, Volume 92, Issue 1, pp 20–25 | Cite as

Mastrus ridibundus parasitoids eavesdrop on cocoon-spinning codling moth, Cydia pomonella, larvae

  • Zaid Jumean
  • Tom Unruh
  • Regine Gries
  • Gerhard GriesEmail author
Short Communication


Cocoon-spinning larvae of the codling moth, Cydia pomonella L. (Lepidoptera: Olethreutidae) employ a pheromone that attracts or arrests conspecifics seeking pupation sites. Such intraspecific communication signals are important cues for illicit receivers such as parasitoids to exploit. We tested the hypothesis that the prepupal C. pomonella parasitoid Mastrus ridibundus Gravenhorst (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) exploits the larval aggregation pheromone to locate host prepupae. In laboratory olfactometer experiments, female M. ridibundus were attracted to 3-day-old cocoons containing C. pomonella larvae or prepupae. Older cocoons containing C. pomonella pupae, or larvae and prepupae excised from cocoons, were not attractive. In gas chromatographic-electroantennographic detection (GC-EAD) analyses of bioactive Porapak Q extract of cocoon-derived airborne semiochemicals, ten compounds elicited responses from female M. ridibundus antennae. Comparative GC-mass spectrometry of authentic standards and cocoon-volatiles determined that these compounds were 3-carene, myrcene, heptanal, octanal, nonanal, decanal, (E)-2-octenal, (E)-2-nonenal, sulcatone, and geranylacetone. A synthetic 11-component blend consisting of these ten EAD-active compounds plus EAD-inactive (+)-limonene (the most abundant cocoon-derived volatile) was as effective as Porapak Q cocoon extract in attracting both female M. ridibundus and C. pomonella larvae seeking pupation sites. Only three components could be deleted from the 11-component blend without diminishing its attractiveness to M. ridibundus, which underlines the complexity of information received and processed during foraging for hosts. Mastrus ridibundus obviously “eavesdrop” on the pheromonal communication signals of C. pomonella larvae that reliably indicate host presence.


Test Stimulus Limonene Aggregation Pheromone Pheromonal Communication Codling Moth 
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.



Z.J. thanks Thelma Finlayson for a Finlayson Fellowship, and T.U. thanks the Washington Tree Fruit Research Commission for grants supporting parasitoid introduction. We also thank C. Lowenberger, M. Mackauer, P. Landolt, B. Roitberg, and G.J.R. Judd for review of the manuscript. The research was further supported by a grant from NSERC to G.G. Insects were maintained in SFU’s Global Forest Quarantine Facility (GF-18–2000-SFU-6).


  1. Bekkaoui A, Thibout E (1993) Role of the cocoon of Acrolepiopsis assectella (Lep., Hyponomeutidae) in host recognition by the parasitoid Diadromus pulchellus (Hym., Ichneumonidae). Entomophaga 38:101–113Google Scholar
  2. Bezemer TM, Mills NJ (2001) Host density responses of Mastrus ridibundus, a parasitoid of the codling moth, Cydia pomonella. Biol Control 22:169–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. DeLury NC, Gries R, Gries G, Judd GJR, Khaskin G (1999) Moth scales-derived kairomones used by egg-larval parasitoid Ascogaster quadridentata to locate eggs of its host, Cydia pomonella. J Chem Ecol 25:2419–2431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Duthie B, Gries G, Gries R, Krupke C, Derksen S (2003) Does pheromone based aggregation of codling moth larvae help procure future mates? J Chem Ecol 29:425–436CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Geervliet JBF, Ariëns S, Dicke M, Vet LEM (1998) Long-distance assessment of patch profitability through volatile infochemicals by the parasitoids Cotesia glomerata and C. rubecula (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Biol Control 11:113–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gries R, Khaskin G, Gries G, Bennett RG, King GGS, Morewood P, Slessor K, Morewood WD (2002) (Z,Z)-4,7-Tridecadien-(S)-2-yl acetate: sex pheromone of Douglas-fir cone gall midge. J Chem Ecol 28:2283–2297CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Haynes KF, Yeargan KV (1999) Exploitation of intraspecific communication systems: illicit signalers and receivers. Ann Entomol Soc Am 92:960–970Google Scholar
  8. Hoffmeister TS, Roitberg BD (1997) To mark the host or the patch: decisions of a parasitoid searching for concealed host larvae. Evol Ecol 11:145–168Google Scholar
  9. Hoffmeister TS, Roitberg BD, Lalonde RG (2000) Catching Ariadne by her thread: how a parasitoid exploits the herbivore’s marking trails to locate its host. Entomol Exp Appl 95:77–85Google Scholar
  10. Kennedy JS (1974) Changes in the patterning of behavioural sequences. In: Brown LB (ed) Experimental analysis of behaviour. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  11. Kuhlmann U, Mills NJ (1999) Exploring the biodiversity of Central Asia to assess specialized parasitoids for biological control of apple pests in Europe and North America. Integrated plant protection in orchards. IOBC WPRS Bull 22:1–6Google Scholar
  12. Stowe MK, Turlings TCJ, Loughrin JH, Lewis WJ, Tumlinson JH (1995) The chemistry of eavesdropping, alarm, and deceit. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 92:23–28PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Unruh TR (1997) From Russia with love: new predators and parasites for control of tree fruit insect pests. Proceedings of the 93rd Annual Meeting of the Washington State Horticultural Association, pp 42–49Google Scholar
  14. Vet LEM, Dicke M (1992) Ecology of infochemical use by natural enemies in a tritrophic context. Annu Rev Entomol 37:141–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Wertheim B, Vet LEM, Dicke M (2003) Increased risk of parasitism as ecological costs of using aggregation pheromones: laboratory and field study of Drosophila-Leptopilina interaction. Oikos 100:269–282Google Scholar
  16. Weseloh RM (1981) Host location by parasitoids. In: Nordlund DA, Jones RL, Lewis WJ (eds) Semiochemicals: their role in pest control. Academic, London, pp 79–95Google Scholar
  17. Wiskerke JSC, Dicke M, Vet LEM (1993) Larval parasitoid uses aggregation pheromone of adult hosts in foraging behavior: a solution to the reliability-detectability problem. Oecologia 93:145–148Google Scholar
  18. Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zaid Jumean
    • 1
  • Tom Unruh
    • 2
  • Regine Gries
    • 1
  • Gerhard Gries
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesSimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada
  2. 2.Yakima Agricultural Research LaboratoryUSDA-ARSWapatoUSA

Personalised recommendations