Age-dependent foraging behaviour and host-instar preference of the aphid parasitoid Lysiphlebus cardui

1994 ◽  
Vol 70 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wolfgang W. Weisser
Keyword(s):  
Foraging Behaviour ◽  
Aphid Parasitoid ◽  
Host Instar ◽  
Age Dependent ◽  
Lysiphlebus Cardui

The Effect of Ant-Attendance on the Foraging Behaviour of the Aphid Parasitoid Lysiphlebus cardui

Oikos ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 70 (1) ◽  
pp. 149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wolfgang Völkl ◽  
Wolfgang Volkl
Keyword(s):  
Foraging Behaviour ◽  
Aphid Parasitoid ◽  
Ant Attendance ◽  
Lysiphlebus Cardui

Bottom-up regulation of a tritrophic system by Beet yellows virus infection: consequences for aphid-parasitoid foraging behaviour and development

Oecologia ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 191 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
Loulou Albittar ◽  
Mohannad Ismail ◽  
Gertrud Lohaus ◽  
Arnaud Ameline ◽  
Bertanne Visser ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Virus Infection ◽  
Foraging Behaviour ◽  
Aphid Parasitoid ◽  
Bottom Up ◽  
Tritrophic System ◽  
Beet Yellows Virus ◽  
Parasitoid Foraging

Influence of the aphid pathogen Pandora neoaphidis on the foraging behaviour of the aphid parasitoid Aphidius ervi

2005 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 665-672 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Baverstock ◽  
P. G. Alderson ◽  
J. K. Pell
Keyword(s):  
Foraging Behaviour ◽  
Aphidius Ervi ◽  
Aphid Parasitoid ◽  
Pandora Neoaphidis ◽  
Aphid Pathogen

scholarly journals Walk this way, fly that way: Goniozus jacintae attunes flight and foraging behaviour to leafroller host instar

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emma Aspin ◽  
Michael A. Keller ◽  
Maryam Yazdani ◽  
Ian C.W. Hardy
Keyword(s):  
Foraging Behaviour ◽  
Host Instar

scholarly journals Temperature influences host instar selection in an aphid parasitoid: support for the relative fitness rule

2015 ◽  
Vol 115 (4) ◽  
pp. 792-801 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joffrey Moiroux ◽  
Guy Boivin ◽  
Jacques Brodeur
Keyword(s):  
Relative Fitness ◽  
Aphid Parasitoid ◽  
Host Instar

Host–instar selection in the aphid parasitoid Monoctonus paulensis (Hymenoptera: Braconidae, Aphidiinae): assessing costs and benefits

2001 ◽  
Vol 133 (4) ◽  
pp. 549-564 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda Chau ◽  
Manfred Mackauer
Keyword(s):  
Body Size ◽  
Acyrthosiphon Pisum ◽  
Search Time ◽  
Pea Aphid ◽  
Potential Fecundity ◽  
Aphid Parasitoid ◽  
Offspring Number ◽  
Host Instar ◽  
Parasitoid Development ◽  
Pupal Mortality

AbstractFemales of Monoctonus paulensis (Ashmead), a solitary parasitoid of aphids, generally select the relatively smaller over equally available larger instars of the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris) (Hemiptera: Aphidoidea: Aphididae). Large hosts contain more resources for parasitoid development and hence have presumably higher quality; however, they require more time to subdue and are more likely to escape. We tested the hypothesis that a female’s choice among first (L1), second (L2), third (L3), and fourth (L4) instars of the pea aphid is based on the optimal balance between fitness costs in terms of time and fitness gains in terms of offspring number and size. Prepupal mortality did not vary with host instar, but pupal mortality was greater among parasitoids developing in L4 than in any younger instars. Offspring mortality was not influenced by clutch size in that mortality risk did not differ between parasitoids developing alone and counterparts developing in a clutch. The sex ratio, measured as proportion of daughters among offspring, was female-biased on all four host instars; the degree of bias increased from 0.70 (in L1) to 0.92 (in L4). Parasitoid body size was a function of aphid size at parasitism. Females were larger than males; the magnitude of the difference in body size was constant and independent of host and hence parasitoid size. A female’s potential fecundity as measured by the number of ovarial eggs at eclosion varied with her size and larval ontogeny. The four instars of the pea aphid were ranked in the order L1 > L2 > L3 > L4 both in terms of the number of offspring produced per encountered host and in terms of a female’s time costs; first instars are easier to handle and are more abundant in the field than older instars. The four host types were ranked in the order L2 > L3 > L1 > L4 in terms of the proportion and potential fecundity of daughters among offspring. The observed preference pattern (L1 > L2 > L3 > L4) suggests that, in choosing hosts, females of M. paulensis maximize the number of offspring per unit of search time rather than simply offspring quality.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document