2010
DOI: 10.1071/zo10034
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Positive and negative effects of phoretic mites on the reproductive output of an invasive bark beetle

Abstract: Abstract. When multiple species coexist upon a single host, their combined effect on the host can be unpredictable. We explored the effect of phoretic mites on the reproductive output of the five-spined bark beetle, Ips grandicollis. Using correlative approaches and experimental manipulation of mite numbers we examined how mite load affected the number, size and condition of bark beetle offspring produced. We found that mites have both negative and positive consequences on different aspects of bark beetle repr… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Although phoresy is often viewed as a form of commensalism where the phoretic species benefits and the host is unaffected, this is not always the case with reports of both negative (Lindquist , Hodgkin et al. ) and positive impacts (Purrington and Drake ) on the host.…”
Section: Necrobiome Interactions and Networkmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Although phoresy is often viewed as a form of commensalism where the phoretic species benefits and the host is unaffected, this is not always the case with reports of both negative (Lindquist , Hodgkin et al. ) and positive impacts (Purrington and Drake ) on the host.…”
Section: Necrobiome Interactions and Networkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, at least 18 species of mites are known to be phoretic on the bark beetle Dendroctonus frontalis (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in the southeastern United States (Moser 1976). Although phoresy is often viewed as a form of commensalism where the phoretic species benefits and the host is unaffected, this is not always the case with reports of both negative (Lindquist 1969, Hodgkin et al 2010) and positive impacts (Purrington and Drake 2008) on the host.…”
Section: Necrobiome Interactions and Networkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, female bark beetles that carry mites produced larger and heavier offspring, suggesting phoront-specific benefits (Mazza, Cini, Cervo, & Longo, 2011). By contrast, mites carried by the red palm weevil significantly reduce beetle longevity, indicating severe costs (Hodgkin, Elgar, & Symonds, 2010). The factors that determine these different outcomes are varied and context-dependent, and show likely parallels to the diverse factors that influence the evolution of parasite virulence.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Other mite species which are less common are from the Tarsonemidae, Acaridae and Histiostomatidae, Digamasellidae, Epriariidae (Stone & Simpson ; Hodgkin et al . ). Mites associated with other Ips species parasitise bark beetle eggs or prey on their larvae (Lindquist ; Blackman & Evans ), and some also feed on fungi (Moser et al .…”
Section: Biological Associatesmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Some mite species were identified by Stone and Simpson () and Hodgkin et al . (), but their role and biological relationship s are unknown.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%