4.2 Review

Convergence and Divergence in Direct and Indirect Life-History Traits of Closely Related Parasitoids (Braconidae: Microgastrinae)

Journal

EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY
Volume 41, Issue 1, Pages 134-144

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11692-013-9253-4

Keywords

Cotesia; Development; Egg load; Microplitis; Phylogeny; Reproduction

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Closely related species in nature often show similarities in suites of direct and indirect traits that reveal aspects of their phylogenetic history. Here we tested how common descent affects trait evolution in several closely related parasitoid species in the genera Cotesia and Microplitis (Hymenoptera: Braconidae: Microgastrinae) by comparing development, resource use and allocation into reproduction and maintenance. Parasitoids in these genera exhibit traits, like haemolymph feeding as larvae and external pupation that are rare in most parasitoid lineages. The growth of parasitized hosts was reduced by 90 % compared with healthy hosts, and maximum host size depended to a large extent on adult parasitoid size. Development time was longer in the more generalist parasitoids than in the specialists. Adult body mass was sexually dimorphic in all Cotesia species, with females being larger, but not in Microplitis spp. In contrast, in one of the Microplitis species males were found to be the larger sex. Egg load dynamics during the first 6 days after emergence were highly variable but egg number was typically higher in Cotesia spp. compared to Microplitis spp. Longevity in the various species was only greater in female than in male wasps in two Microplitis sp. There was a clear inverse relationship between resource use and allocation, e.g. maximum egg load and longevity, in these parasitoids. Our results reveal that adaptation to constraints imposed by host quality and availability has resulted in trait convergence and divergence at the species, genus and subfamily level.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available