Tritrophic interactions among plants, herbivorous insects and their parasitoids have been well studied in the past four decades. Recently, a new angle has been uncovered: koinobiont parasitoids, that allow their host to keep feeding on the plant for a certain amount of time after parasitism, indirectly alter plant responses against herbivory via the many physiological changes induced in their herbivorous hosts. By affecting plant responses, parasitoids may indirectly affect the whole community of insects interacting with plants induced by parasitized herbivores and have extended effects on plant fitness. These important findings have renewed research interests on parasitoid manipulation of their host development. Parasitoids typically arrest their host development before the last instar, resulting in a lower final weight compared to unparasitized hosts. Yet, some parasitoids prolong their host development, leading to larger herbivores that consume more plant material than unparasitized ones. Furthermore, parasitoid host regulation is plastic and one parasitoid species may arrest or promote its host growth depending on the number of eggs laid, host developmental stage and species as well as environmental conditions. The consequences of plasticity in parasitoid host regulation for plant–insect interactions have received very little attention over the last two decades, particularly concerning parasitoids that promote their host growth. In this review, we first synthesize the mechanisms used by parasitoids to regulate host growth and food consumption. Then, we identify the evolutionary and environmental factors that influence the direction of parasitoid host regulation in terms of arrestment or promotion of host growth. In addition, we discuss the implication of different host regulation types for the parasitoid’s role as agent of plant indirect defence. Finally, we argue that the recent research interests about parasitoid plant-mediated interactions would strongly benefit from revival of research on the mechanisms, ecology and evolution of host regulation in parasitoids.
Parasitoids are typically small wasps that lay their eggs inside (endoparasitoids) or outside (ectoparasitoids) a host that serves as food source for the entire larval stage of the parasitoids offspring. They are important model organisms in the study of behavioural and evolutionary ecology that are ubiquitous in many natural and agricultural ecosystems: virtually all immature insect can be parasitized by at least one parasitoid species (Godfray 1994).
Recently, studies have shed light on a novel ecological phenomenon in tritrophic interactions: koinobiont parasitoids indirectly affect plant responses to herbivory, which, in turn, alter the attraction (Cusumano et al. 2018; Zhu et al. 2018) and performance (Tan et al. 2018, 2019) of subsequent herbivores. Plant recognition of parasitized herbivores is altered because of the important regulation imposed by parasitoids on their host physiology (Cusumano and Volkoff 2021). Such host manipulation is achieved via several types of factors injected by parasitoids in the host along with eggs, such as symbiotic viruses and venom (Vinson and Iwantsch 1980). This exciting new angle of tritrophic interactions is receiving increasing attention (Cusumano et al. 2021; Dicke et al. 2020; Poelman and Cusumano 2021; Tan et al. 2020; Wang et al. 2021) and has renewed research interests for parasitoid host regulation. Host regulation has been understudied over the last two decades, and many areas are still not fully understood, particularly concerning the mechanisms, plasticity and ecological consequences of parasitoid promotion of host growth.
Parasitoids are generally divided into two categories of host usage strategies: idiobiosis and koinobiosis (Harvey 2005; Mackauer and Sequeira 1993). In the first strategy, parasitoids either paralyze their host, preventing them from moving and feeding, or parasitize sessile host stages (e.g. eggs or pupae). In the second strategy, koinobiont parasitoids develop in a growing host that keeps on moving and feeding for a significant period of the development of the parasitoid larva. Idiobionts are generally ectoparasitoids with a wide host range while koinobionts are typically endoparasitoids and considered to be more specialized (Santos and Quicke 2011). The common ancestor of parasitoids was an idiobiont ectoparasitoid that attacked concealed hosts (Pennacchio and Strand 2006). Koinobiosis as adaptation allows parasitoids to lay their eggs in hosts at an earlier stage of development and without the risk of the parasitoid eggs or larvae becoming disconnected from their host (Mackauer et al. 1997; Strand 2000). On the other hand, the continuous development of the host can be a constraint when the host environment becomes more hostile during larval development. Koinobiont parasitoids overcome this constraint by regulating their host development for their own benefit (Beckage and Gelman 2004). The degree of host manipulation in parasitoids ranges from ‘conformers’ that are adapted to the normal development of their host with limited host manipulation to parasitoids that are strong ‘regulators’ that induce significant changes in their host development (Lawrence 1986). However, in several species, parasitoid larvae are plastic in the level of host regulation depending on factors such as host age or species (Harvey et al. 1999; Harvey and Malcicka 2016; Mackauer and Sequeira 1993).
In many documented cases of host regulation, koinobiont parasitoids prematurely stop the development of their herbivorous host which results in a reduction of their final size and host food consumption (Table 1; Beckage and Gelman 2004; Harvey 1996; Varley and Butler 1933). Alternatively, some koinobiont parasitoids extend their host development time (for example, by inducing a supernumerary larval instar) or increase their feeding rate, resulting in a higher final host weight compared to unparasitized hosts (Table 2; Ode 2006). Furthermore, some parasitoids exert plasticity in the direction of their host regulation and are able to arrest or prolong their host development according to environmental conditions (Harvey 1996). Several factors may explain why parasitoids evolved such opposite strategies of host regulation, such as reduction of their host predation risk or parasitoid resource needs (Fritz 1982; Harvey 2005; Pennacchio and Strand 2006).
When parasitism results in a premature arrestment of the herbivorous host development, it often reduces the host plant consumption and can have a beneficial effect on plant fitness (Bustos-Segura et al. 2019; Gols et al. 2015; Gómez and Zamora 1994; Hoballah and Turlings 2001; van Loon et al. 2000). Consequently, plants are hypothesized to have evolved several traits to increase parasitoid attraction (e.g. extrafloral nectar, volatiles) as part of plant indirect defence strategies (Gols 2014; Pearse et al. 2020; Schuman et al. 2012). However, these traits may also attract parasitoids that do not reduce or even enhance plant fitness costs of feeding by the herbivore host (Cuny et al. 2021).
Here, we first review the physiological and molecular traits used by koinobiont parasitoids in order to regulate their host development and feeding behaviour. Then, we identify the evolutionary and ecological factors that may be responsible for whether parasitoids increase or decrease their host weight and plant consumption. Furthermore, we discuss the evolutionary implications of koinobiont parasitoid host regulation for plant indirect defence strategies. Finally, we argue that indirect plant-parasitoid interactions can only be deciphered with a full understanding of how parasitoids regulate their host development.
Mechanisms of koinobiont parasitoid host developmental regulation and feeding behaviour
Parasitoids significantly change the physiology of their host in order to render it more suitable for an optimal development of the parasitoid larva(e) (Beckage and Gelman 2004; Vinson and Iwantsch 1980). Host regulation is often a concerted process directed by the parasitoid larva itself and factors that parasitoids inject along with the eggs into the host, such as endogenous viruses, venom, and teratocytes. Although these factors may be injected to suppress the immune system of the host (Vinson 1990), we here focus on their role in regulation of the host development and feeding behaviour.
Many parasitoids harbour endogenous viruses from the family of the Polydnaviridae that reproduce in the calyx of adult wasps and are injected inside the host during oviposition (Rotheram 1967; Stoltz et al. 1984; Strand and Burke 2019). The association with viruses arose in two separate lineages of parasitoids belonging to the Braconidae and Ichneumonidae families (Strand and Burke 2015). The polydnaviruses (PDVs) are therefore divided into two groups: bracoviruses and ichnoviruses. Once released into the host, PDVs infect the host cells and discharge their DNA into the nuclei. As a consequence, the host cells integrate virus DNA segments into their genome and start producing PDV gene products such as protein tyrosine phosphatases (PTPs, (Pruijssers and Strand 2007)). These products are released into the host and have a strong effect on its immune system, but also on the regulation of host growth (Strand and Burke 2014).
PDV host regulation is mainly achieved through alterations of the host hormonal levels (e.g. juvenile hormone and ecdysteroid) or neuropeptides that are controlling metamorphosis, pupation or feeding behaviour (Dushay and Beckage 1993; Ignesti 2018; Shi et al. 2015). PDVs can also induce metabolic changes in the host, such as hyperglycemia, resulting in an arrestment of the feeding behaviour of the host and a reduction in weight (Pruijssers et al. 2009). In most of the reported cases, PDVs reduce the size, inhibit moulting and cause an early arrestment of the development and feeding of their host (Dorémus et al. 2014; Strand and Burke 2014). Although less well documented, PDVs can also prolong the host development time and increase its final weight (Beckage et al. 1994; Doucet and Cusson 1996). For example, Manduca sexta larvae injected with calyx fluid derived from parasitoids had a longer developmental time and a higher weight than hosts injected with parasitoid eggs that were parted of the calyx fluid (Dushay and Beckage 1993).
While parasitizing their host, koinobiont parasitoids also inject non-paralysing venom, a complex mixture mainly composed of enzymes with diverse functions (Asgari and Rivers 2011; Poirié et al. 2014). It is produced in the parasitoid venom gland and stored in its reservoir. Venom injected by koinobiont endoparasitoids typically plays an important immunosuppressive role (Asgari and Rivers 2011; Moreau and Asgari 2015), but also affects their host development (Digilio et al. 1998). For koinobiont parasitoids that harbour PDVs, venom also plays a synergistic role in the support of the PDVs functions. When PDVs are experimentally injected into the host without venom, host development is prolonged because ecdysteroid disruption is either reduced or not observed anymore (Digilio et al. 1998; Strand and Dover 1991; Tanaka 1987; Tanaka and Vinson 1991). Similarly, herbivorous larvae parasitized by parasitoids lacking the poison gland lived longer and consumed more food than normally parasitized hosts (Guillot and Vinson 1973). In some cases, venom can even be mandatory for the survival of PDVs in the host (Stoltz et al. 1988).
Some parasitoid species from two families (Braconidae and Platygastroidea) inject eggs that have a specialized membrane that differentiates into autonomous cells (so called: "teratocytes", (Dahlman 1990; Strand 2014)) that are released into the host haemolymph when the parasitoid egg hatches (Pedata et al. 2003; Vinson 1970). Teratocytes play an important role in the arrestment of the host growth by the production of proteins and miRNAs that interfere with host hormones (e.g. juvenile hormones or ecdysteroids) that control its growth and metamorphosis (Falabella et al. 2000; Joiner et al. 1973; Wang et al. 2018; Zhang et al. 1992, 1997). In addition, teratocytes inhibit host protein synthesis which has negative consequences for the host growth (Dahlman et al. 2003). However, teratocytes injected alone in unparasitized hosts may prolong host development time and feeding behaviour compared to unparasitized hosts (Adamo et al. 1997). In general, the study of teratocytes has lagged behind other host regulating parasitoid factors such as PDVs and venom (Strand 2014).
The parasitoid larva itself can affect its host development via the production of several secretory products such as proteins, saliva or hormones. Parasitoid larvae can act on the endocrinal system of their host via the release of hormones into the haemolymph of their host, such as ecdysteroids and juvenile hormone, inducing a premature host metamorphosis or developmental arrestment (Brown et al. 1993; Cole et al. 2002; Gelman et al. 1999). They also release proteins (Vinson et al. 1994) that play a role in the control of host development (Hochuli et al. 1999). Proteins present in the saliva of some ectoparasitoid larvae allow them to kill their host just before parasitoid pupation (Nakamatsu and Tanaka 2004). For the gregarious endoparasitoid Cotesia congregata, when only the parasitoid larvae are injected in an unparasitized Manduca sexta (without venom or PDVs), the host may stop feeding after the larvae emerged, similar to naturally parasitized hosts, suggesting that the larvae are responsible for this arrestment of feeding behaviour (Adamo et al. 1997). This could be caused by an over-activation of the host immunity response (Adamo et al. 2016).
Evolutionary and ecological factors promoting parasitoid arrestment or increase in host development
Whether parasitoids increase or decrease their host weight and food consumption depends on several parameters (Fig. 1). At the evolutionary scale, host feeding ecology as well as parasitoid life-history traits play an important role in shaping the type of host regulation. While at the ecological scale, parasitoid resource need for an optimal development is a good predictor for host arrestment or prolongation.
1993). However, koinobiont parasitoids often face trade-offs between the optimisation of offspring size and development time, and other important ecophysiological factors such as host mobility and continuous development (Harvey 2005).
The type of host regulation strategy increases or decreases the time that parasitoids spend developing in their host, which can increase or decrease the host exposure to predators. This is particularly important for the fitness of parasitoids developing in an exposed host with high risks of predation, which would result in the death of the parasitoid larva(e) (Fritz 1982). Therefore, it is hypothesized that parasitoids have evolved host regulation strategies that arrest the development of their host early in their development (e.g. earlier moulting or pupation) in order to minimize the predation risks of exposed hosts. For example, parasitoid larvae that develop in exposed hosts tend to favour a faster developmental time, at the expense of a smaller final weight, and therefore arrest the development of their host earlier (Harvey and Strand 2002). On the other hand, parasitoids that develop in a concealed host with a lower risk of predation tend to favour host regulation strategies that increase host developmental time, total food consumption and final weight compared to their exposed counterparts (Harvey and Strand 2002).
The evolution of parasitoid host regulation is also constrained by the feeding ecology of parasitoid larvae. Koinobiont endoparasitoids can be categorized in two larval host-utilization strategies: tissue and haemolymph feeders (Harvey et al. 2000; Harvey and Gols 2018). Tissue feeders typically consume their host almost entirely in order to pupate. As a consequence, if the host grows too much, the parasitoid can be forced to overeat or can be trapped inside and die (Harvey 1996, 2005). Hence, we can hypothesize that for parasitoids feeding on host tissue, there is an evolutionary advantage to arrest the host development below a threshold, resulting in a development time of parasitized hosts that is usually shorter than unparasitized ones. On the other hand, parasitoids that feed on haemolymph and fat bodies typically pupate outside of their host, which they do not have to entirely consume (Harvey and Strand 2002). They are not constrained by a short host developmental time and they can allow their host to grow until the last instar. They even sometimes extend the host developmental time with a supernumerary instar which significantly increase its final weight (Table 2, Harvey and Malcicka 2016). Therefore, the capacity of feeding on the host haemolymph could have favoured host regulation strategies that stimulate host growth.
Finally, the evolution of parasitoid host regulation type is affected by their life-history strategies (i.e. solitary and gregarious (Godfray 1994)) and the amount of resource needed to complete development. Solitary parasitoids typically lay only one egg in their host. In contrast, gregarious parasitoids lay several eggs in the same host where they can all complete their development if sufficient resource is provided by the parasitized host. Gregarious parasitoid larvae need significantly more resources than their solitary counterparts. Consequently, they often prolong their host development in order to increase the amount of resource available, while solitary parasitoids often arrest their host development prematurely. All known gregarious parasitoids are haemolymph feeders, suggesting that this strategy is particularly well adapted for the high resource needs of gregarious parasitoids. Therefore, it can be hypothesized that the ability to feed on haemolymph has favoured the transition from solitary parasitoid development to gregariousness (Strand 2000), increasing parasitoid resource needs and favouring the evolution toward host growth promotion. Competition for limiting host supplies could also be an important factor favouring the evolution from solitary to gregariousness (Mackauer and Chow 2015).
Parasitoid host regulation can be plastic: the intensity in decreasing or increasing their host weight can greatly vary according to environmental factors linked with parasitoid resource needs. Furthermore, in different ecological contexts, parasitoids from the same species can exert either a decrease or an increase of their hosts weight.
Parasitoids that typically reduce their final host weight tend to have a stronger host regulation when developing in large hosts. Consequently, in an environment where only large hosts can be found (either large species or late instars), the reduction in host weight due to parasitism will be stronger. This is particularly the case for tissue-feeder parasitoids that entirely consume their host in order to pupate, as having too much resources can be particularly detrimental (Harvey 1996, 2005). This is important when parasitizing a host at a late instar (Harvey et al. 1994), or when parasitizing a large host species. For example, the parasitoid Venturia canescens has a stronger effect on the arrestment of its host development when developing in a large host species (Galleria mellonella) compared to a smaller one (Anagasta kuehniella) (Harvey 1996).
The increase of parasitized host weight tends to be stronger when the amount of resources available in the host is not sufficient for an optimal development of the parasitoid larva(e). This is particularly the case for gregarious parasitoids, as several larvae are developing in the same host and therefore the amount of resources needed is higher compared to their solitary counterparts (Table 2). Importantly, the number of parasitoid larvae developing on/in the same host greatly influences the intensity of the host developmental regulation (Harvey 2000). The higher the number of parasitoid larvae sharing the same host, the more they will regulate the host development to increase its final weight (Smallegange et al. 2008). As a consequence, all the environmental conditions that favour a higher number of gregarious parasitoid larvae developing in the same host will also favour a stronger host regulation toward a higher host plant consumption and final weight. Gregarious parasitoid clutch size usually increases according to the size of the host at parasitism (Sato et al. 1986). Additionally, hosts can also be superparasitized (i.e. laying eggs in a host that is already parasitized by a conspecific parasitoid), leading to very high numbers of parasitoid larvae in the same host and an even stronger host regulation (Table 2; Gu et al. 2003). Several environmental factors can influence the probability of superparasitism (or self-superparasitism when the same female parasitizes the same host several times), such as the amount of hosts available in the environment, the competition with other parasitoids (when superparasitism increases the probability to survive larval competition) and the necessity to exhaust the host immune system (Mackauer et al. 1992; Rosenheim and Hongkham 1996). It has to be noted that superparasitism by solitary parasitoids can also lead to an increased host food consumption (Cloutier and Mackauer 1979, 1980).
Finally, depending on the host species availability in a given environment, the same parasitoid species can either arrest or increase its host development in order to match resources requirement for the developing parasitoid larva(e). For example, Meteorus pulchricornis, a solitary parasitoid that feeds on its host haemolymph, strongly reduces its host development compared to unparasitized hosts when developing in a large host species (Mythimma separata) (Harvey et al. 2010b). Interestingly, when the same parasitoid developed in a very small host species (Plutella xylostella), with likely not enough resources for an optimal parasitoid larval development, host maximum weight was increased by 30% compared to an unparasitized host. Similarly, the gregarious endoparasitoids Cotesia glomerata either reduce or increase their host final weight when developing in a big (Pieris brassicae) or small (P. rapae) host, respectively (Harvey 2000).
Implications of the type of host regulation for plant-parasitoid interaction
Depending on the direction of host regulation, parasitoids can have either a beneficial, neutral or negative effect on plant performance. This may have important consequences for the role of parasitoids as part of plant indirect defence.
In many cases, koinobiont parasitoid host regulation leads to a reduction of the host final weight compared to unparasitized hosts, especially when parasitoids are tissue-feeders and solitary (Table 1; Beckage and Gelman 2004; Vinson and Iwantsch 1980). In this case, parasitism usually reduces herbivory, which can in turn have a positive effect on plant fitness (Dicke and van Loon 2000; Gols et al. 2015; Gómez and Zamora 1994; Hoballah and Turlings 2001). From this point of view, the production of herbivore-induced plant volatiles that attract koinobiont parasitoids toward the plant under attack could be regarded as part of plant indirect defence strategy (Gols 2014; Pearse et al. 2020; Schuman et al. 2012). Considering that parasitoids benefit from the emission of HIPVs that allow them to find their host and increase their fitness (Turlings et al. 1990), plant-parasitoid interactions could even be classified as mutualism (van Loon et al. 2000). The adaptiveness of HIPVs to attract koinobiont parasitoids is still subject to debate (Turlings and Erb 2018). However, when the attracted natural enemies are predators that eat their prey, the advantage of HIPV emission for plant fitness is clearer (Pearse et al. 2020). This leads to the hypothesis that HIPVs are adaptively produced to attract natural enemies (among other functions, Hare 2011; Heil 2014), but it is likely that in several environments, koinobiont parasitoids are not the ideal natural enemies for a plant to attract (Cuny et al. 2021). An alternative hypothesis is that HIPVs are a by-product of plant responses to herbivore attack and parasitoids evolved to exploit these cues in host searching, without a fitness benefit to the plant.
Some koinobiont parasitoids regulate their host in a way that they increase their final weight as well as the amount of plant tissue consumed, compared to unparasitized herbivores (Ode 2006, Table 2). This can even translate into a negative effect on plant fitness (Xi et al. 2015). Therefore, parasitoids that promote their host growth should not be recruited by plants as they do not deliver indirect defence. Yet, when HIPVs are released in the environment, the emitter plant has virtually no control on the receiver species (Kessler and Heil 2011; van der Meijden and Klinkhamer 2000). This may result in the attraction of koinobiont parasitoids that have negative effects on plants due to their host regulation type (Coleman et al. 1999; Kaplan 2012). The context dependency of direction of host regulation by some parasitoids further increases the unreliability in recruiting parasitoids as indirect defence against herbivores and may sometimes turn into an antagonistic relationship.
For a plant trait to be positively selected via natural selection, the main factor to consider is the final overall fitness gain. Therefore, if on average a plant has a net fitness gain when attracting koinobiont parasitoids with HIPVs, this trait will be positively selected via natural selection, even if the plant also interacts with parasitoids that have a negative effect. This raises the following questions: (1) what is the ratio of parasitoids that reduce their host plant consumption versus parasitoids that increase it in natural environments?, (2) do they have the same effect size on plant damage? and (3) does variation in plant damage always translate into an effect on plant fitness? First, it seems that solitary and tissue-feeder parasitoids are more prevalent than gregarious and haemolymph-feeders, probably because haemolymph feeding and gregariousness are relatively recent adaptations (Harvey et al. 2000; Hoballah et al. 2004; Mayhew 1998). Assuming that in general solitary and tissue-feeder parasitoids have more chance to reduce plant damage than haemolymph-feeders and gregarious parasitoids (but see Gols et al. 2015; Harvey et al. 2000, 2010b; Xi et al. 2015), it can be hypothesized that there are more parasitoid species that tend to reduce plant damage (although this pattern could greatly vary according to the environment). Second, if we compare the size of effect of host regulation by parasitoids that increase or decrease their host weight (Tables 1, 2; Hoballah et al. 2004), it seems that, in general, the reduction of parasitized host weight is more important than the increase (approximately − 80% versus +40%, respectively). Thirdly, herbivory does not always translate into a negative effect on plant fitness: some plants can tolerate herbivore damage in order to maintain their fitness (Strauss and Agrawal 1999; Simms 2000). In such plants, variation in herbivory due to parasitism is likely to have no effect on plant fitness, although this has never been tested.
Moreover, it is also very important to consider long-term (i.e. multigenerational) effects of herbivore population reduction by parasitoids on plant fitness (Ode 2006; Pearse et al. 2020). Indeed, even though parasitoids may not always reduce plant damage, or may even increase it, they virtually all ultimately kill their host and reduce herbivore populations (Price et al. 1980). As a consequence, in a context with long-lived plants that suffer from several generations of herbivores, parasitoids have the potential to negatively affect their host population size, and to locally relieve plants from herbivory. This could be particularly visible when the migration of herbivore progeny is negligible (van der Meijden and Klinkhamer 2000). As a consequence, it can be hypothesized that even if the direct effect of parasitism is an increase of plant damage, this negative effect could be entirely compensated by the local reduction in the host population size during the following generations of herbivores.
Furthermore, for some herbivorous hosts such as caterpillars from the Pieris genera, parasitism may be predominantly by gregarious parasitoids. In such specific cases, there are higher chances that the overall consequences of parasitoid attraction could be negative for plant fitness. This may result in a local selection against plant volatile production followed by a local reduction in plant volatile emission (Kergunteuil et al. 2019; Kessler and Heil 2011; Schuman et al. 2012). Such local selection of parasitoids on plant defensive traits has received very little attention so far (Ode 2006, 2019).
Conclusion and future directions
Over the last two decades, the significance of parasitoid host manipulation has been extended to indirect plant-mediated species interactions that are initiated by parasitized herbivores. We argue that the identification of an extended phenotype of parasitoid host manipulation to plant–insect interactions requires deep understanding of the changes in parasitized herbivores.
First, we should explore whether parasitoids that arrest host growth differ in their impact on plant responses to parasitized herbivores compared to parasitoids that prolong host development. Although some studies compared plant induced responses to hosts parasitized by a solitary parasitoid that arrest growth with a gregarious parasitoid that promotes development (Poelman et al. 2011a, b, 2012), these studies could not provide causal evidence for host development as driving factor for the extended phenotype of parasitoids on plant–insect interactions. This is primarily caused by under sampling of gregarious parasitoid species for these interactions. We propose that superparasitizing hosts to create variation in host development from arrestment to prolongation should be used to provide direct evidence for the importance of host development in determining induced plant responses to parasitized hosts.
Second, parasitoid host manipulation affects plant-mediated species interactions through quantitative aspects such as amount of food consumed by parasitized hosts as well as qualitative aspects such as composition of herbivore oral secretions (Poelman et al. 2011b; Tan et al. 2018). How parasitoids prolong herbivore development is understudied compared to arrestment of growth and we thus urge for studies that explore the physiological mechanisms that cause prolongation of host development. In addition, we require detailed understanding of how parasitoids manipulate their host environment beyond the traits that benefit the parasitoid itself. All traits that may influence how parasitoids influence plant-mediated species interactions should be considered. This includes to identify changes in host organs that may not be relevant to parasitoid development, but are crucial in the interface between parasitized herbivores and the food plant, such as salivary glands. A critical knowledge gap is which mechanisms in parasitoid host manipulation predict the outcome of plant-mediated species interactions and determine the net benefit of plants to recruit parasitoids as agents of indirect defence. Such knowledge could be profitable for the ongoing debate about the adaptive role of HIPVs in the attraction of parasitoids (Turlings and Erb 2018; Pearse et al. 2020). We thus pledge for revival of mechanistic, ecological and evolutionary studies on parasitoid host manipulation and emphasize that these studies should more prominently include parasitoids that prolong herbivore development.
Adamo SA, Linn CE, Beckage NE (1997) Correlation between changes in host behaviour and octopamine levels in the tobacco hornworm Manduca sexta parasitized by the gregarious braconid parasitoid wasp Cotesia congregata. J Exp Biol. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.200.1.117
Adamo SA, Kovalko I, Turnbull KF et al (2016) The parasitic wasp Cotesia congregata uses multiple mechanisms to control host ( Manduca sexta ) behaviour. J Exp Biol 219:3750–3758. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.145300
Alleyne M, Beckage NE (1997) Parasitism-induced effects on host growth and metabolic efficiency in tobacco hornworm larvae parasitized by Cotesia congregata. J Insect Physiol 43:407–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1910(96)00086-8
Arida GS, Shepard BM, Almazan LP (1989) Effect of parasitization on food consumption of rice leaffolder (LF) Marasmia patnalis. Int Rice Res Newsl 14:2–37
Asgari S, Rivers DB (2011) Venom proteins from endoparasitoid wasps and their role in host-parasite interactions. Annu Rev Entomol 56:313–335. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-120709-144849
Ashley TR (1983) Growth pattern alterations in fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda, larvae after parasitization by Apanteles marginiventris, Campoletis grioti, Chelonus insularis, and Eiphosoma vitticole. Fla Entomol 66:260. https://doi.org/10.2307/3494250
Beckage NE, Gelman DB (2004) Wasp parasitoid disruption of host development: implications for new biologically based strategies for insect control. Annu Rev Entomol 49:299–330. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.49.061802.123324
Beckage NE, Riddiford LM (1978) Developmental interactions between the tobacco hornworm Manduca sexta and its braconid parasite Apanteles congregatus. Entomol Exp Appl 23:139–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3032.1983.tb00355.x
Beckage NE, Riddiford LM (1983) Growth and development of the endoparasitic wasp Apanteles congregatus: dependence on host nutritional status and parasite load. Physiol Entomol 8:231–241. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.1978.tb03016.x
Beckage NE, Tan FF, Schleifer KW et al (1994) Characterization and biological effects of Cotesia congregata polydnavirus on host larvae of the tobacco hornworm, Manduca sexta. Arch Insect Biochem Physiol 26:165–195. https://doi.org/10.1002/arch.940260209
Brewer FD, King EG (1980) Consumption and utilization of a soyflour-wheat germ diet by larvae of the tobacco budworm parasitized by the tachinid Eucelatoria sp. Entomophaga 25:95–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02377527
Brown JJ, Kiuchi M, Kainoh Y, Takeda S (1993) In vitro release of ecdysteroids by an endoparasitoid, Ascogaster reticulatus Watanabe. J Insect Physiol 39:229–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1910(93)90093-7
Bustos-Segura C, Cuny MAC, Benrey B (2019) Parasitoids of leaf herbivores enhance plant fitness and do not alter caterpillar-induced resistance against seed beetles. Funct Ecol 34:586–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0740-5472(96)90021-5
Byers JR, Yu DS, Jones JW (1993) Parasitism of the army cutworm, Euxoa auxiliaris (Grt.)(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), by Copidosoma bakeri (Howard)(Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) and effect on crop damage. Can Entomol 125:329–335. https://doi.org/10.4039/Ent125329-2
Chu Y, Michaud JP, Zhang J et al (2014) Performance of Microplitis tuberculifer (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) parasitizing Mythimna separata (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in different larval instars. Biol Control 69:18–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2013.10.014
Cloutier C, Mackauer M (1979) The effect of parasitism by Aphidius smithi (Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae) on the food budget of the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum (Homoptera: Aphididae). Can J Zool 57:1605–1611. https://doi.org/10.1139/z79-210
Cloutier C, Mackauer M (1980) The effect of superparasitism by Aphidius smithi (Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae) on the food budget of the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum (Homoptera: Aphididae). Can J Zool 58:241–244. https://doi.org/10.1139/z80-028
Cole TJ, Beckage NE, Tan FF et al (2002) Parasitoid–host endocrine relations: self-reliance or co-optation? Insect Biochem Mol Biol 32:1673–1679. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0965-1748(02)00107-8
Coleman RA, Barker AM, Fenner M (1999) Parasitism of the herbivore Pieris brassicae L. (Lep., Pieridae) by Cotesia glomerata L. (Hym., Braconidae) does not benefit the host plant by reduction of herbivory. J Appl Entomol 123:171–177. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0418.1999.00334.x
Coudron TA, Brandt SL, Raqib A (1997) Comparison of the response of Heliothis virescens to parasitism by Euplectrus comstockii and Euplectrus plathypenae. Comp Biochem Physiol B Biochem Mol Biol 116:197–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0491(96)00217-9
Cuny MAC, Bourne ME, Dicke M, Poelman EH (2021) The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend: negative effects of carnivorous arthropods on plants. Funct Ecol 1365–2435:13884. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.13884
Cusumano A, Volkoff A-N (2021) Influence of parasitoid-associated viral symbionts on plant–insect interactions and biological control. Curr Opin Insect Sci 44:64–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2021.03.009
Cusumano A, Zhu F, Volkoff AN et al (2018) Parasitic wasp-associated symbiont affects plant-mediated species interactions between herbivores. Ecol Lett 21:957–967. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12952
Cusumano A, Urbach S, Legeai F et al (2021) Plant-phenotypic changes induced by parasitoid ichnoviruses enhance the performance of both unparasitized and parasitized caterpillars. Mol Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.16072
Dahlman DL (1990) Evaluation of teratocyte functions: an overview. Arch Insect Biochem Physiol 13:159–166. https://doi.org/10.1002/arch.940130303
Dahlman DL, Rana RL, Schepers EJ et al (2003) A teratocyte gene from a parasitic wasp that is associated with inhibition of insect growth and development inhibits host protein synthesis. Insect Mol Biol 12:527–534. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2583.2003.00439.x
Dicke M, van Loon JJA (2000) Multitrophic effects of herbivore-induced plant volatiles in an evolutionary context. Entomol Exp Appl 97:237–249. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1570-7458.2000.00736.x
Dicke M, Cusumano A, Poelman EH (2020) Microbial symbionts of parasitoids. Annu Rev Entomol 65:171–190. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-011019-024939
Digilio MC, Pennacchio F, Tremblay E (1998) Host regulation effects of ovary fluid and venom of Aphidius ervi (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). J Insect Physiol 44:779–784. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1910(98)00010-9
Dorémus T, Darboux I, Cusson M et al (2014) Specificities of ichnoviruses associated with campoplegine wasps: genome, genes and role in host–parasitoid interaction. Curr Opin Insect Sci 6:44–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2014.09.017
Doucet D, Cusson M (1996) Alteration of developmental rate and growth of Choristoneura fumiferana parasitized by Tranosema rostrale: role of the calyx fluid. Entomol Exp Appl 81:21–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.1996.tb02010.x
Dushay MS, Beckage NE (1993) Dose-dependent separation of Cotesia congregata-associated polydnavirus effects on Manduca sexta larval development and immunity. J Insect Physiol 39:1029–1040
Elzinga JA, Harvey JA, Biere A (2003) The effects of host weight at parasitism on fitness correlates of the gregarious koinobiont parasitoid Microplitis tristis and consequences for food consumption by its host, Hadena bicruris. Entomol Exp Appl 108:95–106. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1570-7458.2003.00072.x
Espírito-Santo MM, Faria ML, Fernandes GW (2004) Parasitoid attack and its consequences to the development of the galling psyllid Baccharopelma dracunculifoliae. Basic Appl Ecol 5:475–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2004.04.010
Falabella P, Tremblay E, Pennacchio F (2000) Host regulation by the aphid parasitoid Aphidius ervi: the role of teratocytes. Entomol Exp Appl 97:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1570-7458.2000.00710.x
Fritz RS (1982) Selection for host modification by insect parasitoids. Evolution 36:283–288. https://doi.org/10.2307/2408046
Führer E, Keja TD (1976) Physiologische wechselbeziehungen zwischen Pieris brassicae und dem endoparasiten Apanteles glomeratus. Der einfluss der parasitierung auf wachstum und korpergewicht des wirtes. Entomol Exp Appl 19:287–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.1976.tb02608.x
Gelman DB, Kelly TJ, Reed DA, Beckage NE (1999) Synthesis/release of ecdysteroids by Cotesia congregata, a parasitoid wasp of the tobacco hornworm, Manduca sexta. Arch Insect Biochem Physiol 40:17–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6327(1999)40:1%3c17::AID-ARCH3%3e3.0.CO;2-#
Godfray HCJ (1994) Parasitoids: behavioral and evolutionary ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ
Gols R (2014) Direct and indirect chemical defences against insects in a multitrophic framework. Plant Cell Environ 37:1741–1752. https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.12318
Gols R, Wagenaar R, Poelman EH et al (2015) Fitness consequences of indirect plant defence in the annual weed, Sinapis arvensis. Funct Ecol 29:1019–1025. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12415
Gómez JM, Zamora R (1994) Top-down effects in a tritrophic system: parasitoids enhance plant fitness. Ecology 75:1023–1030. https://doi.org/10.2307/1939426
Gu H, Wang Q, Dorn S (2003) Superparasitism in Cotesia glomerata: response of hosts and consequences for parasitoids. Ecol Entomol 28:422–431. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2311.2003.00535.x
Guillot FS, Vinson SB (1973) Effect of parasitism by Cardiochiles nigriceps on food consumption and utilization by Heliothis virescens. J Insect Physiol 19:2073–2082. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1910(73)90200-X
Hare JD (2011) Ecological role of volatiles produced by plants in response to damage by herbivorous insects. Annu Rev Entomol 56:161–180. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurevento-120709-144753
Harvey JA (1996) Venturia canescens parasitizing Galleria mellonella and Anagasta kuehniella: is the parasitoid a conformer or regulator? J Insect Physiol 42:1017–1025. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1910(96)00069-8
Harvey JA (2000) Dynamic effects of parasitism by an endoparasitoid wasp on the development of two host species: Implications for host quality and parasitoid fitness. Ecol Entomol 25:267–278. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2311.2000.00265.x
Harvey JA (2005) Factors affecting the evolution of development strategies in parasitoid wasps: the importance of functional constraints and incorporating complexity. Entomol Exp Appl 117:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.2005.00348.x
Harvey JA, Gols R (2018) Effects of plant-mediated differences in host quality on the development of two related endoparasitoids with different host-utilization strategies. J Insect Physiol 107:110–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinsphys.2018.03.006
Harvey JA, Malcicka M (2016) Nutritional integration between insect hosts and koinobiont parasitoids in an evolutionary framework. Entomol Exp Appl 159:181–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/eea.12426
Harvey JA, Strand MR (2002) The developmental strategies of endoparasitoid wasps vary with host feeding ecology. Ecology 83:2439–2451. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[2439:TDSOEW]2.0.CO;2
Harvey JA, Harvey IF, Thompson DJ (1994) Flexible larval growth allows use of a range of host sizes by a parasitoid wasp. Ecology 75:1420–1428. https://doi.org/10.2307/1937465
Harvey JA, Jervis MA, Gols R et al (1999) Development of the parasitoid, Cotesia rubecula (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) in Pieris rapae and Pieris brassicae (Lepidoptera: Pieridae): evidence for host regulation. J Insect Physiol 45:173–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1910(98)00113-9
Harvey JA, Kadash K, Strand MR (2000) Differences in larval feeding behavior correlate with altered developmental strategies in two parasitic wasps: implications for the size-fitness hypothesis. Oikos 88:621–629. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.880319.x
Harvey JA, Poelman EH, Gols R (2010a) Development and host utilization in Hyposoter ebeninus (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae), a solitary endoparasitoid of Pieris rapae and P. brassicae caterpillars (Lepidoptera: Pieridae). Biol Control 53:312–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2010.02.004
Harvey JA, Sano T, Tanaka T (2010b) Differential host growth regulation by the solitary endoparasitoid, Meteorus pulchricornis in two hosts of greatly differing mass. J Insect Physiol 56:1178–1183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinsphys.2010.03.018
Coudron TA, Brandt SL, Raqib A (1997) Comparison of the response of Heliothis virescens to parasitism by Euplectrus comstockii and Euplectrus plathypenae. Comp Biochem Physiol B Biochem Mol Biol 116:197–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0491(96)00217-9
Hasan F, Ansari MS (2012) Superparasitism in Cotesia glomerata does not benefit the host plant by reduction of herbivory caused by Pieris brassicae. Saudi J Biol Sci 19:65–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2010.11.002
Heil M (2014) Herbivore-induced plant volatiles: Targets, perception and unanswered questions. New Phytol 204:297–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12977
Hoballah MEF, Turlings TCJ (2001) Experimental evidence that plants under caterpillar attack may benefit from attracting parasitoids. Evol Ecol Res 3:553–565
Hoballah ME, Degen T, Bergvinson D et al (2004) Occurrence and direct control potential of parasitoids and predators of the fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on maize in the subtropical lowlands of Mexico. Agric for Entomol 6:83–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-9555.2004.00207.x
Hochuli A, Pfister-Wilhelm R, Lanzrein B (1999) Analysis of endoparasitoid-released proteins and their effects on host development in the system Chelonus inanitus (Braconidae)–Spodoptera littoralis (Noctuidae). J Insect Physiol 45:823–833. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1910(99)00051-7
Hunter KW, Stoner A (1975) Copidosoma truncatellum: Effect of Parasitization on food consumption of larval Trichoplusia ni. Environ Entomol 4:381–382
Ignesti M (2018) A polydnavirus-encoded ANK protein has a negative impact on steroidogenesis and development. Insect Biochem Mol Biol 95:26–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibmb.2018.03.003
Isenhour DJ (1988) Interactions between two hymenopterous parasitoids of the fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Environ Entomol 17:616–620. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/17.3.616
Jalali S, Ballal C (1988) Effect of the parasitism by Cotesia marginiventris on the consumption and utilization of artificial diet by larvae of Spodoptera litura (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Indian J Agric Sci 58:529–532
Joiner RL, Vinson SB, Benskin JB (1973) Teratocytes as a source of juvenile hormone activity in a parasitoid-host relationship. Curr Opin Insect Sci 246:120–121. https://doi.org/10.1038/newbio246120a0
Jones RL, Lewis WJ (1971) Physiology of the host-parasite relationship between Heliothis zea and Microplitis croceipes. J Insect Physiol 17:921–927. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1910(71)90108-9
Kaplan I (2012) Trophic complexity and the adaptive value of damage-induced plant volatiles. PLoS Biol 10:e1001437. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001437
Kergunteuil A, Röder G, Rasmann S (2019) Environmental gradients and the evolution of tri-trophic interactions. Ecol Lett 22:292–301. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13190
Kessler A, Heil M (2011) The multiple faces of indirect defences and their agents of natural selection. Funct Ecol 25:348–357. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2010.01818.x
Lawrence PO (1986) Host-parasite hormonal interactions: an overview. J Insect Physiol 32:295–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1910(86)90042-9
Li S-J, Huang J-P, Chang Y-Y et al (2015) Development of Microplitis similis (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) on two candidate host species, Spodoptera litura and Spodoptera exigua (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Fla Entomol 98:736–741. https://doi.org/10.1653/024.098.0250
Mackauer M, Chow A (2015) Facultative gregarious development in a solitary parasitoid wasp, Dendrocerus carpenteri : larvae may share nutritional resources. Entomol Exp Appl 157:170–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/eea.12352
Mackauer M, Sequeira R (1993) Patterns of development in insect parasites. Parasites and pathogens of insects. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 1–23
Mackauer M, Bai B, Chow A, Danyk T (1992) Asymmetric larval competition between two species of solitary parasitoid wasps: the influence of superparasitism. Ecol Entomol 17:233–236. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2311.1992.tb01052.x
Mackauer M, Sequeira R, Otto M (1997) Growth and development in parasitoid wasps adaptation to variable host resources. Vertical food web interactions. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 191–203
Mayhew PJ (1998) The evolution of gregariousness in parasitoid wasps. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 265:383–389. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1998.0306
McGovern JL, Zangerl AR, Ode PJ, Berenbaum MR (2006) Furanocoumarins and their detoxification in a tri-trophic interaction. Chemoecology 16:45–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00049-005-0327-3
Mironidis GK, Savopoulou-Soultani M (2009) Development, survival and growth rate of the Hyposoter didymator–Helicoverpa armigera parasitoid–host system: effect of host instar at parasitism. Biol Control 49:58–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2008.12.006
Moore ME, Kester KM, Kingsolver JG (2020) Rearing temperature and parasitoid load determine host and parasitoid performance in Manduca sexta and Cotesia congregata. Ecol Entomol 45:79–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/een.12776
Moreau S, Asgari S (2015) Venom proteins from parasitoid wasps and their biological functions. Toxins 7:2385–2412. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins7072385
Morse DH, Chapman GH (2015) Growth, development, and behaviour of the parasitised and unparasitised larvae of a shelter-building moth and consequences for the resulting koinobiont parasitoid. Entomol Exp Appl 154:179–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/eea.12279
Morales J, Medina P, Viñuela E (2007) The influence of two endoparasitic wasps, Hyposoter didymator and Chelonus inanitus, on the growth and food consumption of their host larva Spodoptera littoralis. BioControl 52:145–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-006-9026-4
Nakamatsu Y, Tanaka T (2004) The function of a trypsin-like enzyme in the saliva of Euplectrus separatae larvae. J Insect Physiol 50:847–854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinsphys.2004.06.007
Ode PJ (2006) Plant chemistry and natural enemy fitness: effects on herbivore and natural enemy interactions. Annu Rev Entomol 51:163–185. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.51.110104.151110
Ode PJ (2019) Plant toxins and parasitoid trophic ecology. Curr Opin Insect Sci 32:118–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2019.01.007
Ode PJ, Harvey JA, Reichelt M et al (2016) Differential induction of plant chemical defenses by parasitized and unparasitized herbivores: consequences for reciprocal, multitrophic interactions. Oikos 125:1398–1407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-006-9026-4
Parker FD, Pinnell RE (1973) Effect on food consumption of the imported cabbageworm when parasitized by two species of Apanteles. Environ Entomol 2:216–219. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/2.2.216
Pearse IS, LoPresti E, Schaeffer RN et al (2020) Generalising indirect defence and resistance of plants. Ecol Lett. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13512
Pedata PA, Garonna AP, Zabatta A et al (2003) Development and morphology of teratocytes in Encarsia berlesei and Encarsia citrina: first record for Chalcidoidea. J Insect Physiol 49:1063–1071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinsphys.2003.08.003
Pennacchio F, Strand MR (2006) Evolution of developmental strategies in parasitic Hymenoptera. Annu Rev Entomol 51:233–258. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.51.110104.151029
Poelman EH, Cusumano A (2021) Impact of parasitoid-associated polydnaviruses on plant-mediated herbivore interactions. Curr Opin Insect Sci. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2021.11.004
Poelman EH, Gols R, Snoeren TAL et al (2011a) Indirect plant-mediated interactions among parasitoid larvae. Ecol Lett 14:670–676. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01629.x
Poelman EH, Zheng S-J, Zhang Z et al (2011b) Parasitoid-specific induction of plant responses to parasitized herbivores affects colonization by subsequent herbivores. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108:19647–19652. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1110748108
Poelman EH, Bruinsma M, Zhu F et al (2012) Hyperparasitoids use herbivore-induced plant volatiles to locate their parasitoid host. PLoS Biol 10:e1001435. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001435
Poirié M, Colinet D, Gatti J-L (2014) Insights into function and evolution of parasitoid wasp venoms. Curr Opin Insect Sci 6:52–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2014.10.004
Price PW, Bouton CE, Gross P et al (1980) Interactions among three trophic levels: Influence of plants on interactions between insect herbivores and natural enemies. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 11:41–65. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.11.110180.000353
Pruijssers AJ, Strand MR (2007) PTP-H2 and PTP-H3 from Microplitis demolitor Bracovirus localize to focal adhesions and are antiphagocytic in insect immune cells. J Virol 81:1209–1219. https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.02189-06
Pruijssers AJ, Falabella P, Eum JH et al (2009) Infection by a symbiotic polydnavirus induces wasting and inhibits metamorphosis of the moth Pseudoplusia includens. J Exp Biol 212:2998–3006. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.030635
Rahman M (1970) Effect of parasitism on food consumption of Pieris rapae larvae. J Econ Entomol 63:820–821
Reed DA, Beckage NE (1997) Inhibition of testicular growth and development in Manduca sexta larvae parasitized by the braconid wasp Cotesia congregata. J Insect Physiol 43:29–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1910(96)00080-7
Rosenheim JA, Hongkham D (1996) Clutch size in an obligately siblicidal parasitoid wasp. Anim Behav 51:841–852. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1996.0088
Rossi GD, Salvador G, Cônsoli FL (2014) The parasitoid, Cotesia flavipes (Cameron) (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), influences food consumption and utilization by larval Diatraea saccharalis (F.) (Lepidoptera: Crambidae): Parasitism affects digestive physiology of Diatraea saccharalis. Arch Insect Biochem Physiol 87:85–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/arch.21182
Rotheram S (1967) Immune surface of eggs of a parasitic insect. Nature 214:700. https://doi.org/10.1038/214700a0
Santos AMC, Quicke DLJ (2011) Large-scale diversity patterns of parasitoid insects: parasitoid diversity patterns. Entomol Sci 14:371–382. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1479-8298.2011.00481.x
Sato Y, Tagawa J, Hidaka T (1986) Effects of the gregarious parasitoids, Apanteles ruficrus and A. Kariyai, on host growth and development. J Insect Physiol 32:281–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1910(86)90040-5
Schuman MC, Barthel K, Baldwin IT (2012) Herbivory-induced volatiles function as defenses increasing fitness of the native plant Nicotiana attenuata in nature. Elife 1:e00007. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.00007
Sequeira R, Mackauer M (1992) Nutritional ecology of an insect host-parasitoid association: the pea aphid-Aphidius Ervi System. Ecology 73:183–189. https://doi.org/10.2307/1938730
Shi Z, Liu S, Li Y (2002) Cotesia plutellae parasitizing Plutella xylostella: Host-age dependent parasitism and its effect on host development and food consumption. BioControl 47:499–512. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016577406820
Shi M, Dong S, Li M et al (2015) The endoparasitoid, Cotesia vestalis, regulates host physiology by reprogramming the neuropeptide transcriptional network. Sci Rep 5:8173. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep08173
Simms EL (2000) Defining tolerance as a norm of reaction. Evol Ecol 14:563–570. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010956716539
Slansky F (1978) Utilization of energy and nitrogen by larvae of the imported cabbageworm, Pieris rapae, as affected by parasitism by Apanteles glomeratus. Environ Entomol 7:179–185. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/7.2.179
Smallegange RC, van Loon JJA, Blatt SE et al (2008) Parasitoid load affects plant fitness in a tritrophic system. Entomol Exp Appl 128:172–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.2008.00693.x
Stoltz DB, Krell P, Summers MD, Vinson SB (1984) Polydnaviridae—a proposed family of insect viruses with segmented, double-stranded, circular DNA genomes. Taxonomy 21:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1159/000149497
Stoltz DB, Guzo D, Belland ER et al (1988) Venom promotes uncoating in vitro and persistence in vivo of DNA from a Braconid polydnavirus. J Gen Virol 69:903–907. https://doi.org/10.1099/0022-1317-69-4-903
Strand MR (1989) Development of the polyembryonic parasitoid Copidosoma floridanum in Trichoplusia ni. Entomol Exp Appl 50:37–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.1989.tb02312.x
Strand MR (2000) Developmental traits and life-history evolution in parasitoids. In: Hochberg ME, Ives AR (eds) Parasitoid population biology. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 139–162
Strand MR (2014) Teratocytes and their functions in parasitoids. Curr Opin Insect Sci 6:68–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2014.09.005
Strand MR, Burke GR (2014) Polydnaviruses: nature’s genetic engineers. Annu Rev Virol 1:333–354. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-virology-031413-085451
Strand MR, Burke GR (2015) Polydnaviruses: from discovery to current insights. Virology 479–480:393–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virol.2015.01.018
Strand MR, Dover BA (1991) Developmental disruption of Pseudoplusia includens and Heliothis virescens larvae by the calyx fluid and venom of Microplitis demolitor. Arch Insect Biochem Physiol 18:131–145. https://doi.org/10.1002/arch.940180302
Strand MR, Johnson JA, Culin JD (1988) Developmental interactions between the parasitoid Microplitis demolitor (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) and its host Heliothis virescens (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 81:822–830. https://doi.org/10.1093/aesa/81.5.822
Strand MR, Burke GR (2019) Polydnaviruses: evolution and function. In: Insect molecular virology: advances and emerging trends. Caister Academic Press
Strauss SY, Agrawal AA (1999) The ecology and evolution of plant tolerance to herbivory. Trends Ecol Evol 14:179–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(98)01576-6
Tan C-W, Peiffer M, Hoover K et al (2018) Symbiotic polydnavirus of a parasite manipulates caterpillar and plant immunity. Proc Natl Acad Sci 115:5199–5204. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1717934115
Tan C-W, Peiffer M, Hoover K et al (2019) Parasitic wasp mediates plant perception of insect herbivores. J Chem Ecol 45:972–981. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-019-01120-1
Tan C-W, Peiffer ML, Ali JG et al (2020) Top-down effects from parasitoids may mediate plant defence and plant fitness. Funct Ecol 34:1767–1778. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.13617
Tanaka T (1987) Calyx and venom fluids of Apanteles kariyai (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) as factors that prolong larval period of the host, Pseudaletia separata (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 80:530–533. https://doi.org/10.1093/aesa/80.4.530
Tanaka T, Vinson SB (1991) Depression of prothoracic gland activity of Heliothis virescens by venom and calyx fluids from the parasitoid, Cardiochiles nigriceps. J Insect Physiol 37:139–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1910(91)90099-L
Thompson SN (1982) Effects of parasitization by the insect parasite Hyposoter exiguae on the growth, development and physiology of its host Trichoplusia ni. Parasitology 84:491–510. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031182000052793
Turlings TCJ, Erb M (2018) Tritrophic interactions mediated by herbivore-induced plant volatiles: mechanisms, ecological relevance, and application potential. Annu Rev Entomol 63:433–452. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-020117-043507
Turlings TC, Tumlinson JH, Lewis WJ (1990) Exploitation of herbivore-induced plant odors by host-seeking parasitic wasps. Science 250:1251–1253. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.250.4985.1251
van der Meijden E, Klinkhamer PGL (2000) Conflicting interests of plants and the natural enemies of herbivores. Oikos 89:202–208. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.890123.x
van Loon JJA, De Boer JG, Dicke M (2000) Parasitoid-plant mutualism: parasitoid attack of herbivore increases plant reproduction. Entomol Exp Appl 97:219–227. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004032225239
Varley GC, Butler CG (1933) The acceleration of development of insects by parasitism. Parasitology 25:263–268. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031182000019429
Vinson SB (1970) Development and possible functions of teratocytes in the host-parasite association. J Invertebr Pathol 16:93–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2011(70)90212-0
Vinson SB (1972) Effect of the parasitoid, Campoletis sonorensis, on the growth of its host, Heliothis virescens. J Insect Physiol 18:1509–1514. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1910(72)90229-6
Vinson SB (1990) How parasitoids deal with the immune system of their host: an overview. Arch Insect Biochem Physiol 13:3–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/arch.940130103
Vinson SB, Iwantsch GF (1980) Host regulation by insect parasitoids. Q Rev Biol 55:143–165. https://doi.org/10.1086/411731
Vinson SB, Mourad AK, Sebesta DK (1994) Sources of possible host regulatory factors in Cardiochiles nigriceps (hymenoptera: Braconidae). Arch Insect Biochem Physiol 26:197–209. https://doi.org/10.1002/arch.940260210
Wang Z, Ye X, Shi M et al (2018) Parasitic insect-derived miRNAs modulate host development. Nat Commun 9:2205. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-04504-1
Wang J, Mason CJ, Ju X et al (2021) Parasitoid causes cascading effects on plant-induced defenses mediated through the gut bacteria of host caterpillars. Front Microbiol 12:708990. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2021.708990
Xi X, Eisenhauer N, Sun S (2015) Parasitoid wasps indirectly suppress seed production by stimulating consumption rates of their seed-feeding hosts. J Anim Ecol 84:1103–1111. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12361
Zhang D, Dahlman DL, Gelman DB (1992) Juvenile hormone esterase activity and ecdysteroid titer in Heliothis virescens larvae injected with Microplitis croceipes teratocytes. Arch Insect Biochem Physiol 20:231–242. https://doi.org/10.1002/arch.940200307
Zhang D, Dahlman DL, Järlfors UE (1997) Effects of Microplitis croceipes teratocytes on host haemolymph protein content and fat body proliferation. J Insect Physiol 43:577–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1910(96)00118-7
Zhu F, Cusumano A, Bloem J et al (2018) Symbiotic polydnavirus and venom reveal parasitoid to its hyperparasitoids. Proc Natl Acad Sci 115:5205–5210. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1717904115
We thank Kathryn Stewart and Matthew Symonds for the invitation to write this manuscript. Our research was funded by Early Postdoc Mobility fellowship from the Swiss National Science Foundation to M.A.C.C. and Open Competition grants from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO): ALWOP.343 and ALWOP.368.
This work was financially supported by the Earth and Life Science council of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO–ALW) (grant nr. ALWOP.343 and ALWOP.368). It was also funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (Early Postdoc Mobility fellowship).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Consent for publication
All authors have given their approval for publication.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Cuny, M.A.C., Poelman, E.H. Evolution of koinobiont parasitoid host regulation and consequences for indirect plant defence. Evol Ecol 36, 299–319 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-022-10180-x
- Natural enemies
- Host manipulation
- Host growth
- Tritrophic interaction