Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-04T00:34:24.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN SELF- AND CONSPECIFIC-PARASITIZED HOSTS IN THE APHID PARASITOID PRAON PEQUODORUM VIERECK (HYMENOPTERA: APHIDIIDAE)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

T.P. Danyk  and
M. Mackauer
T.P. Danyk
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada V5A 1S6
M. Mackauer*
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada V5A 1S6
*
1Author to whom reprint requests should be sent.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We evaluated host discrimination and oviposition restraint in the wasp Praon pequodorum Viereck, a solitary parasitoid of the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris). In dichotomous preference tests, wasps attacked more unparasitized than equally available parasitized aphids, and more self-parasitized aphids than aphids parasitized by conspecific females. The conditional probability of a female laying an egg into an attacked aphid was independent of the host type. Host discrimination apparently involves a volatile and individual-specific pheromone marker. Females expecting to compete with other (conspecific) wasps for a limited host supply may ensure possession of the host by self superparasitism. Because host examination requires considerably more time than oviposition in P. pequodorum (and eggs contain few resources), it may be adaptive for a female to lay an egg in an examined host regardless of variations in host quality.

Résumé

Nous avons évalué la capacité de reconnaissance des hôtes et la restriction de la ponte chez Praon pequodorum Viereck, une guêpe parasitoïde du Puceron du pois, Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris). Au cours d’épreuves dichotomiques des préférences, les guêpes attaquaient plus volontiers les pucerons non parasités que les pucerons parasités, et plus volontiers les pucerons déjà parasités par elles-mêmes que les pucerons parasités par d’autres femelles de la même espèce. La probabilité conditionnelle d’une femelle de pondre un oeuf dans un puceron déjà parasité est indépendante du type d’hôte. La discrimination entre les hôtes semble faire appel à une phéromone de marquage volatile propre à chaque individu. Les femelles qui ont à faire compétition à d’autres guêpes (de la même espèce) en présence d’un nombre limité d’hôtes peuvent s’assurer la possession d’un hôte par superparasitisme d’hôtes qu’elles ont déjà parasités. Comme l’examen de l’hôte nécessite beaucoup plus de temps que la ponte elle-même chez P. pequodorum (et les oeufs contiennent peu de ressources), il peut être avantageux pour une femelle de pondre un oeuf dans tout hôte examiné, quelle que soit sa qualité.

[Traduit par la rédaction]

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 125 , Issue 5 , October 1993 , pp. 957 - 964
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1993

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

Bai, B. 1991. Conspecific superparasitism in two parasitoid wasps, Aphidius ervi Haliday and Aphelinus asychis Walker: Reproductive strategies influence host discrimination. The Canadian Entomologist 123: 1229–1237.Google Scholar
Bai, B., and Mackauer, M.. 1990. Host discrimination by the aphid parasitoid Aphelinus asychis (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae): When superparasitism is not adaptive. The Canadian Entomologist 122: 363–372.Google Scholar
Bakker, K., van Alphen, J.J.M., van Batenburg, F.H.D., van der Hoeven, N., Nell, H.W., van Strienvan Liempt, W.T.F.H., and Turlings, T.C.J.. 1985. The function of host discrimination and superparasitization in parasitoids. Oecologia 67: 572–576.Google Scholar
Chow, F.J., and Mackauer, M.. 1984. Inter- and intraspecific larval competition in Aphidius smithi and Praon pequodorum (Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae). The Canadian Entomologist 116: 1097–1107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chow, F.J., and Mackauer, M.. 1986. Host discrimination and larval competition in the aphid parasite Ephedrus californicus. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 41: 243–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cloutier, C. 1984. The effect of host density on egg distribution by the solitary parasitoid Aphidius nigripes (Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae). The Canadian Entomologist 116: 805–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R.C. 1961. A study in insect multiparasitism. II. The mechanism and control of competition for possession of the host. Journal of Experimental Biology 38: 605–628.Google Scholar
Fisher, R.C. 1971. Aspects of the physiology of endoparasitic Hymenoptera. Biological Reviews 46: 243–278.Google Scholar
Hubbard, S.F., Marris, G., Reynolds, A., and Rowe, G.W.. 1987. Adaptive patterns in the avoidance of super parasitism by solitary parasitic wasps. Journal of Animal Ecology 56: 387–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kambhampati, S., and Mackauer, M.. 1989. Multivariate assessment of inter- and intraspecific variation in performance criteria of several pea aphid parasites (Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 82: 314–324.Google Scholar
Mackauer, M. 1972. Antennal amputation as a method of bio-marking aphids. Journal of Economic Entomology 65: 1725–1727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackauer, M. 1983. Quantitative assessment of Aphidius smithi (Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae): Fecundity, intrinsic rate of increase, and functional response. The Canadian Entomologist 115: 399–415.Google Scholar
Mackauer, M. 1990. Host discrimination and larval competition in solitary endoparasitoids. pp. 41–62 in Mackauer, M., Ehlers, L.E., and Roland, J. (Eds.), Critical Issues in Biological Control. Intercept, Andover, Hants. xvii + 330 pp.Google Scholar
Mackauer, M., Bai, B., Chow, A., and Danyk, T.. 1992. Asymmetrical larval competition between two species of solitary parasitoid wasps: The influence of superparasitism. Ecological Entomology 17: 233–236.Google Scholar
McBrien, H. 1991. Oviposition Decisions and Larval Competition between the Aphid Parasitoids Aphidius ervi and Aphidius smithi (Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae). Ph.D. thesis, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada. xiv + 122 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 Experimentalis et Applicata 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 Experimentalis et Applicata 59: 145–150.Google Scholar
O'Brien, P.C., and Dyck, P.J.. 1985. A runs test based on run lengths. Biometrics 41: 237–244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Price, P.W. 1970. Trail odours: Recognition by insects parasitic in cocoons. Science 170: 546–547.Google Scholar
Roitberg, B.D., and Mangel, M.. 1988. On the evolutionary ecology of marking pheromones. Evolutionary Ecology 2: 289–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salt, G. 1937. The sense used by Trichogramma to distinguish between parasitized and unparasitized hosts. Proceedings of the Royal Society, London, Series B 122: 57–75.Google Scholar
Salt, G. 1961. Competition among insect parasitoids. Symposium of the Society of Experimental Biology 15: 96–119.Google Scholar
Sokal, R.R., and Rohlf, F.J.. 1981. Biometry, 2nd ed. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, CA. xviii + 859 pp.Google Scholar
Stephens, D.W., and Krebs, J.R.. 1986. Foraging Theory. Monographs in Behavior and Ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. xiv + 247 pp.Google Scholar
Stoltz, D.B. 1986. Interactions between parasitoid-derived products and host insects: An overview. Journal of Insect Physiology 32: 347–350.Google Scholar
van Alphen, J.J.M., and Visser, M.E.. 1990. Superparasitism as an adaptive strategy for insect parasitoids. Annual Review of Entomology 35: 59–79.Google Scholar
van der Hoeven, N., and Hemerik, L.. 1990. Superparasitism as an ESS: To reject or not to reject, that is the question. Journal of Theoretical Biology 146: 467–482.Google Scholar
van Lenteren, J.C. 1981. Host discrimination by parasitoids. pp. 153–179 in Nordlund, D.A., Jones, R.L., and Lewis, W.J. (Eds.), Semiochemicals: Their Role in Pest Control. Wiley-Interscience, New York, NY. xix + 306 pp.Google Scholar
Vinson, S.B. 1990. How parasitoids deal with the immune system of their host: An overview. Archives of Insect Biochemistry and Physiology 13: 3–27.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. Behaviour 114: 21–36.Google Scholar
Visser, M.E., van Alphen, J.J.M., and Nell, H.W.. 1992. Adaptive superparasitism and patch time allocation in solitary parasitoids: The influence of prepatch experience. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 31: 163–171.Google Scholar
Völkl, W., and Mackauer, M.. 1990. Age-specific pattern of host discrimination by the aphid parasitoid Ephedrus californicus Baker (Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae). The Canadian Entomologist 122: 349–361.Google Scholar
Waage, J.K. 1986. Family planning in parasitoids: Adaptive patterns of progeny and sex allocation. pp. 63–95 in Waage, J., and Greathead, D. (Eds.), Insect Parasitoids. Academic Press, London. xvii + 389 pp.Google Scholar