Skip to main content
Log in

Behavioural flexibility of the chemical defence in the parasitoid wasp Leptopilina heterotoma

  • Short Communication
  • Published:
The Science of Nature Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many insects use chemical defence mechanisms to defend themselves against predators. However, defensive secretions are costly to produce and should thus only be used in cases of real danger. This would require that insects are able to discriminate between predators to adjust their chemical defence. Here, we show that females of the parasitoid wasp Leptopilina heterotoma adjust the intensity of their chemical defence to differently sized predators. If attacked by Myrmica ants, the females always released their defensive secretion, which consists mainly of (−)-iridomyrmecin. However, if attacked by smaller Cardiocondyla ants, most females did not release any defensive spray, irrespective of the duration of the ant’s aggression. When in contact with non-aggressive Nasonia wasps, the females of L. heterotoma did not release any defensive secretion. Our data show that females of L. heterotoma are able to discriminate between two predators and suggest that a predator of a certain size or strength is necessary to trigger the chemical defence mechanism of L. heterotoma.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

References

  • Blum MS (1981) Chemical defenses of arthropods. Academic Press, New York

  • Cammaerts MC, Evershed RP, Morgan ED (1981) Comparative study of the dufour gland secretions of workers of four species of Myrmica ants. J Insect Physiol 27:59–65

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cotton AJ, Cotton S, Small J, Pomiankowski A (2014) Male mate preference for female eyespan and fecundity in the stalk-eyed fly, Teleopsis dalmanni. Behav Ecol 26:376–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cremer S, D’Ettorre P, Drijfhout FP, Sledge MF, Turillazzi S, Heinze J (2008) Imperfect chemical female mimicry in males of the ant Cardiocondyla obscurior. Naturwissenschaften 95:1101–1105

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dobler S, Petschenka G, Pankoke H (2011) Coping with toxic plant compounds—the insect’s perspective on iridoid glycosides and cardenolides. Phytochemistry 72:1593–1604

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Eisner T, Meinwald J (1966) Defensive secretions of arthropods. Science 153:1341–1350

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Heimpel GE, Rosenheim JA, Mangel M (1997) Predation on adult Aphytis parasitoids in the field. Oecologia 110:346–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laurent P, Braekman J, Daloze D (2005) Insect chemical defense. In: Schulz S (ed) The chemistry of pheromones and other semiochemicals II. Springer, New York, pp 167–229

    Google Scholar 

  • Pasteels JM, Grégoire JC, Rowell-Rahier M (1983) The chemical ecology of defense in arthropods. Annu Rev Entomol 28:263–289

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stökl J, Hofferberth J, Pritschet M, Brummer M, Ruther J (2012) Stereoselective chemical defense in the Drosophila parasitoid Leptopilina heterotoma is mediated by (−)-iridomyrmecin and (+)-isoiridomyrmecin. J Chem Ecol 38:331–339

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wajnberg E, Colazza S (2013) Chemical ecology of insect parasitoids. Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss I, Rössler T, Hofferberth J, Brummer M, Ruther J, Stökl J (2013) A nonspecific defensive compound evolves into a competition avoidance cue and a female sex-pheromone. Nat Commun 4:2767

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Whitman DW, Blum MS, Alsop DW (1990) Allomones: chemicals for defense. In: Evans DL, Schmidt JO (eds) Insect defenses. Adaptive mechanisms and strategies of prey and predators. State University of New York Press, Albany, pp 289–351

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Michael Brummer for rearing the wasps, and Alexandra Schrempf and Balint Marko for providing the colonies of C. obscurior and M. scabrinodis, respectively. This study was funded by a grant of the German Research Council (DFG, STO 966/1-1).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johannes Stökl.

Additional information

Communicated by: Sven Thatje

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOCX 23 kb)

(MP4 19180 kb)

(MP4 16452 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stökl, J., Machacek, Z. & Ruther, J. Behavioural flexibility of the chemical defence in the parasitoid wasp Leptopilina heterotoma . Sci Nat 102, 67 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-015-1317-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-015-1317-0

Keywords

Navigation