首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
   检索      


Performance of secondary parasitoids on chemically defended and undefended hosts
Authors:Saskya van Nouhuys  Joanneke H Reudler  Arjen Biere  Jeffery A Harvey
Institution:1. Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 65, FI-00014, Finland;2. Cornell University, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Corson Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA;3. Centre of Excellence in Evolutionary Research, Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Jyväskylä, P.O. Box 35, FI-40014, Finland;4. Department of Terrestrial Ecology, Netherlands Institute of Ecology, NIOO-KNAW, P.O. Box 50, NL-6700 AB Wageningen, The Netherlands;1. Departamento de Zoología, Universidad de Granada. 18071, Granada, Spain;2. Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Av.Universidad 3000, Circuito Interior S/N, Cuidad Universitaria 70-399, 04510 México, D. F., Mexico;1. Department of Biosciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki 00014, Finland;2. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA;1. Department of Zoology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden;2. Center for Environmental Studies, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA;3. Department of Biology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden;4. Laboratório de Ecologia Molecular e Parasitologia Evolutiva, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil;5. Stellenbosch Institute of Advanced Study, Stellenbosch, South Africa;6. Department of Biology, University of Nevada, Reno, NV, USA;7. Department of Ecology, Environment, and Plant Sciences, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden;8. Animal Parasitic Species Laboratory, US Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, MD?, USA;9. Department of Biology, University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland;10. Department of Geological Sciences, Ohio University, Athens, OH, USA;11. Department of Environmental and Life Sciences, Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden;1. Faculty of Biology, University of Belgrade, Studentski trg 16, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia;2. Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P.O. Box 7044, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden;3. Department of Plant Protection, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Belgrade, Nemanjina 6, 11080 Belgrade, Serbia;4. Laboratory of Agricultural Entomology, Department of Entomology and Agricultural Zoology, Benaki Phytopathological Institute, 8 Stefanou Delta str., 14561 Kifissia, Attica, Greece;5. Agroecology, Department of Crop Sciences, Georg-August-University Göttingen, Grisebachstraße 6, 37077 Göttingen, Germany
Abstract:Defensive chemicals produced by plants can travel up the food chain by being sequestered by herbivores, and then in turn being sequestered by their parasitoids. Insect species with wide host ranges are predicted to perform poorly in the face of specific chemical defence. However, a species at a high trophic level is expected to have a wide host range. This creates a conflict for hyperparasitoids, many of which depend on specialized hosts. We studied the performance of two hyperparasitoids, Lysibia nana and Gelis agilis, both of which have wide host ranges, on two host species, one chemically defended and the other not. We predicted that both hyperparasitoids would perform better using the undefended host Cotesia glomerata than the defended host C. melitaearum, which sequesters terpenoid allelochemicals (iridoid glycosides). Furthermore, we expected that the progeny of G. agilis collected from an area where hosts defended by iridoid glycosides are absent (the Netherlands) would perform poorly using C. melitaearum in comparison with G. agilis collected from an area where C. melitaearum is a common host (Åland, Finland). In a series of laboratory experiments we found that, contrary to prediction, both hyperparasitoids performed well on both hosts, reaching a larger size on C. glomerata, but having a higher conversion efficiency and developing more quickly on the chemically defended C. melitaearum. Lysibia nana metabolized the plant derived iridoid glycosides, which are chemicals that it does not normally encounter. Gelis agilis retained some of the iridoid glycosides. But whereas Finnish G. agilis retained both aucubin and catalpol, Dutch G. agilis mainly retained aucubin, illustrating that though generalists, local populations still cope differently with toxic allelochemicals.
Keywords:
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号