Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 27, Issue 6, pp 421–430 | Cite as

Experimental evidence for effective and altruistic colony defence against natural predators by soldiers of the gall-forming aphid Pemphigus spyrothecae (Hemiptera : Pemphigidae)

  • W. A. Foster


The thick-legged first instar soldiers of the gall-forming aphid Pemphigus spyrothecae Pass. are able to protect the aphids in the gall from being eaten by a range of insect predators. In artificial galls, the soldier aphids were able to kill first instar ladybirds Adalia bipunctata (L.) (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), early third instar hoverfly larvae Eupeodes (Metasyrphus) corollae (Fab.) (Diptera: Syrphidae), and first-third instar Anthocoris nemoralis (Fab.) (Hemiptera: Cimicidae). Almost all the aphids that attacked the predators were themselves killed. The soldiers were also able to kill predators introduced into natural galls. Experiments were devised in which individuals of Anthocoris minki, which is the most important insect predator of the gall generations of Pemphigus at the study site, were free to enter and leave the gall: the soldiers were effective both in preventing the predator's access to the gall and in killing those predators that did manage to get in. In galls with experimentally manipulated numbers of soldiers and non-soldiers, it was clearly shown that it is the soldiers alone that kill the predators (Anthocoris minki and 1st instar Adalia bipunctata) (see Table 3). Even though many soldiers may die during these encounters, the selective advantage of killing the predators is high, since observations show that individual A. minki can pass through more than one instar inside a gall and kill all the aphids therein. The aphids were not observed to attack conspecific aphids from other galls or the cohabiting aphid Chaitophorus leucomelas Koch. The primary role of the soldier caste is therefore the defence of the aphid colony against predators.


Gall Experimental Evidence Primary Role Selective Advantage Pemphigus 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aoki S (1977) Colophina clematis (Homoptera, Pemphigidae), an aphid species with “soldiers”. Kontyû, Tokyo 45: 276–282Google Scholar
  2. Aoki S (1978) Two pemphigids with first instar larvae attacking predatory intruders (Homoptera, Aphidoidea). New Entomol 27: 7–12Google Scholar
  3. Aoki S (1979a) Further observations on Astegoptyeryx styracicola (Homoptera: Pemphigidae), an aphid species with soldiers biting man. Kontyû, Tokyo 47: 99–104Google Scholar
  4. Aoki S (1979b) Dimorphic first instar larvae produced by the fundatrix of Pachypappa marsupialis (Homoptera: Aphidoidea). Kontyû, Tokyo 47: 390–398Google Scholar
  5. Aoki S (1987) Evolution of sterile soldiers in aphids. In: Itô Y, Brown JL, Kikkawa J (eds) Animal societies: theories and facts. Japan Sci Soc Press, Tokyo, pp 53–65Google Scholar
  6. Aoki S, Kurosu U (1986) Soldiers of a european gall aphid, Pemphigus spyrothecae (Homoptera: Aphidoidea): why do they molt? J Ethol 4: 97–104Google Scholar
  7. Aoki S, Kurosu U (1987) Is aphid attack really effective against predators? A case study of Ceratovacuna lanigera. In: Holman J, Pelikán J, Dixon AFG, Weismann L (eds) Population structure, genetics and taxonomy of aphids and Thysanoptera. SBP Academic Publishing, pp 224–232Google Scholar
  8. Aoki S, Kurosu U (1988) Pemphigus “soldiers” and a defence of the generation-packing hypothesis: a response to Itô and Akimoto. J Ethol 6: 65–67Google Scholar
  9. Aoki S, Akimoto S, Yamane S (1981) Observations on Pseudoregma alexanderi (Homoptera, Pemphigidae), an aphid species producing pseudoscorpion-like soldiers on bamboos. Kontyû, Tokyo 49: 355–366Google Scholar
  10. Aoki S, Kurosu U, Usuba S (1984) First instar larvae of the sugarcane wooly aphid, Ceratovacuna lanigera (Homoptera, Pemphigidae), attack its predators. Kontyû, Tokyo 52: 458–460Google Scholar
  11. Cruz YP (1986) The defender role of the precocious larvae of Copidosomopsis tanytmemus Caltagirone (Encyrtidae, Hymenoptera). J Exp Zool 237: 309–318Google Scholar
  12. Dunn JA (1960) The natural enemies of the lettuce root aphid Pemphigus bursarius (L.) Bull Entomol Res 51: 271–278Google Scholar
  13. Dušek J, Křístek J (1959) Poznámky k vyskytu a bionomii larev pestrenek (Diptera, Syrphidae) v hálkách topolovych dutilek. Zoologické Listy 22: 299–308Google Scholar
  14. Francis L (1977) Social organization within clones of the sea anemone Anthopleura elegantissima. Biol Bull 150: 361–376Google Scholar
  15. Hamilton WD (1987) Kinship, recognition, disease, and intelligence: constraints on social evolution. In: Itô Y, Brown JL, Kikkawa J (eds) Animal societies: theories and facts. Japan Sci Soc Press, Tokyo, pp 81–102Google Scholar
  16. Itô Y (1987) Are thick-legged larvae of Pemphigus spyrothecae ‘soldiers’? J Ethol 5: 21–211Google Scholar
  17. Itô Y (1989) The evolutionary behaviour of sterile soldiers in aphids. Trends Ecol Evol 4: 69–73Google Scholar
  18. Jessop L (1983) The British species of Anthocoris (Hem., Anthocoridae). Entomologist's Mon Mag 119: 221–223Google Scholar
  19. Kurosu U, Aoki S (1988) Monomorphic first instar larvae of Colophina clematis (Homoptera, Aphidoidea) attack predators. Kontyû, Tokyo 56: 867–871Google Scholar
  20. Lampel G (1960) Die morphologischen und ökologische Grundlagen des Generationswechsels monözischer und heterözischer Pemphiginen der Schwarz- und Pyramidenpappel. Z Angew Entomol 47: 334–375Google Scholar
  21. Lampel G (1968–9) Untersuchungen zur Morphenfolge von Pemphigus spirothecae Pass. 1860 (Homoptera, Aphidoidea). Bull Naturforsch Ges Freiburg 58: 56–72Google Scholar
  22. Lüscher M (1961) Social control of polymorphism in termites. Symp R Entomol Soc Lond 1: 57–67Google Scholar
  23. Ôhara K (1985a) Observations on the oviposition behaviour of Metasyrphus confrater (Diptera, Syrphidae) and the defensive behaviour of soldiers of Pseudoregma bambucicola (Homoptera, Pemphigidae). Esakia 23: 99–105Google Scholar
  24. Ôhara K (1985b) Observations on the prey-predator relationship between Pseudoregma bambucicola (Homoptera, Pemphigidae) and Metasyrphus confrater (Diptera, Syrphidae), with special reference to the behaviour of the aphid soldiers. Esakia 23: 107–110Google Scholar
  25. Oster GF, Wilson EO (1978) Caste and ecology in social insects. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  26. Péricart J (1972) Hémipteres Anthocorides, Cimicidae et Microphysidae de L'Ouest Paléarctique. Masson, ParisGoogle Scholar
  27. Setzer R, Woodrow (1980) Intergall migration in the aphid genus Pemphigus. Ann Entomol Soc Am 73: 327–331Google Scholar
  28. Southwood TRE, Scudder GCE (1956) The immature stages of the Hemiptera-Heteroptera associated with the stinging nettle (Urtica dioica). Entomologist's Mon Mag 92: 313–325Google Scholar
  29. Watson JAL (1971) The development of workers and reproductives in Mastotermes darwiniensis Froggatt (Isoptera). Insects Soc 18: 173–176Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. A. Foster
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations