How to be a fig wasp parasite on the fig–fig wasp mutualism

Borges, Renée M.

doi:10.1016/j.cois.2015.01.011

Cited by 65 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 52 publications

(73 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition to obligate mutualistic pollinators, many other organisms live in the figs (enclosed inflorescences) (Borges, 2015), including various species of nematodes (Giblin-Davis et al, 1995;Kerdelhue et al, 2000;Van Goor et al, 2018). More than 20 species of nematodes associated with Ficus in the genus Schistonchus sensu lato are described and are largely considered as plant parasites that lead to reduced growth of the florets and indirectly reduced seed production (Davies et al, 2015).…”

Section: Fig Treesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are nematodes costly to fig tree–fig wasp mutualists?

Shi

Miao

Segar

et al. 2019

Entomologia Exp Applicata

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most mutualisms are exploited by parasites, which must strike an evolutionary balance between virulence and long‐term persistence. Fig‐associated nematodes, living inside figs and dispersed by fig wasps, are thought to be exploiters of the fig–fig wasp mutualism. The life history of nematodes is synchronized with the fig development and adapted to particular developmental characteristics of figs. We expect host breeding systems (monoecious vs. gynodioecious figs) and seasonality to be central to this adaptation. However, the details of the adaptation are largely unknown. Here, we conducted the first field surveys on the prevalence of nematodes from monoecious Ficus microcarpa L.f. (Moraceae), gynodioecious Ficus hispida L.f., and their pollinating fig wasps in two seasons and two developmental stages of figs in Xishuangbanna, China. We followed this up by quantifying the effects of nematodes on fitness‐related traits on fig wasps (e.g., egg loads, pollen grains, and longevity) and fig trees (seed production) in gynodioecious F. hispida. The magnitude of nematode infection was compared between pre‐ and post‐dispersal pollinators to quantify the probability of nematodes being transported to new hosts. Our results showed that Ficophagus microcarpus (Nematoda: Aphelenchoididae) was the only nematode in F. microcarpa. In F. hispida, Martininema guangzhouensis (Nematoda: Aphelenchoididae) was the dominant nematode species, whereas Ficophagus centerae was rare. For both species of Ficus, rainy season and inter‐floral figs had higher rates of nematode infection than the dry‐hot season and receptive figs. Nematodes did not affect the number of pollen grains or egg loads of female wasps. We did not detect a correlation between seed production and nematode infection. However, carrying nematodes reduced the lifespan and dispersal ability of pollinator wasps, indicating higher rates of post‐emergence mortality in infected fig wasps. Severely infected fig wasps were likely ‘filtered out’, preventing the overexploitation of figs by wasps and stabilizing the interaction over evolutionary time.

show abstract

Section: Fig Treesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are nematodes costly to fig tree–fig wasp mutualists?

Shi

Miao

Segar

et al. 2019

Entomologia Exp Applicata

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…pollen‐receptive or interfloral stage (Proffit et al ., ; Ranganathan et al ., ). The non‐pollinating fig wasps (NPFWs) that arrive at different times during syconial development are either shorter‐lived gallers that do not feed as adults in most fig–fig wasp systems (capital breeders) or longer‐lived parasitoids that feed in the adult stage (income breeders) (Jousselin et al ., ; Ghara & Borges, ; Borges, ). With variation in life‐history traits and high host specificity, fig wasps therefore provide an excellent opportunity to understand the effect of physiology on oviposition host acceptance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…pollen-receptive or interfloral stage (Proffit et al, 2007;Ranganathan et al, 2010). (Jousselin et al, 2008;Borges, 2015). With variation in life-history traits and high host specificity, fig wasps therefore provide an excellent opportunity to understand the effect of physiology on oviposition host acceptance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why resource history matters: age and oviposition history affect oviposition behaviour in exploiters of a mutualism

Yadav

Borges

2018

Ecological Entomology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. Acceptance of hosts for oviposition is often hardwired in short‐lived insects, but can be dynamic at the individual level due to variation in physiological state determinants such as ageing and prior oviposition. However, the effect of the oviposition history of resources together with time taken to accept less preferred hosts in ageing insects has rarely been investigated. 2. The time taken by parasitic fig wasps to accept resources with different oviposition histories was recorded in order to investigate the effect of wasp physiological state and resource oviposition history on oviposition behaviour. These wasps, which differ in life‐history traits, oviposit at specific developmental stages of enclosed fig inflorescences called syconia. 3. Behavioural assays were performed with naive wasps and wasps aged with and without prior oviposition experience. Syconia at the same developmental stage but differing in oviposition history were offered in no‐choice assays and the time taken to first oviposition attempt was recorded. 4. One short‐lived pro‐ovigenic galler species exhibited a decline with age in time taken to accept a syconium for oviposition. The exact timing of the transition from non‐acceptance to acceptance of less preferred syconia was determined in terms of the proportion of elapsed life span at the transition; this occurred at 25% of elapsed life span. 5. Longer‐lived parasitoids did not show any decline in specificity despite being aged for 50% of their life span. Therefore, host quality, trophic position, egg load and age may individually affect oviposition decisions or have interaction effects.

show abstract

“…These wasps could be gallers, kleptoparasites feeding on galled plant tissue, parasitoids or hyperparasitoids and develop within the syconium (Cook and Rasplus, 2003;Herre et al, 2008;Borges, 2015). All wasp species are usually highly specific to their natal fig species (Herre et al, 2008;Jousselin et al, 2008); however, a single parasitoid wasp species may parasitise several wasp species developing within the same syconium or in the same fig species Ghara et al, 2014;Borges, 2015). Therefore, in this tritrophic interaction, the predatory parasitoids could be generalists at the prey level but are specialists at the host plant level (sensu Vet and Dicke, 1992).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%