The influence of local mate competition on host–parasitoid dynamics

Meunier, J.; Bernstein, Carlos

doi:10.1016/s0304-3800(01)00491-4

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Interference interactions can take a variety of forms; seen broadly they include not only the rate of parasitism of the current generation of hosts but also influences on the size and sexual composition of the next generation of parasitoids (Visser & Driessen, ; Visser et al., ). Examples include time‐wasting disruption of foraging for hosts without explicitly agonistic interactions between foraging females (Hassell, , ; Cronin & Strong, ; Field et al., ; Wajnberg et al., ; Le Lann et al., ; Yazdani & Keller, ), aggressive patch or brood guarding (Hassell, ; Waage, ; Field et al., ; Goubault et al., ; Nakamatsu et al., ; Venkatesan et al., ,b; de Jong et al., ; Hardy et al., ; Mohamad et al., ), clutch size and superparasitism decisions differing in the presence, or anticipated presence, of competitors (van Alphen & Visser, ; Visser & Driessen, ; Visser et al., ; Visser, ; Field et al., ; Goubault et al., ), and sex allocation decisions contingent on the number of ovipositing ‘foundress’ females present (Hamilton, ; Waage, ; Meunier & Bernstein, ; Irvin & Hoddle, ; Ode & Hardy, ; Luo et al., ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Empirical investigations of factors contributing to mutual interference have often been conducted from the perspective of behavioural ecology but there has also been great interest in their consequences for host–parasitoid population dynamics, in part because this contributes towards explaining population phenomena on the basis of natural selection (Hassell & May, , ; Anderson, ; Cronin & Strong, ; Driessen & Visser, ; Visser et al., ; Bernstein, ; Meunier & Bernstein, ). Typically, mutual interference interactions reduce the per‐host production of female offspring (the sex that attacks future generations of hosts) and will also be more prevalent at higher parasitoid densities: this density‐dependent effect may be expected to contribute to the dynamic stability of host–parasitoid populations, but extreme effects of interference can also lead to predictions that host populations will not be regulated (sufficiently suppressed) by parasitism (Rogers & Hassell, ; Begon et al., ; Bernstein, ; Hassell, ; Kidd & Jervis, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mutual interference reduces offspring production in a brood‐guarding bethylid wasp

Sreenivas

Hardy

2016

Entomologia Exp Applicata

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Parasitoids have the potential to suppress populations of their hosts and thus may play an important role in influencing the temporal and spatial dynamics of pest arthropods. Behavioural interactions between foraging females, collectively constituting 'mutual interference', can reduce host suppression. We use laboratory microcosms to assess the prevalence and consequences of mutual interference behaviour in a bethylid wasp, Goniozus nephantidis (Muesebeck) (Hymenoptera: Bethylidae), which is known to brood guard and to engage in agonistic contests for individual hosts and which is also an agent of biological pest control. We hold host and parasitoid numbers constant and vary the degree of female-female contact that can occur. Mutual interference is manifest in a considerable reduction in the number of offspring produced when females are not fully isolated from each other, due to effects operating at the early stages of offspring production. This mutual interference may contribute towards the limited degree of host population suppression achieved when some species of bethylids are deployed as agents of biological pest control and also has clear potential to influence the efficiency of mass rearing of parasitoids prior to field release.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mutual interference reduces offspring production in a brood‐guarding bethylid wasp

Sreenivas

Hardy

2016

Entomologia Exp Applicata

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Among parasitoids in general, mutual interference can have a variety of causes including delayed searching following encounters, host and patch guarding, fighting behavior, and altered decisions concerning superparasitism, clutch size and sex allocation (e.g. Hassell & May, 1973; Visser et al , 1990; Driessen & Visser, 1997; Meunier & Bernstein, 2002; Goubault et al , 2007; Yazdani & Keller, 2015). Few of these aspects have been directly evaluated in the context of interactions with conspecifics in C. tarsalis but it is known that these parasitoids may occur at moderately high density in stored products (Sedlacek et al , 1998) and agonistic interactions between foraging females have been observed (Collatz et al , 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reproductive efficiency of the bethylid waspCephalonomia tarsalis:the influences of spatial structure and host density

Eliopoulos

Kapranas

Givropoulou

et al. 2016

Bull. Entomol. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The parasitoid wasp Cephalonomia tarsalis (Ashmead) (Hymenoptera: Bethylidae) is 23 commonly present in stored product facilities. While beneficial, it does not provide a high 24 degree of biological pest control against its host, the saw-toothed beetle Oryzaephilus 25 surinamensis (L.) (Coleoptera: Silvanidae). A candidate explanation for poor host population 26 suppression is that adult females interfere with each other's foraging and reproductive 27 behavior. We used simple laboratory microcosms to evaluate such mutual interference in 28 terms of its overall effects on offspring production. We varied the density of the hosts and 29 also the spatial structure of the environment, via the extent of population sub-division and the 30 provision of different substrates. Production of C. tarsalis offspring was positively influenced 31 by host density and by the isolation of females. With incomplete sub-division within 32 microcosms offspring production was, in contrast, low and even zero. The provision of 33 corrugated paper as a substrate enhanced offspring production and partially mitigated the 34 effects of mutual interference. We recommend simple improvements to mass rearing practice 35 and identify promising areas for further behavioral and chemical studies towards a better 36 understanding of the mechanisms of mutual interference. 37 38

show abstract

“…species in which unfertilized eggs produce haploid males and fertilized eggs produce diploid females), there can be a high occurrence of sib‐mating, especially when hosts are patchily distributed, which is often the case in aphids (Völkl, Mackauer, Pell, & Brodeur, ). As a result of this type of mating and to consequent local mate competition, most theoretical models on optimal sex allocation patterns in parasitoids predict female‐biased sex‐ratios (Charnov, Los‐den Hartogh, Jones, & van den Assem, ; Hamilton, ; Werren, ; West, ), but sex‐ratios often decrease as a function of parasitoid and host densities (Meunier & Bernstein, ). Parasitoid density has been previously reported to increase with landscape complexity (i.e.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multi‐scale and antagonist selection on life‐history traits in parasitoids: A community ecology perspective

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Life‐history traits within ecological communities can be influenced by regional environmental conditions (external filters) and community‐wide density‐dependent processes (internal filters). While traits in a regional context may converge to a narrow range of values because of environmental filtering, species belonging to a guild may present contrasting traits as a means of niche differentiation, allowing coexistence whilst exploiting the same resources. To disentangle the role of external and internal filters on phenotypic diversity within ecological communities, we examined the patterns of life‐history trait variation within a guild of insect parasitoids during two successive years across three contrasted regions in relation to several ecological factors. By combining a mean‐field approach and an analysis of phenotypic variance across organizational levels (from individual to guild), we showed that the patterns of life‐history trait variation across regions are consistent with local adaptation or adaptive phenotypic plasticity while the patterns of phenotypic variation within regions suggested how coexistence modulates life‐history traits expression through niche differentiation. Within a given region, phenotypic pattern of parasitoid life‐history traits may also arise from bottom‐up effects of trophic webs: insect host species could also control parasitoid life‐history traits in nature. Our results also showed that parasitoid life‐history traits presented contrasting variation patterns according to the sampling year, suggesting temporal variations in evolutionary and ecological dynamics of parasitoid species. The application of such trait‐based studies to insect parasitoids has the potential to provide further insight on how agricultural environments contribute to differential diversification among natural enemies guilds, highlighting the main role of agricultural landscape management for organisms'responses. A http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2435.13007/suppinfo is available for this article.

show abstract

The influence of local mate competition on host–parasitoid dynamics

Cited by 9 publications

References 35 publications

Mutual interference reduces offspring production in a brood‐guarding bethylid wasp

Mutual interference reduces offspring production in a brood‐guarding bethylid wasp

Reproductive efficiency of the bethylid waspCephalonomia tarsalis:the influences of spatial structure and host density

Multi‐scale and antagonist selection on life‐history traits in parasitoids: A community ecology perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About