Advertisement

Journal of Insect Behavior

, Volume 23, Issue 5, pp 340–347 | Cite as

Reproductive Compensation: A Review of the Gryllus spp.—Ormia ochracea Host-Parasitoid System

  • Crystal M. Vincent
  • Susan M. Bertram
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Parasitoid reproductive compensation Ormia ochracea parasite host 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thank you to M. Forbes, H. Rundle, O. Dare, R. Gorelick and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on this manuscript.

References

  1. Adamo SA (1999) Evidence for adaptive changes in egg laying in crickets exposed to bacteria and parasites. Anim Behav 57:117–124CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Adamo SA, Robert D, Hoy RR (1995a) Effects of a tachinid parasitoid, Ormia ochracea, on the behavior and reproduction of its male and female field cricket hosts (Gryllus Spp). J Insect Physiol 41:269–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adamo SA, Robert D, Perez J, Hoy RR (1995b) The response of an insect parasitoid, Ormia ochracea (Tachinidae), to the uncertainty of larval success during infestation. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 36:111–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Agnew P, Koella JC, Michalakis Y (2000) Host life history responses to parasitism. Microbes Infect 2:891–896CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Alexander RD (1961) Aggressiveness, territoriality, and sexual behaviour in field crickets (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). Behaviour 17:130–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baker RL, Smith BP (1997) Conflict between antipredator and antiparasite behaviour in larval damselflies. Oecologia 109:622–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cade W (1975) Acoustically orienting parasitoids: fly phonotaxis to cricket song. Science 190:1312–1313Google Scholar
  8. Cooper LA, Larson KE, Lewis FA (1996) Male reproductive success of Schistosoma mansoni-infected Biomphalaria glabrata snails. J Parasitol 82:428–431CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Fisher RA (1958) The genetical theory of natural selection. Clarendon, DoverGoogle Scholar
  10. Forbes MR, Baker RL (1991) Condition and fecundity of the damselfly, Enallagma ebrium (Hagen): the importance of ectoparasites. Oecologia 86:335–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Giorgi MS, Arlettaz R, Christ P, Vogel P (2001) The energetic costs imposed by a parasitic mite Spinturnix myoti upon its bat host Myotis myotis. P Roy Soc Lond B Bio 268:2071–2075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gould SJ, Lewontin RC (1979) The spandrels of San Marco and the panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme. P Roy Soc Lond B Bio 205:581–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hedrick AV, Kortet RK (2006) Hiding behaviour in two cricket populations that differ in predation pressure. Anim Behav 72:1111–1118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ivy TM, Weddle CB, Sakaluk SK (2005) Females use self-referent cues to avoid mating with previous mates. P Roy Soc B Biol Sci 272:2475–2478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kolluru GR (1999) Variation and repeatability of calling behaviour in crickets subject to a phonotactic parasitoid fly. J Insect Behav 12:611–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Kolluru GR, Zuk M, Chappell MA (2002) Reduced reproductive effort in male field crickets infested with parasitoid fly larvae. Behav Ecol 13:607–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lanciani CA (1975) Parasite-induced alterations in host reproduction and survival. Ecology 56:689–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Little TJ, Killick SC (2007) Evidence for a cost of immunity when the crustacean Daphnia magna is exposed to the bacterial pathogen Pasteuria ramosa. J Anim Ecol 76:1202–1207CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. McCurdy DG, Forbes MR, Boates JS (1999) Testing alternative hypotheses for variation in amphipod behaviour and life history in relation to parasitism. Int J Parasitol 29:1001–1009CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Minchella DJ, Loverde PT (1981) A cost of increased early reproductive effort in the snail Biomphalaria glabrata. Am Nat 118:876–881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moret Y, Schmid-Hempel P (2000) Survival for immunity: Activation of the immune system has a price for bumblebee workers. Science 290:1166–1168CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Orozco SX, Bertram SM (2004) Parasitized male field crickets exhibit reduced trilling bout rates and durations. Ethology 110:909–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Polak M, Starmer WT (1998) Parasite-induced risk of mortality elevates reproductive effort in male Drosophila. P Roy Soc Lond B Bio 265:2197–2201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Robert D, Edgecomb RS, Read MP, Hoy RR (1996) Tympanal hearing in tachinid flies (Diptera, Tachinidae, Ormiini): the comparative morphology of an innovation. Cell Tissue Res 284:435–448CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Roberts LR, Janovy J (2005) Foundations of parasitology. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Sadd B, Holman L, Armitage H, Lock F, Marland R, Siva-Jothy MT (2006) Modulation of sexual signalling by immune challenged male mealworm beetles (Tenebrio molitor, L.): evidence for terminal investment and dishonesty. J Evol Biol 19:321–325CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Schwanz LE (2008) Chronic parasitic infection alters reproductive output in deer mice. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:1351–1358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shoemaker KL, Parsons NM, Adamo SA (2006) Egg-laying behaviour following infection in the cricket Gryllus texensis. Can J Zool 84:412–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Smith BP (1988) Host-parasite interaction and impact of larval water mites on insects. Annu Rev Entomol 33:487–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stearns SC (1992) The evolution of life histories. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  32. Thomas ML, Simmons LW (2009) Sexual selection on cuticular hydrocarbons in the Australian field cricket, Teleogryllus oceanicus. BMC Evol Biol 9:162–174CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Tregenza T, Wedell N (1997) Definitive evidence for cuticular pheromones in a cricket. Anim Behav 54:979–984CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Vincent CM, Bertram SM (2010) Crickets groom to avoid lethal parasitoids. Anim Behav 79:51–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vinson SB (1990) How parasitoids deal with the immune-system of their host—an overview. Arch Insect Biochem 13:3–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wagner WE (1996) Convergent song preferences between female field crickets and acoustically orienting parasitoid flies. Behav Ecol 7:279–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Walker TJ (1986) Monitoring the flights of field crickets (Gryllus spp.) and a tachinid fly (Euphasiopteryx ochracea) in north Florida. Fla Entomol 69:678–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Walker TJ, Wineriter SA (1991) Hosts of a phonotactic parasitoid and levels of parasitism (Diptera: Tachinidae: Ormia ochracea). Fla Entomol 74:554–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Williams GC (1966) Adaptation and natural selection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  40. 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
  41. Zuk M, Simmons LW, Rotenberry JT (1998) Calling songs of field crickets (Teleogryllus oceanicus) with and without phonotactic parasitoid infection. Evolution 52:166–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyCarleton UniversityOttawaCanada
  2. 2.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations