The Chemical Ecology of Defense in Arthropods

Pasteels, Jacques; Grégoire, Jean‐Claude; Rowell‐Rahier, Martine

doi:10.1146/annurev.en.28.010183.001403

Cited by 276 publications

(205 citation statements)

References 78 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

193

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…One problem for predators regulating their intake of toxins is that individuals within an aposematic prey species often vary in their toxicity [7,8]. 'Automimicry' is characterized by the presence of non-toxic individuals ('automimics') in a population of otherwise aposematic prey ('automodels') [9,10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Better the devil you know: avian predators find variation in prey toxicity aversive

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Toxic prey that signal their defences to predators using conspicuous warning signals are called ‘aposematic’. Predators learn about the toxic content of aposematic prey and reduce their attacks on them. However, through regulating their toxin intake, predators will include aposematic prey in their diets when the benefits of gaining the nutrients they contain outweigh the costs of ingesting the prey's toxins. Predators face a problem when managing their toxin intake: prey sharing the same warning signal often vary in their toxicities. Given that predators should avoid uncertainty when managing their toxin intake, we tested whether European starlings ( Sturnus vulgaris ) preferred to eat fixed-defence prey (where all prey contained a 2% quinine solution) to mixed-defence prey (where half the prey contained a 4% quinine solution and the other half contained only water). Our results support the idea that predators should be more ‘risk-averse’ when foraging on variably defended prey and suggest that variation in toxicity levels could be a form of defence.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Better the devil you know: avian predators find variation in prey toxicity aversive

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, although many of these beetles de novo synthesize repulsive iridoid monoterpenes (21), a significant number of species exhibit defensive products whose synthesis is partly or completely dependent on the secondary compounds from their host. In the latter two cases, the insect defensive deterrents are, respectively, derived from sequestered plant toxins [i.e., salicylaldehyde is derived from Salicaceae phenolglycosides (22)], or produced by means of a mixed insect-plant biogenetic route [i.e., involving esterification of de novo-synthesized butyric acids by alcohols retrieved from the plant (23)]. Autogenous defense is encountered in species that specialize on any of the host-plant families reported for chrysomelines.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Feeding specialization and host-derived chemical defense in Chrysomeline leaf beetles did not lead to an evolutionary dead end

Termonia

Hsiao

Pasteels

et al. 2001

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

160

132

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Combination of molecular phylogenetic analyses of Chrysomelina beetles and chemical data of their defensive secretions indicate that two lineages independently developed, from an ancestral autogenous metabolism, an energetically efficient strategy that made the insect tightly dependent on the chemistry of the host plant. However, a lineage (the interrupta group) escaped this subordination through the development of a yet more derived mixed metabolism potentially compatible with a large number of new host-plant associations. Hence, these analyses on leaf beetles document a mechanism that can explain why high levels of specialization do not necessarily lead to ''evolutionary dead ends.''

show abstract

“…Syrphid buccal secretions usually impaired the movement of workers, immobilising the mouthparts of biting ants and sometimes gluing ants tightly to the substratum so that they could not detach themselves. After making contact with L3, a few ants displayed shaking and trembling behaviours, which sometimes led to the death of the entangled individual within the next 24 h. This finding suggests that some irritating and neurotoxic substances are mixed with sticky compounds, as it commonly occurs in the defensive secretions of insects (Pasteels et al, 1983;Dettner, 1999;Villani et al, 1999). In addition to the immediate adhesive and repellent effects, the chemical compounds emitted by hoverfly larvae may reduce the ability of ants to protect aphids on a longer time scale.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Tuned protection of aphids by ants against a predatory hoverfly

Detrain¹,

Fichaux²,

Verheggen

2017

Ecological Entomology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. 1. Aphid-tending ants that feed on honeydew have evolved strategies against aphidophagous insects and tune their aggressive behaviour according to the level of danger for their trophobionts. Here we investigate how Lasius niger Linnaeus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) ants react to different instars of Episyrphus balteatus De Geer (Diptera: Syrphidae) hoverflies which vary in their voracity and defensive abilities.2. During pairwise encounters, early syrphid instars (eggs, L1, and L2 larvae) elicited lower aggression scores compared to third larval instars (L3), which was intensively bitten by ants. L3 tried to escape from ants by releasing a sticky and toxic secretion over biting ants that died or underwent severe morbidity.3. In a standardised system including the host plant, aphid, tending ant, and hoverfly, the ability of ants to protect an Aphis fabae Scopoli (Hemiptera: Aphididae) colony was evaluated. Early E. balteatus instars placed onto the plant elicited no mobilisation of ants, which often removed the hoverfly successfully. Eggs and early instars appeared as the weak links for integrated pest management by hoverfly auxiliaries.4. In contrast, L3 induced the number of ant patrollers to increase at a local scale without any further recruitment from inside the ant nest. L3 syrphids were quite efficient at gluing ants with defensive secretions and at resisting to removal attempts by ants.5. While supporting the assumption that ants tune their defensive response to the aphidophagous predator, the present results also showed a lack of efficient protection of their trophobionts from the most voracious late syrphid instar.

show abstract

The Chemical Ecology of Defense in Arthropods

Cited by 276 publications

References 78 publications

Better the devil you know: avian predators find variation in prey toxicity aversive

Better the devil you know: avian predators find variation in prey toxicity aversive

Feeding specialization and host-derived chemical defense in Chrysomeline leaf beetles did not lead to an evolutionary dead end

Tuned protection of aphids by ants against a predatory hoverfly

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About