TY - JOUR
T1 - Innate host habitat preference in the parasitoid Diachasmimorpha longicaudata
T2 - functional significance and modifications through learning
AU - Segura, Diego F.
AU - Nussenbaum, Ana L.
AU - Viscarret, Mariana M.
AU - Devescovi, Francisco
AU - Bachmann, Guillermo E.
AU - Corley, Juan C.
AU - Ovruski, Sergio M.
AU - Cladera, Jorge L.
N1 - Copyright the Author(s) 2016. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.
PY - 2016/3/23
Y1 - 2016/3/23
N2 - Parasitoids searching for polyphagous herbivores can find their hosts in a variety of habitats. Under this scenario, chemical cues from the host habitat (not related to the host) represent poor indicators of host location. Hence, it is unlikely that naive females show a strong response to host habitat cues, which would become important only if the parasitoids learn to associate such cues to the host presence. This concept does not consider that habitats can vary in profitability or host nutritional quality, which according to the optimal foraging theory and the preference-performance hypothesis (respectively) could shape the way in which parasitoids make use of chemical cues from the host habitat. We assessed innate preference in the fruit fly parasitoid Diachasmimorpha longicaudata among chemical cues from four host habitats (apple, fig, orange and peach) using a Y-tube olfactometer. Contrary to what was predicted, we found a hierarchic pattern of preference. The parasitism rate realized on these fruit species and the weight of the host correlates positively, to some extent, with the preference pattern, whereas preference did not correlate with survival and fecundity of the progeny. As expected for a parasitoid foraging for generalist hosts, habitat preference changed markedly depending on their previous experience and the abundance of hosts. These findings suggest that the pattern of preference for host habitats is attributable to differences in encounter rate and host quality. Host habitat preference seems to be, however, quite plastic and easily modified according to the information obtained during foraging.
AB - Parasitoids searching for polyphagous herbivores can find their hosts in a variety of habitats. Under this scenario, chemical cues from the host habitat (not related to the host) represent poor indicators of host location. Hence, it is unlikely that naive females show a strong response to host habitat cues, which would become important only if the parasitoids learn to associate such cues to the host presence. This concept does not consider that habitats can vary in profitability or host nutritional quality, which according to the optimal foraging theory and the preference-performance hypothesis (respectively) could shape the way in which parasitoids make use of chemical cues from the host habitat. We assessed innate preference in the fruit fly parasitoid Diachasmimorpha longicaudata among chemical cues from four host habitats (apple, fig, orange and peach) using a Y-tube olfactometer. Contrary to what was predicted, we found a hierarchic pattern of preference. The parasitism rate realized on these fruit species and the weight of the host correlates positively, to some extent, with the preference pattern, whereas preference did not correlate with survival and fecundity of the progeny. As expected for a parasitoid foraging for generalist hosts, habitat preference changed markedly depending on their previous experience and the abundance of hosts. These findings suggest that the pattern of preference for host habitats is attributable to differences in encounter rate and host quality. Host habitat preference seems to be, however, quite plastic and easily modified according to the information obtained during foraging.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84962033798&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0152222
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0152222
M3 - Article
C2 - 27007298
VL - 11
SP - 1
EP - 18
JO - PLoS ONE
JF - PLoS ONE
SN - 1932-6203
IS - 3
M1 - e0152222
ER -