Mutual interference in Dolichogenidea tasmanica (Cameron) (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) when foraging for patchily-distributed light brown apple moth

Yazdani, Maryam; Keller, Michael A.

doi:10.1016/j.biocontrol.2015.01.004

Cited by 10 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 41 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%

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%

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

“…These results differ from our initial hypothesis. Previous studies found that predators and parasitoids may reveal area-restricted foraging behavior in high prey quality patches [26,33,44], which may increase the antagonistic and intraguild interaction strength between H. axyridis and A. gifuensis. In our experiment, when H. axyridis was present, there was a trend towards increasing the number of aphids parasitized by A. gifuensis in the uniform treatment compared with aggregate treatment, but the differences were not significant.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Prey Distribution and Heterospecific Interactions on the Functional Response of Harmonia axyridis and Aphidius gifuensis to Myzus persicae

Tang

Xia

et al. 2020

Insects

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Natural enemy guilds normally forage for prey that is patchily distributed simultaneously. Previous studies have investigated the influence of conspecific interactions and prey distribution on the functional response of natural enemies. However, little is known about how prey distribution and heterospecific interactions between natural enemies could affect their foraging efficiency. We examined the effects of prey distribution (aggregate and uniform) and heterospecific interactions on the functional response of a predator, Harmonia axyridis (Pallas) (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) and a parasitoid, Aphidius gifuensis Ashmead (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) to the green peach aphid, Myzus persicae (Sulzer) (Hemiptera: Aphididae). Type II functional responses were observed in all experiments. Functional response curves of single H. axyridis or A. gifuensis were higher in the aggregate treatment than in the uniform treatment when aphid densities were between 40–180 or 70–170, respectively. When comparing between aggregate and uniform treatments with the heterospecific enemy occurrence, no differences were found in the parasitism efficiency of A. gifuensis, while H. axyridis consumed more aphids in the aggregate treatment than in the uniform treatment when aphid densities were between 50–230. The functional response of individual H. axyridis was not affected by A. gifuensis under two aphid distributions. However, the functional response of a single A. gifuensis and the treatment when A. gifuensis concurrently with H. axyridis overlapped in uniform treatment of above approximately 150 aphids. Our results indicate that the predation rate of H. axyridis was affected by aphid distribution, but was not affected by heterospecific interactions. The parasitism rate of A. gifuensis was affected by aphid distribution, and by heterospecific interactions in both the aggregate and uniform treatments. Thus, to optimize the management efficiency of M. persicae, the combined use of H. axyridis and A. gifuensis should be considered when M. persicae is nearly uniformly distributed under relatively high density.

show abstract

“…The negative value of the regression slope indicates an inverse relationship between parasitoid density and per capita searching efficiency, or searching efficiency decreases with increasing parasitoid density. Mutual interference appears when competition for a common resource leads to a decrease in searching efficiency of the individual parasitoid (Hassell 2000;Skovgard and Nachman 2015;Yazdani and Keller 2015). Iranipour et al (2020) reported a decrease in searching rate of parasitoid Trissolcus vassilievi (Mayr) (Hymenoptera: Platygastridae) and a 2-fold increase in host survival of Eurygaster integriceps Puton (Hemiptera: Scutelleridae) at higher wasp densities.…”

Section: Effect Of Parasitoid Density On Fecundity Parasitism and Pmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In cassava fields, the variation in host density among patches is much more variable than in laboratory arenas. This is because natural systems include more patches, hosts are present at various developmental stages, and the profitability of patches varies with both in space and in time (Yazdani and Keller 2015). The wasps would have the chance to disperse into rewarding patches and result in a more homogenous distribution among patches, which subsequently affects interference among parasitoids (Okuyama 2016;Iranipour et al 2020).…”

Section: Effect Of Parasitoid Density On Fecundity Parasitism and Pmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While functional response describes the density responsiveness of the parasitoid to its host, mutual interference describes the extrinsic competition among the foraging conspecific female parasitoids (Saini and Sharma 2018). Studies of the functional response and mutual interference of various parasitoids have been reported, such as for Dolichogenidea tasmanica Cameron (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) attacking Epiphyas postvittana Walker (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) (Yazdani and Keller 2015), Goniozus nephantidis Muesebeck (Hymenoptera: Bethylidae) attacking Opisina arenosella Walker (Lepidoptera: Oeccophoridae) (Sreenivas and Hardy 2016), Spalangia cameroni Perkins (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) attacking Stomoxys calcitrans L. (Diptera: Muscidae) (Skovgard and Nachman 2015). With respect to A. lopezi, the functional response and mutual interference have not been studied.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Parasitism of cassava mealybug by Anagyrus lopezi: Effects of varying host and parasitoid densities

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Fanani MZ, Rauf A, Maryana N, Nurmansyah A, Hindayana D. 2020. Parasitism of cassava mealybug by Anagyrus lopezi: Effects of varying host and parasitoid densities. Biodiversitas 21: 4973-4980. The solitary endoparasitoid Anagyrus lopezi (De Santis) (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) was introduced into Indonesia in 2014 to control the cassava mealybug, Phenacoccus manihoti Matile-Ferrero (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). The objectives of this study were to understand the influence of host and parasitoid densities on functional response and mutual interference of the parasitoid, by altering either the host or parasitoid density while keeping the other constant. The effects of host and parasitoid densities on parasitism, superparasitism, progeny production, and sex ratio were also assessed. Logistic regression was used to determine the shape of the functional response. Nonlinear least-squares regression was used to estimate the attack rate (a) and handling time (Th). Nicholson’s model and linear regression were used to determine per capita searching efficiency and interference coefficient, respectively. The logistic regression results suggested a Holling type II functional response to changing host densities, with an estimated attack rate (a) and handling time (Th) were 0.037 h-1 and 1.19 h, respectively. The estimated maximum number of mealybugs parasitized over 24-h period was 20.2 mealybugs. The wasp-mealybug ratio and offspring production increased significantly from 1:2 to 1:100 and from 1.35 to 10.45, respectively. However, the per capita number of parasitization decreased significantly from 14.20 to 4.37, with the increase in parasitoid density from 1 to 8. Searching efficiency of the parasitoid decreased significantly with increasing parasitoid density, with a mutual interference constant (m) of -0.52.

show abstract

Mutual interference in Dolichogenidea tasmanica (Cameron) (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) when foraging for patchily-distributed light brown apple moth

Cited by 10 publications

References 41 publications

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

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

Effects of Prey Distribution and Heterospecific Interactions on the Functional Response of Harmonia axyridis and Aphidius gifuensis to Myzus persicae

Parasitism of cassava mealybug by Anagyrus lopezi: Effects of varying host and parasitoid densities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About