Oecologia

, Volume 83, Issue 4, pp 473–478 | Cite as

The economics of escape behaviour in the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum

  • Lawrence M. Dill
  • Alex H. G. Fraser
  • Bernard D. Roitberg
Original Papers

Summary

Pea aphids have several alternative responses to the detection of alarm pheromone produced by conspecifics. One of these, dropping from the feeding site to the ground, is potentially costly owing to the risk of desiccation-induced mortality on the ground before another host plant can be reached. Both dropping and walking from the feeding site incur a cost due to lost feeding opportunity. The aphids' decision as to which anti-predator tactic to use should be sensitive to the costs of their behaviour. Consequently, aphids should be less likely to drop when the risk of desiccation is higher, and less likely to drop or walk when the lost opportunity cost is higher. We tested these predictions by manipulating climatic severity (temperature and humidity) and host quality, respectively. As predicted, aphids are less likely to drop or walk in response to pheromone when feeding on high quality than on low quality hosts, and less likely to drop when the environment is hot and dry than when it is more benign. The latter is true whether the aphids are feeding on real or simulated leaves. Since all aphids were of the same clone, these results show that individual aphid genotypes possess the ability to adaptively modify their escape behaviour with changes in prevailing conditions. A number of other behavioural observations in the aphid literature may be interpreted in an economic or cost-benefit framework. The approach holds considerable promise for understanding many aspects of the anti-predator behaviour of aphids and other animals.

Key words

Pea aphid Escape Cost-benefit analysis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Auclair JL (1965) Feeding and nutrition of the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum (Homoptera: Aphidae), on chemically defined diets of various pH and nutrient levels. Ann Entomol Soc Am 58:855–875Google Scholar
  2. Bowers WS, Nault LR, Webb RE, Dutky SR (1972) Aphid alarm pheromone: isolation, identification, synthesis. Science 177:1121–1122Google Scholar
  3. Brodsky LM, Barlow CA (1986) Escape responses of the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris): influence of predator type and temperature. Can J Zool 64:937–939Google Scholar
  4. Bunting S, van Emden HF (1980) Rapid response to selection for increased esterase activity on small populations of an apomictic clone of Myzus persicae. Nature 285:502–503Google Scholar
  5. Clegg JM, Barlow CA (1982) Escape behaviour of the pea aphid Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris) in response to alarm pheromone and vibration. Can J Zool 60:2245–2252Google Scholar
  6. Dill LM (1990) Distance-to-cover and the escape decisions of an African cichlid fish, Melanochromis chipokae. Envir Biol Fishes 27:147–152Google Scholar
  7. Dill LM, Houtman R (1989) The influence of distance to refuge on flight initiation distance in the gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis). Can J Zool 67:233–235Google Scholar
  8. Dill LM, Ydenberg RC (1987) The group size — flight distance relationship in waterstriders (Gerris remigis). Can J Zool 65:223–226Google Scholar
  9. Herger P (1975) Einfluss von Farbe und Nahrungszusammensetzung auf das Saugverhalten der künstlich ernährten Ampferblattlaus, Aphis rumicis (Homoptera: Aphididae). Entomol Germanica 2:149–166Google Scholar
  10. Houston A, Clark C, McNamara J, Mangel M (1988) Dynamic models in behavioural and evolutionary ecology. Nature 332:29–34Google Scholar
  11. Kislow CJ, Edwards LJ (1972) Repellent odour in aphids. Nature 235:108–109Google Scholar
  12. Mittler TE (1967) Gustation of dietary amino acids by the aphid Myzus persicae. Entomologia Exp Appl 10:87–96Google Scholar
  13. Mittler TE, Dadd RH (1964) Gustatory discrimination between liquids by the aphid Myzus persicae (Sulzer). Entomologia Exp Appl 7:315–328Google Scholar
  14. Montgomery MF, Nault LR (1977a) Comparative response of aphids to the alarm pheromone, (E)-β-farnesene. Entomologia Exp Appl 22:236–242Google Scholar
  15. Montgomery ME, Nault LR (1977b) Aphid alarm pheromones: dispersion of Hyadaphis erysimi and Myzus persicae. Ann Entomol Soc Am 70:669–672Google Scholar
  16. Montgomery ME, Nault LR (1978) Effects of age and wing polymorphism on the sensitivity of Myzus persicae to alarm pheromone. Ann Entomol Soc Am 71:788–790Google Scholar
  17. Müller FP (1983) Differential alarm pheromone responses between strains of the aphid Acyrthosiphon pisum. Entomologia Exp Appl 34:347–348Google Scholar
  18. Nault LR, Phelan PL (1984) Alarm pheromones and sociality in pre-social insects. In: Bell WJ, Cardé RT (eds) Chemical Ecology of Insects. Chapman and Hall Ltd., New York, pp 237–256Google Scholar
  19. Nault LR, Edwards LJ, Styer WE (1973) Aphid alarm pheromones: secretion and reception. Environ Entomol 2:101–105Google Scholar
  20. Niku B (1975) Verhalten und Fruchtbarkeit ungeflügelter Erbsenläuse (Acyrthosiphon pisum) nach einer Fallreaktion. Entomologia Exp Appl 18:17–30Google Scholar
  21. Roitberg BD, Myers JH (1978) Adaptation of alarm pheromone responses of the pea aphid Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris). Can J Zool 56:103–108Google Scholar
  22. Roitberg BD, Myers JH (1979) Behavioural and physiological adaptations of pea aphids (Homoptera: Aphididae) to high ground temperatures and predator disturbance. Can Ent 111:515–519Google Scholar
  23. Roitberg BD, Myers JH, Frazer BD (1979) The influence of predators on the movement of apterous pea aphids between plants. J Anim Ecol 48:111–122Google Scholar
  24. Srivastava PN, Auclair JL (1974) Effect of amino acid concentration on diet uptake and performance by the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum (Homoptera: Aphididae). Can Ent 106:149–156Google Scholar
  25. Stamp NE, Bowers MD (1988) Direct and indirect effects of predatory wasps (Polistes sp.: Vespidae) on gregarious caterpillars (Hemileuca lucina: Saturniidae). Oecologia 75:619–624Google Scholar
  26. Whitham TG, Williams AG, Robinson AR (1984) The variation principle: individual plants as temporal and spatial mosaics of resistance to rapidly evolving pests. In: Price P, Slobodchikoff C, Gaud W (eds) A New Ecology: Novel Approaches to Interactive Systems. John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp 15–51Google Scholar
  27. Wiener LF, Capinera JL (1979) Greenbug response to an alarm pheromone analog: temperature and humidity effects, disruptive potential, and analog releaser efficacy. Ann Entomol Soc Am 72:369–371Google Scholar
  28. Ydenberg RC, Dill LM (1986) The economics of fleeing from predators. Adv Study Behav 16:229–249Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lawrence M. Dill
    • 1
  • Alex H. G. Fraser
    • 1
  • Bernard D. Roitberg
    • 1
  1. 1.Behavioural Ecology Research Group, Department of Biological SciencesSimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada

Personalised recommendations