasitic Hymenoptera. Biol. Rev. 46: 243–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hågvar, E.B. 1988. Multiparasitism of the green peach aphid, Myzus persicae: Competition in the egg stage between Aphidius matricariae and Ephedrus cerasicola. Entomologia exp. appl. 47: 275–282.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
Mackauer, M. 1959. Histologische Untersuchungen an parasitierten Blattläusen. Zeitschrift für Parasitenkunde 19: 322–352.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
Mangel, M. 1989. Evolution of host selection in parasitoids: Does the state of the parasitoid matter? Am. Nat. 133: 688–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mangel, M., and Clark, C.W.. 1988. Dynamic modelling in behavioral ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. 308 pp.Google Scholar
McBrien, H., and Mackauer, M.. 1990. Heterospecific larval competition and host discrimination in two species of aphid parasitoids: Aphidius ervi and Aphidius smithi. Entomologia exp. appl. 56: 145–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McBrien, H., and Mackauer, M.. 1991. Decision to superparasitize based on larval survival: Competition between aphid parasitoids Aphidius ervi and Aphidius smithi. Entomologia exp. appl. 59: 145–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roitberg, B.D. 1991. Why an evolutionary perspective. In Roitberg, B.D., and Isman, M.B. (Eds.), Evolutionary Perspectives of Chemical Ecology. Chapman and Hall, New York, NY. In press.Google Scholar
Roitberg, B.D., and Mangel, M.. 1989. On the evolutionary ecology of marking pheromones. Evol. Ecol. 2: 289–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salt, G. 1961. Competition among insect parasites. Symp. Soc. exp. Biol. 15: 96–119.Google Scholar
Sokal, R.R., and Rohlf, F.J.. 1981. Biometry, 2nd ed. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, CA. 859 pp.Google Scholar
Tremblay, E. 1966. Ricerche sugli imenotteri parassiti. III. Osservazioni sulla competizione intraspecifica negli Aphidiinae (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Bolletino del Laboratorio di Entomologia Agraria ‘Filippo Silvestri’ di Portici 24: 209–225.Google Scholar
Vinson, S.B. 1990. Physiological interactions between the host genus Heliothis and its guild of parasitoids. Arch. Insect Biochem. Physiol. 13: 63–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visser, M.E., van Alphen, J.J.M., and Nell, H.W.. 1990. Adaptive superparasitism and patch time allocation in solitary parasitoids: The influence of the number of parasitoids depleting a patch. Behavior 114: 21–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Völkl, W., and Mackauer, M.. 1990. Age-specific pattern of host discrimination by the aphid parasitoid Ephedrus californicus Baker (Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae). Can. Ent. 122: 349–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waage, J.D., and Godfray, H.J.C.. 1985. Reproductive strategies and population ecology of insect parasitoids. pp. 449–470in Sibly, R.M., and Smith, R.H. (Eds.), Behavioral Ecology, Ecological Consequences of Adaptive Behavior. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford.Google Scholar