Advertisement

Population Ecology

, Volume 50, Issue 1, pp 45–52 | Cite as

Colony growth and dispersal in the ant-tended aphid, Aphis craccivora Koch, and the non-ant-tended aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum Harris, under the absence of predators and ants

  • Emi Tokunaga
  • Nobuhiko Suzuki
Original Article

Abstract

To elucidate the potential for colony growth and the dispersal of aphids in relation to the ant attendance, the mobility, tolerance of starvation, colony growth, and dispersal were examined in the ant-tended Aphis craccivora Koch and the non-ant-tended Acyrthosiphon pisum Harris under the absence of predators and ants. The increase of the dispersal rate with density was more conspicuous in Ac. pisum than Ap. craccivora. The success rate of dispersal was higher in Ac. pisum than Ap. craccivora. These results would be derived from the higher ability of dispersal by walking in Ac. pisum than Ap. craccivora. The longer legs, higher walking speed, and stronger tolerance of starvation in Ac. pisum might result in a higher ability of dispersal by walking. These traits may have developed in relation to non-ant attendance, because Ac. pisum aphids frequently escape from natural enemies by dropping from the host plant. On the other hand, Ap. craccivora have not developed morphological and behavioral traits concerning dispersal by walking, because increasing colony size without dispersal is likely to be advantageous for ant attraction. Escaping behaviors of Ap. craccivora from natural enemies have not been well developed due to the ant’s defense against natural enemies. The proportion of alatae in Ap. craccivora was higher than in Ac. pisum instead of a lesser ability for dispersal by walking in Ap. craccivora. The differences in ant attendance have been influenced in the development of morphological and behavioral traits concerning the dispersal ability, and then, different potentials for reproduction and dispersal have developed in ant-tended aphids and non-ant-tended aphids.

Keywords

Alatae production Ant attendance Dispersal rate Mortality rate Starvation Walking speed 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank members of Laboratory of System Ecology, Faculty of Agriculture, Saga University for helpful advice and support during this study.

References

  1. Arakaki N (1989) Alarm pheromone eliciting attack and escape response in the sugar cane woolly aphid, Ceratovacuna langiera (Homoptera, Pemphigidae). J Ethol 7:83–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boucher DH (1985) The idea of mutualism, past and future. In: Boucher DH (ed) The biology of mutualism: ecology and evolution. Croom Helm, London, pp 1–28Google Scholar
  3. Bower WS, Nault LR, Webb RE, Dutky SR (1972) Aphid alarm pheromone: isolation, identification, synthesis. Science 177:1121–1122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Braendle C, Weisser WW (2001) Variation in escape behavior of red and green clones of the pea aphid. J Insect Behav 14:497–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bristow CM (1991) Why are so few aphids ant-tended? In: Huxley CR, Cutle DF (eds) Ant–plant interactions. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 104–119Google Scholar
  6. Bronstein JL (1994) Conditional outcomes in mutualistic interactions. Trends Ecol Evol 9:214–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bryan KM, Wratten SD (1984) The responses of polyphagous predators to prey spatial heterogeneity: aggregation by carabid and staphylinid beetles to their cereal aphid prey. Ecol Entomol 9:251–259Google Scholar
  8. Buckley RC (1987) Interactions involving plants, Homoptera, and ants. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 18:111–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chau A, Mackauer M (1997) Dropping of pea aphids from feeding site: a consequence of parasitism by the wasp, Monoctonus paulensis. Entomol Exp Appl 83:247–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dill LD, Fraser A, Roitberg BD (1990) The economics of escape behaviour in the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum. Oecologia 83:473–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dixon AFG (1998) Aphid ecology. 2nd edn Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Dixon AFG, Agarwala BK (1999) Ladybird-induced life-history changes in aphids. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 266:1549–1553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dixon AFG, Glen DM (1971) Morph determination in the bird cherry-oat aphid Rhopalosiphum padi L. Ann Appl Biol 68:11–21Google Scholar
  14. Edwards LJ, Siddall JB, Dunham LL, Uden P, Kislow CJ (1973) Trans-farnesene, alarm pheromone of the green peach aphid, Myzus persicae (Sulzer). Nature 241:126–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fischer MK, Hoffmann KH, Völkl W (2001) Competition for mutualists in an ant–homopteran interaction mediated by hierarchies of ant attendance. Oikos 92:531–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Flatt T, Weisser WW (2000) The effects of mutualistic ants on aphid life history traits. Ecology 81:3522–3529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gwynn DM, Callaghan A, Gorham J, Walters KFA, Fellowes MDE (2005) Resistance is costly: trade-offs between immunity, fecundity and survival in the pea aphid. Proc R Soc Lond B 272:1803–1808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hight SC, Eikenbary RD, Miller RJ, Starks KJ (1972) The greenbug and Lysiphlebus testaceipes. Environ Entomol 1:205–209Google Scholar
  19. Hongoh Y, Ishikawa H (1994) Changes of mycetocyte symbiosis in response to flying behavior of alatiform aphid (Acyrthosiphon pisum). Zool Sci 11:731–735Google Scholar
  20. Hübner G, Völkl W (1996) Behavioral strategies of aphid hyperparasitoids to escape aggression by honeydew-collecting ants. J Insect Behav 9:143–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Johnson B (1965) Wing polymorphism in aphids II. interaction between aphids. Entomol Exp Appl 8:49–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnson B (1966) Wing polymorphism in aphids III. the influence of the host plant. Entomol Exp Appl 9:213–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Katayama N, Suzuki N (2002) The cost and benefit of ant attendance for the aphid Aphis craccivora (Homoptera: Aphididae) with reference to the aphid colony size. Can Entomol 134:241–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Katayama N, Suzuki N (2003a) Changes in the use of extrafloral nectaries of Vicia faba (Leguminosae) and honeydew of aphids by ants with increasing aphid density. Ann Entomol Soc Am 96:579–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Katayama N, Suzuki N (2003b) Bodyguard effects for the aphids of Aphis cracciova Koch (Homoptera: Aphididae) as to the activity of two ant species, Tetramorium caespitum Linnaeus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and Lasius niger L. (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Appl Entomol Zool 38:427–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kawada K (1987) Polymorphism and morph determination. In: Minks AK, Harrewijn P (eds) Aphids their biology, natural enemies and control Volume A. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 255–268Google Scholar
  27. Kobayasi M, Ishikawa H (1993) Breakdown of indirect flight muscles of alate aphids (Acyrthosiphon pisum) in relation to their flight, feeding and reproductive behavior. J Insect Physiol 39:549–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kunert G, Weisser WW (2003) The interplay between density- and trait-mediated effects in predator-prey interactions: a case study in aphid wing polymorphism. Oecologia 135:304–312PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Kunert G, Weisser WW (2005) The importance of antennae for pea aphid wing induction in the presence of natural enemies. Bull Entomol Res 95:125–131PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kunert G, Otto S, Rose USR, Gershenzon J, Weisser WW (2005) Alarm pheromone mediates production of winged dispersal morphs aphids. Ecol Lett 8:596–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lees AD (1966) The control of polymorphism in aphids. Adv Insect Physiol 3:207–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lees AD (1967) The production of the apterous and alate forms in the aphid Megoura viciae Buckton, with special reference to the role of crowding. J Insect Physiol 13:289–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Losey JE, Denno RF (1998) The escape response of pea aphids to foliar-foraging predators: factors affecting dropping behaviour. Ecol Entomol 23:53–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Loughridge AH, Luff ML (1983) Aphid predation by Harpalus rufipes (Degeer) (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in the laboratory and field. J Appl Ecol 20:451–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mittler TE, Kurkel H (1971) Wing production by grouped and isolated apterae of the aphid Myzus persicae on artificial diet. Entomol Exp Appl 14:83–92Google Scholar
  36. Mittler TE, Sutherland ORW (1969) Dietary influences on aphid polymorphism. Entomol Exp Appl 12:703–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Montgomery ME, Nault LR (1977) Comparative response of aphids to the alarm pheromone, (E)-β-farnesene. Entomol Exp Appl 22:236–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nault LR, Edwards LJ, Styer WE (1973) Aphid alarm pheromones: secretion and reception. Environ Entomol 2:101–103Google Scholar
  39. Nault LR, Montgomery ME, Bowers WS (1976) Ant–aphid association: role of aphid alarm pheromone. Science 192:1349–1351PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Roitberg BD, Myers JH (1978) Adaptation of alarm pheromone responses of the pea aphid Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris). Can J Zool 56:103–108Google Scholar
  41. Roitberg BD, Myers JH (1979) Behavioural and physiological adaptatons of pea aphids (Homoptera: Aphididae) to high ground temperatures and predator disturbance. Can Entomol 111:515–519Google Scholar
  42. Sakata H (1995) Density-dependent predation of the ant Lasius niger (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) on two attended aphids Lachnus tropicalis and Myzocallis kuricola (Homoptera: Aphididae). Res Popul Ecol 37:159–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shaw MJP (1970) Effects of population density on alienicolae of Aphis favae Scop. I. The effect of crowding on the expression of migratory urge among alatae in the laboratory. Ann Appl Biol 65:197–203Google Scholar
  44. Sloggett JJ, Weisser WW (2002) Parasitoids induce production of the dispersal morph of the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum. Oikos 98:323–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stadler B, Dixon AFO (1998) Costs of ant attendance for aphids. J Anim Ecol 67:454–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stadler B, Dixon AFO (1999) Ant attendance in aphids: why different degrees of myrmecophily? Ecol Entomol 24:363–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sutherland ORW (1969a) The role of crowding in the production of winged forms by two strains of the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum. J Insect Physiol 15:1385–1410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sutherland ORW (1969b) The role of the host plant in the production of winged forms by two strains of the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum. J Insect Physiol 15:2179–2201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sutherland ORW, Mittler TE (1971) Influence of diet composition and crowding on wing production by the aphid Myzus persicae. J Insect Physiol 17:321–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Suzuki N, Ogura K, Katayama N (2004) Efficiency of herbivore exclusion by ants attracted to aphids on the vetch Vicia angustifolia L. (Leguminosae). Ecol Res 19:275–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Völkl W (1997) Interactions between ants and aphid parasitoids: patterns and consequences for resource utilization. Ecol Stud 130:225–240Google Scholar
  52. Völkl W, Stadler B (1996) Colony orientation and successful defence behaviour in the conifer aphid, Schizolachnus pineti. Entomol Exp Appl 78:197–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Way MJ (1963) Mutualism between ants and honeydew-producing Homoptera. Annu Rev Entomol 8:307–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Weisser WW, Braendle C, Minoretti N (1999) Predator-induced morphological shift in the pea aphid. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:1175–1181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Winder L (1990) Predation of the cereal aphid Sitobion avenae by polyphagous predators on the ground. Ecol Entomol 15:105–110Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of Population Ecology and Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Applied Biological Sciences, Faculty of AgricultureSaga UniversitySagaJapan

Personalised recommendations