Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:14:56.466Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

MARKING THE PACKAGE OR ITS CONTENTS: HOST DISCRIMINATION AND ACCEPTANCE IN THE ECTOPARASITOID DENDROCERUS CARPENTERI (HYMENOPTERA: MEGASPILIDAE)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Andrew Chow  and
Manfred Mackauer
Andrew Chow
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada V5A 1S6
Manfred Mackauer*
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada V5A 1S6
*
1Author to whom all correspondence should he addressed.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Dendrocerus carpenteri (Curtis) was reared in the laboratory on prepupae of Aphidius ervi Haliday (Hymenoptera: Braconidae, Aphidiinae) developing in pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris) (Hemiptera: Aphididae). To test alternative hypotheses about host-marking behaviour and discrimination, we transferred unparasitized and previously parasitized A. ervi prepupae from donor to recipient mummies, which were either "unparasitized" or "parasitized." Females accepted already parasitized hosts within unparasitized mummies, but they rejected unparasitized hosts within previously parasitized mummies. Host discrimination was not influenced by self and conspecific parasitism. Eggs were frequently placed directly on the mummy shell, rather than on the primary parasitoid, or on dummies made from dental wax. Prepupae removed from their mummy shell were not accepted for oviposition. We propose that the "search template" of D. carpenteri is defined, primarily, by the aphid mummy, which is being marked with a contact pheromone after oviposition.

Résumé

Dendrocerus carpenteri (Curtis) a fait l’objet d’élevages en laboratoire sur des prénymphes d’Aphidius ervi Haliday (Hymenoptera : Braconidae, Aphiddinae) en développement sur des Pucerons du pois, Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris) (Hemiptera : Aphididae). Afin de vérifier diverses hypothèses sur le comportement de marquage et de reconnaissance de l’hôte, nous avons transféré des prénymphes non parasitées et des prénymphes préalablement parasitées d’A. ervi de leur donneur à des cadavres de pucerons receveurs « non parasités » ou « parasités ». Les femelles acceptaient les hôtes déjà parasités sur les cadavres non parasités, mais rejetaient les hôtes non parasités sur les cadavres préalablement parasités. Les femelles étaient incapables de faire la distinction entre les hôtes qu’elles avaient elles-mêmes parasités antérieurement et ceux qui avaient été parasités par d’autres femelles conspécifiques. Les oeufs étaient fréquemment déposés sur la coque de la dépouille du puceron plutôt que sur le parasitoïde primaire ou sur des leurres fabriqués de cire dentaire. Les prénymphes retirées de la coque n’étaient pas acceptées et les guêpes n’y pondaient pas. Nous croyons que le « schéma de recherche » de D. carpenteri est déterminé surtout par le cadavre du puceron qui est marqué au moyen d’une phéromone de contact après la ponte.

[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 131 , Issue 4 , August 1999 , pp. 495 - 505
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1999

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

Bocchino, F.J., Sullivan, D.J. 1981. Effects of venoms from two aphid hyperparasitoids, Asaphes lucens and Dendrocerus carpenteri (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae and Megaspilidae), on larvae of Aphidius smithi (Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae). The Canadian Entomologist 113: 887–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosque, C., Rabinovitch, J.E. 1979. Population dynamics of Telenomus fariai (Hymenoptera: Scelionidae), a parasite of Chagas' disease vectors. VII. Oviposition behavior and host discrimination. The Canadian Entomologist 111: 171–80Google Scholar
Budenberg, W.J. 1990. Honeydew as a contact kairomone for aphid parasitoids. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 55: 139–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chow, A., Mackauer, M. 1996. Sequential allocation of offspring sexes in the hyperparasitoid wasp, Dendrocerus carpenteri. Animal Behaviour 51: 859–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chow, A., Mackauer, M. 1999. Host handling and specificity of the hyperparasitoid wasp, Dendrocerus carpenteri: importance of host age and species. Journal of Applied Entomology. 123: 83–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chow, F.J., Mackauer, M. 1986. Host discrimination and larval competition in the aphid parasite Ephedrus californicus. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 41: 243–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conti, E., Jones, W.A., Bin, F., Vinson, S.B. 1997. Oviposition behavior of Anaphes iole, an egg parasitoid of Lygus hesperus (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae; Heteroptera: Miridae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 90: 91–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, J.P., Hughes, J.P., Harvey, I.F. 1994. Life expectancy and egg load affect oviposition decisions of a solitary parasitoid. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B Biological Sciences 258: 163–67.Google ScholarPubMed
Godfray, H.C.J. 1994. Parasitoids. Behavioral and evolutionary ecology. Princeton: Princeton University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haviland, M.D. 1921. On the bionomics and development of Lygocerus testaceimanus Kieffer, and Lygocerus cameroni Kieffer (Proctotrypoidea—Ceraphronidae), parasites of Aphidius. Quarterly Journal of Microscopic Science 65: 101–27Google Scholar
Hoffmeister, T.S., Roitberg, B.D. 1997. To mark the host or the patch: decisions of a parasitoid searching for concealed host larvae. Evolutionary Ecology 11: 145–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höller, C., Hörmann, R. 1993. Patch marking in the aphid hyperparasitoid, Dendrocerus carpenteri: the information contained in patch marks. Oecologia 94: 128–34Google Scholar
Höller, C., Williams, H.J., Vinson, S.B. 1991. Evidence for a two-component external marking pheromone system in an aphid hyperparasitoid. Journal of Chemical Ecology 17: 1021–35Google Scholar
Höller, C., Bargen, H., Vinson, S.B., Braune, H.J. 1993. Sources of the marking pheromones used for host discrimination in the hyperparasitoid Dendrocerus carpenteri. Journal of Insect Physiology 39: 649–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höller, C., Bargen, H., Vinson, S.B., Witt, D. 1994. Evidence for the external use of juvenile hormone for host marking and regulation in a parasitic wasp, Dendrocerus carpenteri. Journal of Insect Physiology 40: 317–22CrossRefGoogle 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. Andover, United Kingdom: InterceptGoogle Scholar
Mackauer, M., Lardner, R.M. 1995. Sex-ratio bias in an aphid parasitoid-hyperparasitoid association: a test of two hypotheses. Ecological Entomology 20: 118–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otto, M., Mackauer, M. 1998. The developmental strategy of an idiobiont ectoparasitoid, Dendrocerus carpenteri: influence of variations in host quality on offspring growth and fitness. Oecologia 117: 353–64CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pschorn-Walcher, H. 1957. Probleme der Wirtswahl parasitischer Insekten. Bericht über die 8. Wander-versammlung Deutscher Entomologen, München, pp. 79–85Google Scholar
Rabb, R.L., Bradley, J.R. 1970. Marking host eggs by Telenomus sphingis. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 63: 1053–56Google Scholar
Rosenheim, J.A., Rosen, D. 1992. Influence of egg load and host size on host-feeding behaviour of the parasitoid Aphytis lingnanensis. Ecological Entomology 17: 263–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scholz, D., Höller, C. 1992. Competition for hosts between two hyperparasitoids of aphids, Dendrocerus laticeps and Dendrocerus carpenteri (Hymenoptera: Megaspilidae): the benefit of interspecific host discrimination. Journal of Insect Behavior 5: 289–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheehan, W., Wäckers, F.L., Lewis, W.J. 1993. Discrimination of previously searched, host-free sites by Microplitis croceipes (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Journal of Insect Behavior 6: 323–31Google Scholar
Sokal, R.R., Rohlf, F.J. 1995. Biometry. 3rd ed. New York: FreemanGoogle Scholar
Spencer, H. 1926. Biology of the parasites and hyperparasites of aphids. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 19: 119–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starý, P. 1977. Dendrocerus-hyperparasites of aphids in Czechoslovakia (Hymenoptera: Ceraphronoidea). Acta Entomologica Bohemoslovaca 74: 1–9Google Scholar
Sullivan, D.J. 1987. Insect hyperparasitism. Annual Review of Entomology 32: 49–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, D.J. 1988. Hyperparasites. pp. 189–203in Minks, A.K. and Harrewijn, P. (Eds.), Aphids: Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. World Crop Pests, Vol. 2B. Amsterdam: ElsevierGoogle Scholar
Takada, H. 1973. Studies on aphid hyperparasites of Japan, I. Aphid hyperparasites of the genus Dendrocerus Ratzeburg (Hymenoptera: Ceraphronidae). Insecta Matsumurana 2: 1–37Google Scholar
van Alphen, J.J.M., Visser, M.E. 1990. Superparasitism as an adaptive strategy for insect parasitoids. Annual Review of Entomology 35: 59–79CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Völkl, W., Kranz, P. 1995. Nocturnal activity and resource utilization in the aphid hyperparasitoid, Dendrocerus carpenteri. Ecological Entomology 20: 293–97Google Scholar