Oecologia

, Volume 138, Issue 4, pp 640–647

Optimal patch residence time in egg parasitoids: innate versus learned estimate of patch quality

Behavioural Ecology

Abstract

Charnov’s marginal value theorem predicts that female parasitoids should exploit patches of their hosts until their instantaneous rate of fitness gain reaches a marginal value. The consequences of this are that: (1) better patches should be exploited for a longer time; (2) as travel time between patches increases, so does the patch residence time; and (3) all exploited patches should be reduced to the same level of profitability. Patch residence time was measured in an egg parasitoid Anaphes victus (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae) when patch quality and travel time, approximated here as an increased delay between emergence and patch exploitation, varied. As predicted, females stayed longer when patch quality and travel time increased. However, the marginal value of fitness gain when females left the patch increased with patch quality and decreased with travel time. A. victus females appear to base their patch quality estimate on the first patch encountered rather than on a fixed innate estimate, as was shown for another egg parasitoid Trichogramma brassicae. Such a strategy could be optimal when inter-generational variability in patch quality is high and within-generational variability is low.

Keywords

Patch quality Travel time Egg parasitoid Patch residence time  Anaphes victus 

References

  1. Alphen JJM van, Galis F (1993) Patch time allocation and parasitization efficiency of Asobara tabida, a larval parasitoid of Drosophila. J Anim Ecol 52:937–952Google Scholar
  2. Alphen JJM van, Vet LEM (1986) An evolutionary approach to host finding and selection. In: Waage JK, Greathead D (eds) Insect parasitoids. Academic Press, London, pp 23–54Google Scholar
  3. Alphen JJM van, Bernstein C, Driessen G (2003) Information acquisition and time allocation in insect parasitoids. Trends Ecol Evol 18:81–87Google Scholar
  4. Baaren J van, Boivin G (1998a) Genotypic and kin discrimination in a solitary Hymenopterous parasitoid: implications for speciation. Evol Ecol 12:523–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baaren J van, Boivin G (1998b) Learning affects host discrimination behavior in a parasitoid wasp. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 42:9-16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baaren J van, Boivin G, Nénon JP (1994) Intra- and interspecific host discrimination in two closely related egg parasitoids. Oecologia 100:325–330Google Scholar
  7. Baaren J van, Boivin G, Nénon JP (1995) Intraspecific hyperparasitism in a primary hymenopteran parasitoid. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 36:237–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bernstein C, Kecelnik A, Krebs JR (1988) Individual decisions and the distribution of predators in a patchy environment. J Anim Ecol 57:1007–1026Google Scholar
  9. Boivin G (1988) Laboratory rearing of Anaphes sordidatus (Girault) (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae) on carrot weevil eggs (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Entomophaga 33:131–134Google Scholar
  10. Boivin G (1994) Overwintering strategies of egg parasitoids. In: Wajnberg E, Hassan SA (eds) Biological control with egg parasitoids. CAB, Wallingford, pp 219–244Google Scholar
  11. Boivin G (1999) Integrated management for carrot weevil. Integr Pest Manage Rev 4:21–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Boivin G, van Baaren J (2000) The role of larval aggression and mobility in the transition between solitary and gregarious development in parasitoid wasps. Ecol Lett 3:469–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Charnov EL (1976) Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem. Theor Popul Biol 9:129–136PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Cloutier C, Bauduin F (1990) Searching behavior of the aphid parasitoid Aphidius nigripes (Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae) foraring on potato plants. Environ Entomol 19:222–228Google Scholar
  15. Collett D (1994) Modelling survival data in medical research. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Cook RM, Hubbard SF (1977) Adaptive searching strategies in insect parasites. J Anim Ecol 46:115–125Google Scholar
  17. Cox DR (1972) Regression models and life tables. Biometrics 38:67–77Google Scholar
  18. Cox DR (1975) Partial likelihood. Biometrika 62:269–276Google Scholar
  19. Cronin JT (2003) Patch structure, oviposition behavior, and the distribution of parasitism risk. Ecol Monogr 73:283–300Google Scholar
  20. Cronin JT, Strong DR (1999) Dispersal-dependent oviposition and the aggregation of parasitism. Am Nat 154:23–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Driessen G, Bernstein C, van Alphen JJM, Kacelnik A (1995) A count-down mechanism for host search in the parasitoid Venturia canescens. J Anim Ecol 64:117–125Google Scholar
  22. Giraldeau L, Kramer DL (1982) The marginal value theorem: a quantitative test using load size variation in a central place forager, the eastern chipmunk, Tamias striatus. Anim Behav 30:1036–1042Google Scholar
  23. Godfray HCJ (1994) Parasitoids. Behavioral and evolutionary ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.Google Scholar
  24. Hubbard SF, Cook RM (1978) Optimal foraging by parasitoid wasps. J Anim Ecol 47:593–604Google Scholar
  25. Iwasa Y, Higashi M, Yamamura N (1981) Prey distribution as a factor determining the choice of optimal foraging strategy. Am Nat 117:710–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kacelnik A (1984) Central place foraging in starlings (Sternus vulgaris). I. Patch residence time. J Anim Ecol 53:283–299Google Scholar
  27. Kalbfleisch JD, Prentice RL (1980) The statistical analysis of failure time data. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Li C, Roitberg BD, Mackauer M (1993) Patch residence time and parasitism of Aphelinus asychis: a simulation model. Ecol Model 69:227–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McNamara JM, Houston AI (1985) Optimal foraging and learning. J Theor Biol 117:231–249Google Scholar
  30. Nelson JM, Roitberg BD (1995) Flexible patch time allocation by the leafminer parasitoid, Opius dimidiatus. Ecol Entomol 20:245–252Google Scholar
  31. Nénon JP, Boivin G, Le Lannic J, van Baaren J (1995) Functional morphology of the mymariform and sacciform larvae of the egg parasitoid Anaphes victus Huber (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae). Can J Zool 73:996–1000Google Scholar
  32. Picard C, Auclair JL, Boivin G (1991) Response to host age of the egg parasitoid Anaphes n.sp. (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae). Biocontr Sci Tech 1:169–176Google Scholar
  33. Pierre J-S, van Baaren J, Boivin G (2003) Patch leaving decision rules in parasitoids: do they use sequential decisional sampling? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 54:147–155Google Scholar
  34. Roitberg BD, Reid ML, Li C (1993a) Choosing hosts and mates: the value of learning. In: Papaj DR, Lewis AC (eds) Insect learning: ecological and evolutionary perspectives. Chapman & Hall, New York, pp 174–194Google Scholar
  35. Roitberg BD, Sircom J, Roitberg CA, van Alphen JJM, Mangel M (1993b) Life expectancy and reproduction. Nature 364:108CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Stephens DW (1993) Learning and behavioral ecology: incomplete information and environmental predictibility. In: Papaj DR, Lewis AC (eds) Insect learning: ecological and evolutionary perspectives. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 195–218Google Scholar
  37. Stephens DW, Krebs JR (1986) Foraging theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.Google Scholar
  38. Strand MR, Vinson SB (1982) Behavioral response of the parasitoid Cardiochiles nigriceps to a kairomone. Entomol Exp Appl 31:308–315Google Scholar
  39. Venables WN, Ripley BD (1994) Modern applied statistics with S-Plus. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Vos M, Hemerik L, Vet LEM (1998) Patch exploitation by the parasitoids Cotesia rubecula and Cotesia glomerata in multi-patch environments with different host distribution. J Anim Ecol 67:774–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Waage JK (1979) Foraging for patchily-distributed hosts by the parasitoid, Nemeritis canescens. J Anim Ecol 48:353–371Google Scholar
  42. Wajnberg E, Rosi MC, Colazza S (1999) Genetic variation in patch time allocation in a parasitic wasp. J Anim Ecol 68:121–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wajnberg E, Fauvergue X, Pons O (2000) Patch leaving decision rules and the marginal value theorem: an experimental analysis and a simulation model. Behav Ecol 11:577–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wajnberg E, Gonsard PA, Tabone E, Curty C, Lezcano N, Colazza S (2003) A comparative analysis of patch-leaving decision rules in a parasitoid family. J Anim Ecol 72:618–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wiskerke JSC, Vet LEM (1994) Foraging for solitary and gregariously feeding caterpillar: a comparison of two related parasitoid species (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) J Insect Behav 7:585–603Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre de Recherche et de Développement en HorticultureAgriculture et Agroalimentaire CanadaSaint-Jean-sur-RichelieuCanada
  2. 2.Department of Natural Resource SciencesMcGill UniversitySainte-Anne-de-BellevueCanada
  3. 3.INRASophia AntipolisFrance

Personalised recommendations