Ecological interactions in Aedes species on Reunion Island

Two invasive, container‐breeding mosquito species, Aedes aegypti (Stegomyia aegypti) and Aedes albopictus (Stegomyia albopicta) (Diptera: Culicidae), have different distribution patterns on Reunion Island. Aedes albopictus occurs in all areas and Ae. aegypti colonizes only some restricted areas already occupied by Ae. albopictus. This study investigates the abiotic and biotic ecological mechanisms that determine the distribution of Aedes species on Reunion Island. Life history traits (duration of immature stages, survivorship, fecundity, estimated finite rate of increase) in Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus were compared at different temperatures. These fitness measures were characterized in both species in response to competitive interactions among larvae. Aedes aegypti was drastically affected by temperature, performing well only at around 25 °C, at which it achieved its highest survivorship and greatest estimated rate of increase. The narrow distribution of this species in the field on Reunion Island may thus relate to its poor ability to cope with unfavourable temperatures. Aedes aegypti was also more negatively affected by high population densities and to some extent by interactions with Ae. albopictus, particularly in the context of limited food supplies. Aedes albopictus exhibited better population performance across a range of environmental conditions. Its ecological plasticity and its superior competitive ability relative to its congener may further enhance its invasion success on Reunion Island.     

Does paternity or paternal investment determine the level of paternal care and does female choice explain egg stealing in the fifteen-spined stickleback?

An earlier field study on the fifteen-spined stickleback (Spinachia spinachia) showed that frequent male—male interactionsresult in high frequencies of sneaking and egg stealing. Moreover,sneaking behavior was performed not only by males adoptingalternative mating strategies, but also by males with theirown nests. The advantage of sneaking is easily understood, but it is more difficult to explain the evolutionary benefitof stealing eggs from other males. I investigated whether malessuffering from sneaking adjust their paternal effort in relationto their degree of paternity. I also examined whether femalesprefer males that have more eggs in their nests, as this couldexplain egg stealing. There was no relationship between thedegree of paternity and fanning activity, hatching success,or nest defense. However, the older the eggs become, the morethe males increase their attack rate toward potential egg predators(goldsinny wrasse and shore crabs). Thus, males adjusted theirlevel of defense to the amount of energy and time already investedin the clutch. Females did not prefer males with more eggs intheir nests. On the contrary, females preferred males withreduced clutches over males with enlarged clutches. Therefore,female choice is unlikely to be a driving force behind eggstealing in this species.     

Complex patterns of grooming and sexual activity in Barbary macaques (Macaca sylvanus)

Grooming in primates is often considered a “currency” that can be exchanged for other “services” or “commodities” such as reciprocal grooming, coalitionary support, infant handling, tolerance around food sources, active food sharing, or mating opportunities. Previous studies on primate grooming‐for‐sex exchange viewed the males as the demanding class, with the females as suppliers of mating opportunities. In this study, we examine the broader context of grooming‐for‐mating exchange in Barbary macaques in Gibraltar. Our data show that Barbary macaque males groom females with whom they are mating more frequently and for longer periods than other females, and the relationship between grooming and mating remains significant in both sexual and nonsexual contexts. In addition, females groomed males with whom they were mating more frequently and for longer periods than other males. In both sexes, grooming was observed to be far more frequent and to occur for longer durations in sexual compared to nonsexual contexts. We did not find any difference in grooming behavior between presexual and postsexual contexts. Our data suggest that there is no simple model to describe Barbary macaque grooming patterns in sexual contexts. Although our results are partly consistent with male use of grooming as payment for mating, broadly assessed grooming‐mating patterns cannot be solely explained by a male‐driven grooming‐for‐mating exchange.     

Non‐pollinating cheater wasps benefit from seasonally poor performance of the mutualistic pollinating wasps at the northern limit of the range of Ficus microcarpa

1. Species interactions in tightly bound ecological mutualisms often feature highly specialised species' roles in which competitive exclusion may preclude multi‐species coexistence. Among the 800 fig (Ficus) species, it was originally considered that each was pollinated by their own wasp (Agaonidae). However, recent investigations show that this ‘one‐to‐one’ rule often breaks down, as fig species regularly host multiple agaonids but in ways suggesting that competitive processes still mediate biodiversity outcomes. 2. A phenological survey was conducted of the fig–fig wasp pair, Ficus microcarpa and its associated pollinating wasp, alongside its sister species, the cheating wasp, in Xishuangbanna, China. 3. Reproductive output underwent extreme seasonal variation. Seed and pollinator production fell markedly during cooler, drier months, although high levels of fig production continued. However, this resource was predominantly utilised by the cheater species, which offers no pollination services. Pollinators and cheaters rarely co‐occur, suggesting that temporal coexistence is constrained by competition for access to figs. 4. The overall findings indicate periodic rearrangements of mutualism dynamics, probably resulting from a strongly seasonal environment. Sympatric co‐occurrence may result from a window of opportunity for a functionally divergent agaonid, potentially due to constraints on the main pollinator in adapting to variable year‐round conditions that prevent competitive exclusion.     

Potential interspecific competition and host specificity: hispine beetles on Heliconia

Abstract. 1. Adults of rolled-leaf hispine beetles (Chrysomelidae, Coleoptera) spend their lives in the scrolls formed by immature leaves of Heliconia (Heli-coniaceae, Monocotyledonae) in Tropical America. As many as eight hispine species can intermingle in the host scrolls at a single site. Scrolls of single host species are invariably occupied by adults of more than one hispine species, and as many as five species can simultaneously occupy one scroll.
2. I made virgin scrolls, which had never contained any insects, by growing leaves under the cover of plastic bags.
3. Thirty-seven combinations of single hispine and Heliconia species were experimentally created in the virgin scrolls, at two sites and in two seasons, in Costa Rica. Combinations included all abundant host species at the sites.
4. All beetles left all leaves of the twenty-eight unnatural beetle—host combinations, within 24 h. On the other hand, none of the nine natural combinations was completely abandoned within the experimental period.
5. Thus, host specificity is not broader in the absence of similar hispine species that might be competitors, and interspecies competition does not affect this obvious aspect of resource utilization for these phytophagous insects.