Oecologia

, Volume 89, Issue 4, pp 487–493 | Cite as

The dispersal behaviour of the phoretic mite Poecilochirus carabi (Mesostigmata, Parasitidae): adaptation to the breeding biology of its carrier Necrophorus vespilloides (Coleoptera, Silphidae)

  • Horst H. Schwarz
  • Josef K. Müller
Original Papers

Summary

When the phoretic mite Poecilochirus carabi reproduces in the brood chamber of its carrier Necrophorus vespilloides, a beetle with biparental brood care, the first deuteronymphs of the new mite generation aggregate on the male beetle. They do not use sex-specific traits to discriminate between male and female beetles in the brood chamber, but traits that are related to the beetles' behaviour and may be displayed by both parent beetles. When the male beetle departs, it carries virtually all deuteronymphs then present in the brood chamber. Deuteronymphs that develop later congregate on the female, which leaves the crypt some days after the male. Only those deuteronymphs that miss the female's departure disperse on the beetle larvae, meaning they have to wait in their pupal chambers until the beetles have completed their development. On average, 86% of the deuteronymphs leave the brood chamber on the parent beetles, thereby gaining the advantage of an early departure. As soon as their carrier arrives at one of the beetles' meeting places, the deuteronymphs can transfer between the beetles present. Choice experiments revealed that the deuteronymphs tend to even out density differences between congregating carriers, and prefer sexually mature to immature beetles. Therefore, transferring between beetles results in a dispersion of deuteronymphs on the sexually mature beetles of the population.

Key words

Dispersal Phoresy Sex-preference Poecilochirus Necrophorus 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Athias-Binche F (1990) Sur le concept de symbiose. L'exemple de la phorésie chez les acariens et son évolution vers la parasitisme ou le mutualisme. Bull Soc Zool Fr 115:77–98Google Scholar
  2. Bartlett J (1988) Male mating success and paternal care in Nicrophorus vespilloides (Coleoptera: Silphidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 23:297–303Google Scholar
  3. Binns ES (1982) Phoresy as migration—Some functional aspects of phoresy in mites. Biol Rev 57:571–620Google Scholar
  4. Christie JE (1983) A new species of Alliphis (Mesostigmata: Eviphididae) from Britain. Acarologia 24:231–242Google Scholar
  5. Costa M (1969) The association between mesostigmatic mites and coprid beetles. Acarologia 11:411–428Google Scholar
  6. Hunter PE, Rosario RMT (1988) Associations of mesostigmata with other arthropods. Annu Rev Entomol 33:393–417Google Scholar
  7. Hyatt KH (1980) Mites of the subfamily Parasitinae (Mesostigmata: Parasitidae) in the British Isles. Bull Brit Mus Nat Hist Zool 38:237–378Google Scholar
  8. Hyatt KH, Emberson RM (1988) A review of the Macrochelidae (Acari: Mesostigmata) of the British Isles. Bull Br Mus Nat Hist Zool 54:63–125Google Scholar
  9. Karg W (1971) Die freilebenden Gamasina (Gamasides), Raubmilben. In: Dahl M, Peus F (eds) Die Tierwelt Deutschlands und der angrenzenden Meeresteile nach ihren Merkmalen und nach ihrer Lebensweise. Gustav Fischer Verlag, JenaGoogle Scholar
  10. Karg W (1989) Uropodina Kramer, Schildkrötenmilben. In: Senglaub K, Hannemann HJ, Schumann H (eds) Die Tierwelt Deutschlands und der angrenzenden Meeresteile nach ihren Merkmalen und nach ihrer Lebensweise. Gustav Fischer Verlag, JenaGoogle Scholar
  11. Korn W (1982) Zur Fortpflanzung von Poecilochirus carabi G. u. R. Canestrini 1882 (syn. P. necrophori Vitzt.) und P. austroasiaticus Vitzthum 1930 (Gamasina, Eugamasidae). Spixiana (Muench) 5:261–288Google Scholar
  12. Korn W (1983) Zur Vergesellschaftung der Gamasidenarten Poecilochirus carabi G. u. R. Canestrini 1882 (=P. necrophori Vitzthum 1930), P. austroasiaticus Vitzthum 1930 und P. subterraneus Müller 1859 mit Aaskäfern aus der Familie der Silphidae. Spixiana (Muench) 6:251–279Google Scholar
  13. Lengerken H von (1954) Die Brutfürsorge-und Brutpflegeinstinkte der Käfer. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  14. Lindquist EE (1975) Associations between mites and other arthropods in forest floor habitats. Can Entomol 107:425–437Google Scholar
  15. Müller JK, Eggert AK (1987) Effects of carrion-independent pheromone emission by male burying beetles (Silphidae: Necrophorus). Ethology 76:297–304Google Scholar
  16. Müller JK, Eggert AK (1988) Biologie und Fortpflanzungsverhalten des Totengräbers Necrophorus vespilloides. Sitzungsber Ges Naturforsch Freunde Berl N F 28:31–43Google Scholar
  17. Müller JK, Eggert AK, Dressel J (1990) Intraspecific brood parasitism in the burying beetle Necrophorus vespilloides (Coleoptera: Silphidae). Anim Behav 40:491–499Google Scholar
  18. Müller JK, Schwarz HH (1990) Differences in carrier-preference and evidence of reproductive isolation between mites of Poecilochirus carabi (Acari, Parasitidae) living phoretically on two sympatric Necrophorus species (Coleoptera, Silphidae). Zool Jahrb Abt Syst Oekol Geogr Tiere 117:23–30Google Scholar
  19. Neumann KW (1943) Die Lebensgeschichte der Käfermilbe Poecilochirus necrophori Vitzth. nebst Beschreibung aller Entwicklungsstufen. Zool Anz 142:1–21Google Scholar
  20. Otronen M (1988) The effect of body size on the outcome of fights in burying beetles (Nicrophorus). Ann Zool Fenn 25:191–201Google Scholar
  21. Pukowski E (1933) Ökologische Untersuchungen an Necrophorus F. Z Morphol Ökol Tiere 27:518–586Google Scholar
  22. Rapp A (1959) Zur Biologie und Ethologie der Käfermilbe Parasitus coleoptratorum L. 1758 (Ein Beitrag zum Phoresie-Problem). Zool Jahrb Abt Syst Oekol Geogr Tiere 86:303–366Google Scholar
  23. Scheucher R (1959) Systematik und Ökologie der deutschen Anoetinen. In: Stammer HJ (ed) Beiträge zur Systematik und Ökologie mitteleuropäischer Acarina. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  24. Schwarz HH, Müller JK (1990) Species characterization by ecological and genetic traits. Verh Dtsch Zool Ges 83:515–516Google Scholar
  25. Schwarz HH, Müller JK, Baker A (1991) Genetic differentiation between deuteronymphs of Poecilochirus carabi (Mesostigmata, Parasitidae) living on sympatric Necrophorus species (Coleoptera, Silphidae). In: Dusbabek F, Bukva V (eds) Modern Acarology. Academia, Prague and SPB Academic, The Hague, in pressGoogle Scholar
  26. Springett BP (1968) Aspects of the relationship between burying beetles, Necrophorus spp. and the mite, Poecilochirus necrophori Vitz. J Anim Ecol 37:417–427Google Scholar
  27. Starzyk JR (1967) An interesting case of phoresis of the mite Poecilochirus necrophori Vitzth. (Parasitiformes, Parasitidae) on the burying beetle Nicrophorus fossor Er. (Coleoptera, Silphidae). Przegl Zool 11:51–53Google Scholar
  28. Trumbo ST (1991) Reproductive benefits and the duration of paternal care in a biparental burying beetle, Necrophorus orbicollis. Behaviour 117:82–105Google Scholar
  29. Wilson DS (1982) Genetic polymorphism for carrier preference in a phoretic mite. Ann Ent Soc Am 75:293–296Google Scholar
  30. Wilson DS (1983) The effect of population structure on the evolution of mutualism: a field test involving burying beetles and their phoretic mites. Am Nat 121:851–870Google Scholar
  31. Wilson DS, Knollenberg WG (1984) Species packing and temperature dependent competition among burying beetles (Silphidae: Nicrophorus). Ecol Entomol 9:205–216Google Scholar
  32. Wilson DS, Knollenberg WG (1987) Adaptive indirect effects: the fitness of burying beetles with and without their phoretic mites. Evol Ecol 1:139–159Google Scholar
  33. Wilson DS, Knollenberg WG, Fudge J (1984) Food discrimination and ovarian development in burying beetles (Coleoptera: Silphidae: Nicrophorus). Ann Entomol Soc Am 77:165–170Google Scholar
  34. Wise GU, Henessey MK, Axtell RC (1988) A new species of manureinhabiting mite in the genus Poecilochirus (Acari: Mesostigmata: Parasitidae) predacious on house fly eggs and larvae. Ann Entomol Soc Am 81:209–224Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Horst H. Schwarz
    • 1
  • Josef K. Müller
    • 1
  1. 1.Lehrstuhl für Evolutionsforschung der UniversitätBielefeld 1Federal Republic of Germany

Personalised recommendations