Advertisement

The Science of Nature

, 102:67 | Cite as

Behavioural flexibility of the chemical defence in the parasitoid wasp Leptopilina heterotoma

  • Johannes StöklEmail author
  • Zora Machacek
  • Joachim Ruther
Short Communication

Abstract

Many insects use chemical defence mechanisms to defend themselves against predators. However, defensive secretions are costly to produce and should thus only be used in cases of real danger. This would require that insects are able to discriminate between predators to adjust their chemical defence. Here, we show that females of the parasitoid wasp Leptopilina heterotoma adjust the intensity of their chemical defence to differently sized predators. If attacked by Myrmica ants, the females always released their defensive secretion, which consists mainly of (−)-iridomyrmecin. However, if attacked by smaller Cardiocondyla ants, most females did not release any defensive spray, irrespective of the duration of the ant’s aggression. When in contact with non-aggressive Nasonia wasps, the females of L. heterotoma did not release any defensive secretion. Our data show that females of L. heterotoma are able to discriminate between two predators and suggest that a predator of a certain size or strength is necessary to trigger the chemical defence mechanism of L. heterotoma.

Keywords

Iridomyrmecin Allomone Parasitoid wasp Ant Figitidae 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Michael Brummer for rearing the wasps, and Alexandra Schrempf and Balint Marko for providing the colonies of C. obscurior and M. scabrinodis, respectively. This study was funded by a grant of the German Research Council (DFG, STO 966/1-1).

Supplementary material

114_2015_1317_MOESM1_ESM.docx (23 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 23 kb)
ESM 2

(MP4 19180 kb)

ESM 3

(MP4 16452 kb)

References

  1. Blum MS (1981) Chemical defenses of arthropods. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Cammaerts MC, Evershed RP, Morgan ED (1981) Comparative study of the dufour gland secretions of workers of four species of Myrmica ants. J Insect Physiol 27:59–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cotton AJ, Cotton S, Small J, Pomiankowski A (2014) Male mate preference for female eyespan and fecundity in the stalk-eyed fly, Teleopsis dalmanni. Behav Ecol 26:376–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cremer S, D’Ettorre P, Drijfhout FP, Sledge MF, Turillazzi S, Heinze J (2008) Imperfect chemical female mimicry in males of the ant Cardiocondyla obscurior. Naturwissenschaften 95:1101–1105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dobler S, Petschenka G, Pankoke H (2011) Coping with toxic plant compounds—the insect’s perspective on iridoid glycosides and cardenolides. Phytochemistry 72:1593–1604PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eisner T, Meinwald J (1966) Defensive secretions of arthropods. Science 153:1341–1350PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Heimpel GE, Rosenheim JA, Mangel M (1997) Predation on adult Aphytis parasitoids in the field. Oecologia 110:346–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Laurent P, Braekman J, Daloze D (2005) Insect chemical defense. In: Schulz S (ed) The chemistry of pheromones and other semiochemicals II. Springer, New York, pp 167–229Google Scholar
  9. Pasteels JM, Grégoire JC, Rowell-Rahier M (1983) The chemical ecology of defense in arthropods. Annu Rev Entomol 28:263–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Stökl J, Hofferberth J, Pritschet M, Brummer M, Ruther J (2012) Stereoselective chemical defense in the Drosophila parasitoid Leptopilina heterotoma is mediated by (−)-iridomyrmecin and (+)-isoiridomyrmecin. J Chem Ecol 38:331–339PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Wajnberg E, Colazza S (2013) Chemical ecology of insect parasitoids. Wiley-Blackwell, HobokenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Weiss I, Rössler T, Hofferberth J, Brummer M, Ruther J, Stökl J (2013) A nonspecific defensive compound evolves into a competition avoidance cue and a female sex-pheromone. Nat Commun 4:2767PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Whitman DW, Blum MS, Alsop DW (1990) Allomones: chemicals for defense. In: Evans DL, Schmidt JO (eds) Insect defenses. Adaptive mechanisms and strategies of prey and predators. State University of New York Press, Albany, pp 289–351Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Johannes Stökl
    • 1
    Email author
  • Zora Machacek
    • 1
  • Joachim Ruther
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for ZoologyUniversity of RegensburgRegensburgGermany

Personalised recommendations