Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rngvg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T08:55:44.359Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chemical interaction between the larva of a dipteran parasitoid and its coleopteran host: A case of exploitation of the communication system during the searching behaviour?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 November 2011

H.F. Groba*
Affiliation:
CONICET, Grupo de Investigación en Ecofisiología de Parasitoides (GIEP), Departamento de Ecología, Genética y Evolución, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Intendente Güiraldes 2160, Ciudad Universitaria, Pabellón II, (C1428EHA) Ciudad de Buenos Aires, Argentina
M.K. Castelo
Affiliation:
CONICET, Grupo de Investigación en Ecofisiología de Parasitoides (GIEP), Departamento de Ecología, Genética y Evolución, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Intendente Güiraldes 2160, Ciudad Universitaria, Pabellón II, (C1428EHA) Ciudad de Buenos Aires, Argentina
*
*Author for correspondence Fax: (+54-11) 4576-3384 E-mail: hgroba@ege.fcen.uba.ar
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The robber fly Mallophora ruficauda is one of the principal apicultural pests in the Pampas region of Argentina. As adults, the flies prey on honey bees and other insects; while, as larvae, they parasitize scarab beetle larvae. Females of M. ruficauda lay eggs away from the host in tall grasses. After being dispersed by the wind, larvae drop to the ground, where they dig in search of their hosts. It is known that second instar larvae of M. ruficauda exhibit active host searching behaviour towards its preferred host, third instar larva of Cyclocephala signaticollis, using host-related chemical cues. Furthermore, previous works show that these chemical cues are produced in the posterior body half of hosts. However, the precise anatomical origin of these cues and whether they mediate any behaviour of C. signaticollis larvae remains yet unknown. In order to determine the precise origin of the chemical cue, we carried out olfactometer assays with different stimuli of extracts of the posterior C. signaticollis body half. Additionally, we tested whether C. signaticollis is attracted to any of the same extracts as in the previous experiments. We found that both second instar of M. ruficauda and third instar of C. signaticollis are attracted to extracts of the fermentation chamber (proctodeum). This is the first report of attraction of conspecific larvae in scarab beetles. We discuss a possible case of system communication exploitation in an immature parasitoid-host system.

Information

Type
Research Paper
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Regions of the body of C. signaticollis larvae from which extracts were used in behavioural assays throughout the experiments. MR – Castelo & Lazzari (2004) indicates previous studies where some of these extracts were tested on M. ruficauda larvae.

Figure 1

Table 1. Olfactometer experiments carried out to evaluate the response of M. ruficauda and C. signaticollis larvae to odours from different parts of the body of third instar C. signaticollis larvae.

MR, M. ruficauda; CS, C. signaticollis; AB, anterior body half; PB, posterior body half; PDT, posterior digestive tube half; M, posterior mesenteron; FC, fermentation chamber; EpPI, epithelium protocol I; CnPI, content protocol I; EpPII, epithelium protocol II; CnPII, content protocol II; C, colon; PC, posterior body wall (cuticle); F, faeces; H, hexane (control). Numbers show the replicates for experiments with MR and CS larvae. Between brackets, the total number of individuals that made a choice (left: stimulus; right: solvent) in the experimental arena.
Figure 2

Fig. 2. Response of M. ruficauda and C. signaticollis to stimuli from three regions of the posterior digestive tube of third instar larvae of C. signaticollis. Asterisks denote statistically significant differences (χ2, P<0.05). M, posterior mesenteron; FC, fermentation chamber; C, colon (▪, Stimulus; □, Control).

Figure 3

Fig. 3. Response of M. ruficauda and C. signaticollis to stimuli extracted from two regions of the fermentation chamber of third instar larvae of C. signaticollis. EpPI, epithelium protocol I; CnPI, content protocol I; EpPII, epithelium protocol II; CnPII, content protocol II (▪, Stimulus; □, Control).

Figure 4

Fig. 4. Response of C. signaticollis to stimuli extracted from the different body parts of conspecifics. Asterisks denote statistically significant differences (χ2, P<0.05). AB, anterior body half; PB, posterior body half; PC, posterior body wall (cuticle); PDT, posterior digestive tube half; F, faeces (▪, Stimulus; □, Control).