Reproductive Compensation: A Review of the Gryllus spp.—Ormia ochracea Host-Parasitoid System
- 162 Downloads
Calling male field crickets (Gryllus spp.) are acoustically located and subsequently parasitized by the parasitoid fly, Ormia ochracea (Diptera: Tachinidae). Parasitism by O. ochracea results in cricket death. The reproductive compensation hypothesis posits that when a host’s residual reproductive value decreases, it would be adaptive for that host to shift its resources into current reproduction. Reproductive compensation has not been observed in the cricket-fly system. Here we review the studies to date that have investigated reproductive compensation in the cricket-fly interaction, in an attempt to understand why crickets do not compensate for their future reproductive losses. We conclude that the cricket-fly interaction may not be an ideal system in which to investigate reproductive compensation and furthermore, that reproductive compensation has been poorly investigated in this system.
KeywordsParasitoid reproductive compensation Ormia ochracea parasite host
Thank you to M. Forbes, H. Rundle, O. Dare, R. Gorelick and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on this manuscript.
- Cade W (1975) Acoustically orienting parasitoids: fly phonotaxis to cricket song. Science 190:1312–1313Google Scholar
- Fisher RA (1958) The genetical theory of natural selection. Clarendon, DoverGoogle Scholar
- Kolluru GR, Chappell MA, Zuk M (2004) Sex differences in metabolic rates in field crickets and their dipteran parasitoids. J Comp Physiol 174:641–648Google Scholar
- Roberts LR, Janovy J (2005) Foundations of parasitology. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Stearns SC (1992) The evolution of life histories. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Williams GC (1966) Adaptation and natural selection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
- Zuk M, Simmons LW, Cupp L (1993) Calling characteristics of parasitized and unparasitized populations of the field cricket Teleogryllus-oceanicus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 33:339–343Google Scholar