Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-hw7sx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T21:52:03.071Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hierarchical order of host cues in parasite foraging strategies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

E. E. Lewis ,
P. S. Grewal  and
R. Gaugler
E. E. Lewis
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, Cook College, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08903-0231, USA
P. S. Grewal
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, Cook College, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08903-0231, USA
R. Gaugler
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, Cook College, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08903-0231, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The importance of host cues to three species of steinernematid nematodes (Rhabdita: Steinernematidae) with different foraging strategies was compared. We presented host materials to nematodes in series to test responses to combinations of host cues. If a fixed hierarchy of cues is followed during foraging, parasites should respond most strongly to cues offered in natural order. Steinernema carpocapsae, an ambush forager, aggregated at the source of volatile host cues only after attachment to host cuticle. They also parasitized hosts more efficiently after contact with cuticle. Steinernema glaseri, a cruise forager, was unaffected by exposure to combinations of host cues. Steinernema feltiae, a nematode with characteristics of both ambushing and cruising, was affected by cue hierarchies when either contact or volatile cues were presented first. Host-associated materials encountered out of the context may not qualify as host cues for the ambush forager, S. carpocapsae. Perhaps the order in which cues are encountered is more predictable for ambushers than for cruisers. Therefore an ambusher's response to host materials has a more fixed contextual framework.

Keywords

behaviourecologyforaginghost-findingentomopathogenic nematode

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 110 , Issue 2 , February 1995 , pp. 207 - 213
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Akhurst, R. J. & Boemare, N. E. (1990). Biology and taxonomy of Xenorhabdus. In: Entomopathogenic Nematodes in Biological Control, (ed. Gaugler, R. & Kaya, H. K.) pp. 75–90. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Burman, M. (1982). Neoaplectana carpocapsae: Toxin production by axenic insect parasitic nematodes. Nematologica 28, 62–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, J. F. & Gaugler, R. (1993). Nictation behaviour and its ecological implications in the host search strategies of entomopathogenic nematodes (Heterorhabditidae and Steinernematidae). Behavior 126, 155–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curaco, T. & Gillespie, R. G. (1986). Risk-sensitivity: foraging mode in an ambush predator. Ecology 67, 1180–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dusenberry, D. B. (1992). Sensory Ecology. New York, NY: Freeman and Co.Google Scholar
Dutky, S. R., Thompson, J. V. & Cantwell, G. E. (1964). A technique for the mass propagation of the DD-136 nematode. Journal of Insect Pathology 6, 417–22.Google Scholar
Gaugler, R., Campbell, J. F. & McGuire, T. (1990). Selection for enhanced host-finding in Steinernema feltiae. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 54, 363–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgis, R. & Gaugler, R. (1991). Predictability in biological control using entomopathogenic nematodes. Journal of Economic Entomology 84, 713–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgis, R. & Hague, N. G. M. (1981). A neoaplectanid nematode in the larch sawfly Cephalcia larchiphila (Hymenoptera: Pamphiliidae). Annals of Applied Biology 99, 171–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaser, R. W., McCoy, E. E. & Girth, H. B. (1940). The biology and economic importance of a nematode parasitic in insects. Journal of Parasitology 26, 479–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grewal, P. S., Lewis, E. E., Gaugler, R. & Campbell, J. F. (1994). Host finding behaviour as a predictor of foraging strategy of entomopathogenic nematodes. Parasitology 108, 207–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hara, A. H., Gaugler, R., Kaya, H. K. & Lebeck, L. M. (1991). Natural populations of entomopathogenic nematodes (Rhabditida: Heterorhabditidae, Steinernematidae) from the Hawaiian Islands. Environmental Entomology 20, 211–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hassell, M. P. & Southwood, T. R. E. (1978). Foraging strategies of insects. Annual Revue of Ecology and Systematics 9, 75–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaya, H. K. (1990). Soil ecology. In Entomopathogenic Nematodes in Biological Control, (ed. Gaugler, R. & Kaya, H. K.), pp. 93–117. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, E. E., Gaugler, R. & Harrison, R. (1992). Entomopathogenic nematode host finding: response to contact cues by cruise and ambush foragers. Parasitology 105, 309–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, E. E., Gaugler, R. & Harrison, R. (1993). Response of cruiser and ambusher entomopathogenic nematodes (Steinernematidae) to host volatile cues. Canadian Journal of Zoology 71, 765–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, E. E. & Gaugler, R. (1994). Entomopathogenic nematode (Rhabdita: Steinernematidae) sex ratio relates to foraging strategy. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology (in the Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poinar, G. O. (1990). Taxonomy and biology of Steinernematidae and Heterorhabditidae. In Entomopathogenic Nematodes in Biological Control, (ed Gaugler, R. & Kaya, H. K.) pp. 23–61. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Ramaswamy, S. B. (1988). Host finding by moths: sensory modalities and behaviours. Journal of Insect Physiology 34, 235–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS (1987). SAT/STAT: Guide for Personal Computers. Cary, North Carolina: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Selvan, S., Gaugler, R. & Lewis, E. E. (1993). Biochemical energy reserves of entomopathogenic nematodes. Journal of Parasitology 79, 167–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winkelman, D. L. & Vinyard, G. L. (1991). Gyrinid searching tactics: empirical observations and a tactical model. Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology 28, 345–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiskerke, J. S. C., Dicke, M. & Vet, L. E. M. (1993). Larval parasitoid uses aggregation pheromone of adult hosts in foraging behaviour: a solution to the reliability-detectability problem Oecologia 93, 145–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodring, J. L. & Kaya, H. K. (1988). Steinernematid and Heterorhabditid Nematodes: A Handbook of Techniques. Southern Cooperative Series Bulletin 331. Fayetteville, Arkansas: Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, B. M. & Jansson, H-B. (1984). Nematode chemotaxis and possible mechanisms of host/prey recognition. Annual Revue of Phytopathology 22, 95–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar