Journal of Insect Behavior

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 497–509 | Cite as

Variation in Escape Behavior of Red and Green Clones of the Pea Aphid



Many insect species have evolved a number of antipredator tactics among which the animal can choose when attacked by a natural enemy. While it is known that individuals may differ in how the antipredator tactics are employed, quantitative studies are rare. In the pea aphid, it has been suggested that different clones differ in their propensity to escape from a predator and that this propensity is linked to the body color of the aphid. We tested clonal variation in the escape behavior in red and green clones of the pea aphid. In three experiments the responses of clones to artificial stimuli and a natural predator were quantified. The results indicate that (1) clones differ considerably in their propensity to show escape behavior, (2) red clones are more likely to drop off the host plant when subjected to an artificial stimulus than green clones are, and (3) the patterns of clonal variation in the escape behavior were not consistent through all three experiments, as clones did not differ in their behavior when attacked by a real predator. The differences in the responses of a clone toward different stimuli supposed to mimic predator attack suggest that extrapolating from laboratory experiments to a field situation may be difficult.

Acyrthosiphon pisum antipredator behavior clonal variation color polymorphism escape behavior predator–prey interactions 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andrade, M. C. B., and Roitberg, B. D. (1995). Rapid response to intraclonal selection in the pea aphid (Acyrthosiphon pisum). Evol. Ecol. 9: 397-410.Google Scholar
  2. Brodsky, L. M., and Barlow, C. A. (1986). Escape responses of the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris) (Homoptera: Aphididae): Influence of predator type and temperature. Can. J. Zool. 64: 937-939.Google Scholar
  3. Campbell, A., and Mackauer, M. (1977). Reproduction and population growth of the pea aphid (Homoptera: Aphididae) under laboratory and field conditions. Can. Entomol. 109: 277-284.Google Scholar
  4. Clegg, J. M., and Barlow, C. A. (1982). Escape behaviour of the pea aphid Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris) in response to alarm pheromone and vibration. Can. J. Zool. 60: 2245-2252.Google Scholar
  5. Dill, L. M., Fraser, A. H. G., and Roitberg, B. D. (1990). The economics of escape behavior in the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum. Oecologia 83: 473-478.Google Scholar
  6. Dixon, A. F. G. (1958). Escape responses shown by certain aphids to the presence of the coccinellid, Adalia decempunctata (L.). Trans. R. Entomol. Soc. London 10: 319-334.Google Scholar
  7. Dixon, A. F. G. (1998). Aphid Ecology, Chapman & Hall, London.Google Scholar
  8. Dunn, J. A. (1960). The natural enemies of the lettuce root aphid, Pemphigus bursarius (L.). Bull. Entomol. Res. 51: 271-278.Google Scholar
  9. Evans, H. F. (1978). The role of predator-prey size ratio in determining the efficiency of capture by Anthocoris nemorum and the escape reactions of its prey, Acyrthosiphon pisum. Ecol. Entomol. 1: 85-90.Google Scholar
  10. Frazer, B. D. (1972). Population dynamics and recognition of biotypes in the pea aphid (Homoptera: Aphididae). Can. Entomol. 104: 1729-1733.Google Scholar
  11. Frazer, B. D., and Gill, B. (1981). Hunger, movement and predation of Coccinella californica on pea aphids in the laboratory and in the field. Can. Entomol. 113: 1025-1033.Google Scholar
  12. Gibb, J. A., and Betts, M. M. (1963). Food and food supply of nestling tits (Paridae) in Breckland pine. J. Anim. Ecol. 32: 489-533.Google Scholar
  13. Groeters, F. R. (1989). Geographic and clonal variation in the milkweed-oleander aphid, Aphis nerii (Homoptera: Aphididae), for winged morph production, life history, and morphology in relation to host plant permanence. Evol. Ecol. 3: 327-341.Google Scholar
  14. Gross, P. (1993). Insect behavioral and morphological defenses against parasitoids. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 38: 251-273.Google Scholar
  15. Harrington, C. D. (1945). Biological races of the pea aphid. J. Econ. Entomol. 38: 12-22.Google Scholar
  16. Honek, A. (1982). Color polymorphism in Acyrthosiphon pisum in Bohemia (Homoptera, Aphididae). Acta Entomol. Bohemoslovaca 79: 406-411.Google Scholar
  17. Lamb, R. J., and Mackay, P. A. (1979). Variability in migratory tendency within and among natural populations of the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum. Oecologia 39: 289-299.Google Scholar
  18. Lima, S. L., and Dill, L. M. (1989). Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: A review and prospectus. Can. J. Zool. 68: 619-640.Google Scholar
  19. Losey, J. E., and Denno, R. F. (1998a). The escape response of pea aphids to foliar-foraging predators: Factors affecting dropping behaviour. Ecol. Entomol. 23: 53-61.Google Scholar
  20. Losey, J. E., and Denno, R. F. (1998b). Interspecific variation in the escape responses of aphids: Effect on risk of predation from foliar-foraging and ground-foraging predators. Oecologia 115: 245-252.Google Scholar
  21. Losey, J. E., Ives, A. R., Harmon, J., Ballantyne, F., and Brown, C. (1997). A polymorphism maintained by opposite patterns of parasitism and predation. Nature 388: 269-272.Google Scholar
  22. Lowe, H. J. B., and Taylor, L. R. (1964). Population parameters, wing production and behaviour in red and green Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris) (Homoptera: Aphididae). Entomol. Exp. Appl. 7: 287-295.Google Scholar
  23. Markkula, M. (1963). Studies on the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum Harrish (Hom., Aphididae), with special reference to the differences in the biology of the green and red forms. Ann. Agr. Fenniae 2: 1-30.Google Scholar
  24. Markkula, M., and Roukka, K. (1970). Resistance of plants to the pea aphid Acyrthosiphon pisum Harris (Hom., Aphididae). I. Fecundity of the biotypes on different host plants. Ann. Agr. Fenniae 9: 127-132.Google Scholar
  25. Markkula, M., and Roukka, K. (1971). Resistance of plants to the pea aphid Acyrthosiphon pisum Harris (Hom., Aphididae). III. Fecundity on different pea varieties. Ann. Agr. Fenniae 10: 33-37.Google Scholar
  26. McConnell, J. A., and Kring, T. J. (1990). Predation and dislodgement of Schizaphis graminum (Homoptera: Aphididae), by adult Coccinella septempunctata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Environ. Entomol. 19: 1798-1802.Google Scholar
  27. Miyazaki, M. (1987). Forms and morphs of aphids. In Minks, A. K., and Harrewijn, P. (eds.), Aphids, Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control, Vol. 2A, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 163-195.Google Scholar
  28. Montgomery, M. E., and Nault, L. R. (1978). Effects of age and wing polymorphism on the sensitivity of Myzus persicae to alarm pheromone. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 71: 788-790.Google Scholar
  29. Müller, F. P. (1961). Stabilität und Veränderlichkeit der Färbung bei Blattläusen. Arch. Freunde Naturgeschichte Mecklenburg 7: 228-239.Google Scholar
  30. Müller, F. P. (1962). Biotypen und Unterarten der “Erbsenlaus” Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris). Z. Pflanzenkrankheiten Pflanzenschutz 69: 129-136.Google Scholar
  31. Müller, F. P. (1971). Isolations mechanismen zwischen sympatrischen Rassen am Beispiel der Erbsenblattlaus Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris) (Homoptera: Aphididae). Zool. Jahrbücher System. 98: 131-152.Google Scholar
  32. Müller, F. P. (1980). Wirtspflanzen, Generationenfolge und reproduktive Isolation intraspezifischer Formen von Acyrthosiphum pisum. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 28: 145-157.Google Scholar
  33. Müller, F. P. (1983). Differential alarm pheromone responses between strains of the aphid Acyrthosiphon pisum. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 34: 347-348.Google Scholar
  34. Price, P. W. (1997). Insect Ecology, John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  35. Rispe, C., Simon, J.-C., and Pierre, J.-S. (1996). Fitness comparison between clones differing in their ability to produce sexuals in the aphid Rhopalosiphum padi. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 80: 469-474.Google Scholar
  36. Roitberg, B. D., and Myers, J. H. (1978). Adaptation of alarm pheromone responses of the pea aphid Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris). Can. J. Zool. 56: 103-108.Google Scholar
  37. Roitberg, B. D., and Myers, J. H. (1979). Behavioural and physiological adaptations of pea aphids (Homoptera: Aphididae) to high ground temperatures and predator disturbance. Can. Entomol. 111: 515-519.Google Scholar
  38. Simon, J. C., Dedryver, C. A., Pierre, J. S., Tanguy, S., and Wegorek, P. (1991). The influence of clone and morph on the parameters of intrinsic rate of increase in the cereal aphid Sitobion avenae and Rhopalosiphum padi. Entomol. Appl. Exp. 58: 211-220.Google Scholar
  39. Sokal, R. R., and Rohlf, F. J. (1995). Biometry, 3rd ed. Freeman, New York.Google Scholar
  40. Stadler, B., Weisser, W. W., and Houston, A. I. (1994). Defense reactions in aphids-The influence of state and future reproductive success. J. Anim. Ecol. 63: 419-430.Google Scholar
  41. Weisser, W. W., and Braendle, C. (2001). Body colour and genetic variation in winged morph production in the pea aphid. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 99: 217-223.Google Scholar
  42. Weisser, W. W., Braendle, C., and Minoretti, N. (1999). Predator-induced morphological shift in the pea aphid. Proc. R. Soc. Ser. B 266: 1175-1181.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Zoology InstituteUniversity of BaselBaselSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations