, Volume 153, Issue 4, pp 1009–1019 | Cite as

Can chemical communication be cryptic? Adaptations by herbivores to natural enemies exploiting prey semiochemistry

  • Kenneth F. Raffa
  • Kenneth R. Hobson
  • Sara LaFontaine
  • Brian H. Aukema
Behavioral Ecology


Predators and parasites commonly use chemical cues associated with herbivore feeding and reproduction to locate prey. However, we currently know little about mechanisms by which herbivores may avoid such natural enemies. Pheromones are crucial to many aspects of herbivore life history, so radical alterations of these compounds could be disadvantageous despite their exploitation by predators. Instead, minor modifications in pheromone chemistry may facilitate partial escape while maintaining intraspecific functionality. We tested this hypothesis using Ips pini, an endophytic beetle that develops in the phloem tissue of pine trees. Its predominant predators in the Great Lakes region of North America are Thanasimus dubius and Platysoma cylindrica, both of which are highly attracted to I. pini’s pheromones. However, there are significant disparities between prey and predator behaviors that relate to nuances of pheromone chemistry. Thanasimus dubius is most attracted to the (+) stereoisomer of ipsdienol, and P. cylindrica is most attracted to the (−) form; Ips pini prefers racemic mixtures intermediate between each predator’s preferences. Further, a component that is inactive by itself, lanierone, greatly synergizes the attraction of I. pini to ipsdienol, but has a weak or no effect on its predators. A temporal component adds to this behavioral disparity: lanierone is most important in the communication of I. pini during periods when its predators are most abundant. The difficulties involved in tracking prey are further compounded by spatial and temporal variation in prey signaling on a local scale. For example, the preferences of I. pini vary significantly among sites only 50 km apart. This chemical crypsis is analogous to morphological forms of camouflage, such as color and mimicry, that are widely recognized as evasive adaptations against visually searching predators. Presumably these relationships are dynamic, with predators and prey shifting responses in microevolutionary time. However, several factors may delay predator counter adaptations. The most important appears to be the availability of alternate prey, specifically I. grandicollis, whose pheromone ipsenol is highly attractive to the above predators but not cross-attractive with I. pini. Consistent with this view, the specialist parasitoid, Tomicobia tibialis, has behavioral preferences for pheromone components that closely correspond with those of I. pini. These results are discussed in terms of population dynamics and coevolutionary theory.


Predator–prey Coevolution Kairomones Bark beetles Pheromones 



Support by NSF (DEB0314215), USDA NRI (2003-3502-13528), and UW-Madison CALS is greatly appreciated. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources provided study sites. Kelly Boland, Craig Brabant, Alex Szele, and Kevin Zei (UW-Madison) assisted with assays. Hollie Moore (UNBC) provided technical assistance. We thank Nadir Erbilgin, UC-Berkeley, Claudio Gratton (UW-Madison) and two anonymous reviewers for valuable critiques. Assoc. Editor Rick Karban and Editorial Assistant Suzanne Stapleton provided many useful suggestions.

Supplementary material

442_2007_786_MOESM1_ESM.doc (352 kb)
ESM (DOC 352 KB)


  1. Amman GD (1984) Mountain pine beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) mortality in three types of infestations. Environ Entomol 13:184–191Google Scholar
  2. Aukema BH, Raffa KF (2002) Relative effects of exophytic predation, endophytic predation, and intraspecific competition on a subcortical herbivore: consequences to the reproduction of Ips pini and Thanasimus dubius. Oecologia 133:483–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aukema BH, Dahlsten DL, Raffa KF (2000) Improved population monitoring of bark beetles and predators by incorporating disparate behavioral responses to semiochemicals. Environ Entomol 29:618–629Google Scholar
  4. Aukema BH, Clayton MK, Raffa KF (2004) Density-dependent effects of multiple predators sharing a common prey in an endophytic habitat. Oecologia 139:418–426PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aukema BH, Clayton MK, Raffa KF (2005) Modeling flight activity and population dynamics of the pine engraver, Ips pini, in the Great Lakes Region: effects of weather and predators over short time scales. Pop Ecol 47:61–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ayres MP, Lombardero MJ, Santoro AE (1999) The biology and management of bark beetles in old growth pine forests of Itasca State Park. Great Lakes Institute for Pine Ecosystem Research, Colfax, WI, p 136Google Scholar
  7. Ayres BD, Ayres MP, Abrahamson MD, Teale SA (2001) Resource partitioning and overlap in three sympatric species of Ips bark beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Oecologia 128:443–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ball SL, Baker RL (1996) Predator-induced life history changes: antipredator behavior costs or facultative life history shifts. Ecology 77:1116–1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bjorkman C, Larsson S, Bommarco R (1997) Oviposition preferences in pine sawflies : a trade-off between larval growth and defence against natural enemies. Oikos 79:45–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cognato AI, Seybold SJ, Wood DL, Teale SA (1997) A cladistic analysis of pheromone evolution in Ips bark beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Evolution 51:313–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cronin JT, Reeve JD (2005) Host-parasitoid ecology: a plea for a landscape-level synthesis. Proc Royal Soc B 272:2225–2235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cronin JT, Reeve JD, Wilkens R, Turchin P (2000) The pattern and range of movement of a checkered beetle predator relative to its bark beetle prey. Oikos 90:127–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dahlsten DL, Six DL,.Erbilgin N, Raffa KF, Lawson AB, Rowney DL (2004) Attraction of Ips pini (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) and its predators to various enantiomeric ratios of ipsdienol and lanierone in California: implications for the augmentation and conservation of natural enemies. Environ Entomol 33:1554–1561Google Scholar
  14. De Boer JG, Dicke M (2004) The role of methyl salicylate in prey searching behavior of the predatory mite Phytoseiulus persimilis. J Chem Ecol 30:255–271PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. De Moraes CM, Mescher MC (2004) Biochemical crypsis in the avoidance of natural enemies by an insect herbivore. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:8893–8997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Domingue MJ, Starmer WT, Teale SA (2006) Genetic control of the enantiomeric composition of ipsdienol in the pine engraver, Ips pini. J Chem Ecol 32:1005–1026PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Erbilgin N, Raffa KF (2001) Modulation of predator attraction to pheromones of two prey species by stereochemistry of plant volatiles. Oecologia 127:444–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Erbilgin N, Raffa KF (2002) Association of declining red pine stands with reduced populations of bark beetle predators, seasonal increase in root colonizing insects and incidence of root pathogens. For Ecol Manag 164:221–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Erbilgin N, Nordheim EV, Aukema BH, Raffa KF (2002) Population dynamics of Ips pini and Ips grandicollis in red pine plantations in Wisconsin: Within and between year associations with predators, competitors, and habitat quality. Environ Entomol 31:1043–1051Google Scholar
  20. Franceschi VR, Krokene P, Christiansen E, Krekling T (2005) Anatomical and chemical defenses of conifer bark against bark beetles and other pests. New Phytol 167:353–376PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Haberkern KE, Raffa KF (2003) Phloeophagous and predaceous insects responding to synthetic pheromones of bark beetles inhabiting white spruce stands in the Great Lakes Region. J Chem Ecol 29:1651–1663PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hager BJ, Teale SA (1996) The genetic control of pheromone production and response in the pine engraver beetle Ips pini. Heredity 77:100–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hare JD, Morgan DJW (2000) Chemical conspicuousness of an herbivore to its natural enemy: effect of feeding site selection. Ecology 81:509–519Google Scholar
  24. Haynes KF, Yeargan KV (1999) Exploitation of intraspecific communication systems: illicit signalers and receivers. Ann Entomol Soc Am 92:960–970Google Scholar
  25. Herms DA, Haack RA, Ayres BD (1991) Variation in semiochemical-mediated prey-predator interaction: Ips pini (Scolytidae) and Thanasimus dubius (Cleridae). J Chem Ecol 17:515–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hunter AF (2000) Gregariousness and repellent defences in the survival of phytophagous insects. Oikos 91:213–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hunter MD (2003) Effects of plant quality on the population ecology of parasitoids. Agric Forest Ent 5:1–8Google Scholar
  28. Ihaka I, Gentleman R (1996) R: a language for data analysis and graphics. J Comp Graph Stat 5:299–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Karban R, English-Loeb G (1997) Tachinid parasitoids affect host plant choice by caterpillars to increase caterpillar survival. Ecology 78:603–611Google Scholar
  30. Lill JT, Marquis RJ (2001) The effects of leaf quality on herbivore performance and attack from natural enemies. Oecologia 126:418–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Linit MJ, Stephen FM (1983) Parasite and predator component of within-tree southern pine beetle (Coleoptera, Scolytidae) mortality. Can Entomol 115:679–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Losey JE, Denno RF (1998) Interspecific variation in the escape responses of aphids: effect on risk of predation from foliar-foraging and ground-foraging predators. Oecologia 115:245–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mathis A, Chivers DP, Smith RJF (1995) Chemical alarm signals: predator deterrents or predator attractants? Am Nat 145:994–1005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Miller DR, Borden JH (2000) Dose-dependent and species-specific responses of pine bark beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) to monoterpenes in association with pheromones. Can Entomol 132:183–195Google Scholar
  35. Miller DR, Borden JH, Slessor KN (1989) Inter- and intrapopulation variation of the pheromone, ipsdienol produced by male pine engravers Ips pini (Say) (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). J Chem Ecol 15:233–247Google Scholar
  36. Miller DR, Gibson KE, Raffa KF, Seybold SJ, Teale SA, Wood DL (1997) Geographic variation in response of pine engraver, Ips pini, and associated species to pheromone, lanierone. J Chem Ecol 23:2013–2031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Peckarsky BL, McIntosh AR, Taylor BW, Dahl J (2002) Predator chemicals induce changes in mayfly life history traits: a whole-stream manipulation. Ecology 83:612–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. R Development Core Team (2006) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. ISBN 3-90051-07-0. Cited 8th June 2007
  39. Raffa KF (1991) Temporal and spatial disparities among bark beetles, predators, and associates responding to synthetic bark beetle pheromones: Ips pini (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in Wisconsin. Environ Entomol 20:1665–1679Google Scholar
  40. Raffa KF, Klepzig KD (1989) Chiral escape of bark beetles from predators responding to a bark beetle pheromone. Oecologia 80:566–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Raffa KF, Dahlsten DL (1995) Differential responses among natural enemies and prey to bark beetle pheromones. Oecologia 102:17–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Redmer JS, Wallin KF, Raffa KF (2001) Effect of host tree seasonal phenology on substrate suitability for the pine engraver, Ips pini (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) implications to population dynamics and enemy free space. J Econ Entomol 94:844–849PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Reeve JD (1997) Predation and bark beetle dynamics. Oecologia 112:48–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Reeve JD, Strom BL (2004) Statistical problems encountered in trapping studies of scolytids and associated insects. J Chem Ecol 30:1575–1590PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Romme WH, Knight DH, Yavitt JB (1986) Mountain pine beetle outbreaks in the rocky mountains: regulators of primary productivity. Am Nat 127:484–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rowellrahier M, Pasteels JM, Alonsomejia A, Brower LP (1995) Relative unpalatability of leaf beetles with either biosynthesized or sequestered chemical defence. Anim Behav 49:709–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ryall KL, Fahrig L (2005) Habitat loss decreases predator–prey ratios in a pine-bark system. Oikos 110:265–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schlyter F, Anderbrant O (1993) Competition and niche separation between two bark beetles: existence and mechanisms. Oikos 68:437–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schroeder LM, Weslien J (1994) Reduced offspring production in bark beetle Tomicus piniperda in pine bolts baited with ethanol and alpha pinene, which attract antagonistic insects. J Chem Ecol 20:1429–1444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Senger SE, Roitberg BD (1992) Effects of parasitism by Tomicobia tibialis Ashmead (Hymenoptera, Pteromalidae) on reproductive parameters of female pine engravers, Ips pini (Say). Can Entomol 124:509–513Google Scholar
  51. Seybold SJ, Teale SA, Wood DL, Zhang A, Webster FX, Lindahl KQ, Kubo I (1992) The role of lanierone in the chemical ecology of Ips pini (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in California. J Chem Ecol 18:2305–2329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Seybold SJ, Ohtsuka T, Wood DL, Kubo I (1995) Enantiomeric composition of ipsdienol: a chemotaxonomic character for North American populations of Ips spp. in the pini subgeneric group (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). J Chem Ecol 21:995–1016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Seybold SJ, Huber DPW, Lee JC, Graves AD, Bohlman J (2006) Pine monoterpenes and pine bark beetles: a marriage of convenience for defense and chemical communication. Phytochem Rev 5:143–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stamp N (2001) Enemy-free space via host plany chemistry and dispersion: assessing the influence of tri-trophic interactions. Oecologia 128:153–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stamp NE, Bowers MD (1993) Presence of predatory wasps and stinkbugs alters foraging behavior of cryptic and non-cryptic caterpillars on plantain (Plantago lanceolata). Oecologia 95:376–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sullivan BT, Berisford CW (2004) Semiochemicals from fungal associates of bark beetles may mediate host location behavior of parasitoids. J Chem Ecol 30:703–717PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Teale SA, Webster FX, Zhang A, Lanier GN (1991) Lanierone: a new pheromone component from Ips pini (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in New York. J Chem Ecol 17:1159–1176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Teale SA, Hager BJ, Webster FX (1994) Pheromone-based assortative mating in a bark beetle. Anim Behav 48:569–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Thaler JS (1999) Jasmonate-inducible plant defences cause increased parasitism of herbivores. Nature 399:686–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Turchin P, Taylor AD, Reeve JD (1999) Dynamical role of predators in population cycles of a forest insect: an experimental test. Science 285:1068–1070PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Turlings TCJ, Loughrin JH, Mccall PJ, Rose USR, Lewis WJ, Tumlinson JH (1995) How caterpillar-damaged plants protect themselves by attracting parasitic wasps. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 92:4169–4174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wood D (1982) The role of pheromones, kairomones, and allomones in the host selection and colonization behavior of bark beetles. Ann Rev Entomol 27:411–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zuk M, Kolluru GR (1998) Exploitation of sexual signals by predators and parasitoids. Quart Rev Biol 73:415–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kenneth F. Raffa
    • 1
  • Kenneth R. Hobson
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sara LaFontaine
    • 1
    • 3
  • Brian H. Aukema
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of EntomologyUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Department of ZoologyUniversity of OklahomaNormanUSA
  3. 3.School of Veterinary MedicineUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA
  4. 4.Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest ServiceUniversity of Northern British Columbia Prince GeorgeCanada

Personalised recommendations