Tag Archives: Periphyllus testudinaceus

Not all aphids are farmed by ants

One of the great things about working with aphids is that it gave me the chance to go back to my childhood entomological roots of playing with ants.  Most gardeners have had the experience when cruelly* running their finger and thumb down an aphid covered plant stem of finding their hand suddenly covered with ants.   As someone who has a very relaxed approach to aphids, I find the presence of ants on a plant a handy way of finding aphids, although sometimes the ants are there because of extra-floral nectaries.  So what exactly is going on when you find ants and aphids together?

It has long been known that some aphids are farmed or tended by some ant species.  According to Jones (1927) Goedart** was the first to describe the relationship scientifically (Goedart & Lister, 1685) and by the latter half of the 19th Century you can find illustrations such as the one below that appeared in Van Bruyssel’s fantastic foray into early science-communication.

antsaphids-1

An ant dairy maid coming to milk her aphids – their siphunculi and anuses are just visible if you look closely: cleverly made to look like cow heads (From Van Bruyssel, 1870)

The ant-aphid association is usually defined as a mutualism as the two species exist in a relationship in which each individual benefits from the activity of the other.  Just to confuse people however, the association is also sometimes termed trophobiosis*** (e.g. Oliver et al., 2008) which is a more symbiotic relationship.

The degree of dependence of the aphid on the ants varies from species to species.  Some aphids, especially those that live underground on plant roots, are unable to survive without their ant attendants (Pontin, 1978).   Pontin (1960) also reports seeing Lasius flavus workers licking aphid eggs which he suggests stops them from going mouldy as the licking removes fungal spores.  He also noted that those eggs that were not cared for in this way did not hatch.  Other aphids have a more facultative relationship, and are able to survive quite successfully without the help of their friendly neighbourhood ants.

We tend to think of aphids as soft squidgy defenceless things that are easy to squash.  To other insects however, they present a bit more of a challenge.  Aphids have structural and behavioural defences to keep them safe in the dangerous world of bug eat bug.  Alarm pheromones and dropping behaviour are commonly used by aphids to avoid meeting predators face to face (Dixon, 1958a).    Aphis also have a number of physical defences.  Their spihunculi (cornicles) can produce a quickly hardening wax to gum up ladybird jaws (Dixon, 1958b).  Other aphid species cover themselves with dense waxy coats that make them less palatable or accessible to natural enemies (Mueller et al., 1992).  Other aphids have thick skins (heavily sclerotized) and what entomologists term saltatorial leg modification; long legs to you and me, and so able to give a ladybird or other opportunistic insect predator a good kicking (Villagra et al., 2002).  These characteristics, which are all costly, are reduced or absent in aphids that are frequently associated with ants (Way, 1963) as presumably with ant bodyguards in attendance, there is no need for the aphids to invest in extra anti-predator defences.

antsaphids-2

Note also the shortened siphunculi in Periphyllus testudinaceus and the hairier bottom, when compared with the leggy, and arguably, prettier Drepanosihpum platanoidis.

Apart from reducing their defensive armoury, those aphids that are obligately ant attended have a specially adapted rear end, essentially a hairy bottom.  This is more scientifically known as the trophobiotic organ.   The trophobiotic organ is an enlarged anal plate surrounded by special hairs that acts as a collection and storage device that allows the aphid to accumulate honeydew ready for the ants to remove at their leisure.

antsaphids3

Three different trophobiotic organs, some hairier than others – after Heie (1980)

antsaphids4

A real live view of the “trophobiotic organ” of Tetraneura ulmi (from the fantastic Influential Points website – http://influentialpoints.com/Images/Tetraneura_ulmi_aptera_on_grass_roots_c2015-09-04_14-53-13ew.jpg

Non-ant attended aphids without the trophobiotic organ, deposit their honeydew directly on to the leaf surface or on the ground, or if you are unlucky enough to park under an aphid infested tree, on to your car 🙂  Ants lick and collect sycamore aphid, Drepanosiphum platanoidis honeydew from leaves, but not directly from the aphids, which they do do from the maple aphid, Periphyllus testudinaceus, which also lives on sycamore trees P. testudinaceus (Pontin, 1958).

So what’s in it for the ants?  Why should they bother looking after aphids, even in some cases, keeping aphid eggs in their nests over the winter (Pontin, 1960)? The obvious answer is the honeydew that the aphids produce as a by-product of feeding on phloem sap. The amount of material that an aphid can remove from a plant is quite astounding.  A large willow aphid (Tuberolacnhus salignus) adult can sucks up the equivalent of 4 mg sucrose per day Mittler (1958) , which is equivalent to the photosynthetic product of one to two leaves per day.  Admittedly, they are large aphids and not ant attended****, but even an aphid half their size passes a lot of plant sap through their digestive systems.  Honeydew is not just sugar but is a mixture of free amino acids and amides, proteins, mineral and B-vitamins, so all in all, quite a useful food source for the ants (Way, 1963).  All aphids produce honeydew but not all aphids are ant attended and as I pointed out earlier, not all ants attend aphids.  Our research suggests that 41% of ant genera have trophobiotic species, but these are not equally distributed among ant families.  Some ant sub-families, for example the Fomicinae,  specilaise in ant attendance,  whereas in other ant families such as the Ecitoninae, aphids are used only as prey and the honeydew is gathered from plant and ground surfaces (Oliver et al., 2008).  The ant species that are most likely to develop mutualistic relationship with aphids appear to be those that live in trees, have large colonies, are able to exploit disturbed habitats and are dominant or invasive species (Oliver et al., 2008).

Those ants that do tend aphids don’t just protect them from predators and other natural enemies. They want to maximise the return for their investment. The black bean aphid, Aphis fabae, which is often tended by Lasius niger, has its tendency to produced forms reduced by the ants, thus making sure that the aphids are around longer to provide food for them (El-Ziady & Kennedy, 1956).  The ant Lasius fuliginosus transports young Stomaphis quercus aphids to parts of the tree with the best honeydew production (Goidanich, 1959) and Lasius niger goes one step further, moving individuals of the aphid Pterocomma salicis, to better quality willow trees (Collins & Leather, 2002).  Lasius niger seems to have a propensity for moving bugs about, they have also been seen moving coccids from dying clover roots to nearby living ones (Hough, 1922).

In the mid-1970s John Whittaker and his student, Gary Skinner, set up a study to examine the interactions between the wood ant, Formica rufa and the various insect herbivores feeding on the sycamore trees in Cringlebarrow Wood, Lancashire.  They excluded some ants from some of the aphid infested branches and allowed them access to others on the same trees and also looked at trees that were foraged by ants and those that weren’t.  They found that F. rufa was a heavy predator of the sycamore aphid, D. platanoidis, but tended the maple aphid,  P. testudinaceus (a novel observation for that particular ant-aphid interaction).  Ant excluded colonies of P. testudinaceus decreased, whereas D. platanoidis did not, but on those branches where ants were able to access the aphids, the reverse pattern was seen (Skinner & Whittaker, 1981).

The presence of thriving aphid colonies in the neighbourhood of ant nests and in some cases aphid colonies only exist where there are ant nests nearby (Hopkins & Thacker, 1999), has made some people wonder if aphids actively look for ant partners (Fischer et al., 2015).  There is, however, no evidence that aphids look for ant partners, rather the fact that wing production is reduced in the presence of tending ants, means that aphid colonies can accumulate around and close to ant nests (Fischer et al., 2015a).

That doesn’t mean that the aphids only rely on honeydew production to guarantee the presence of their ant bodyguards. The aphid Stomaphis yanonis, which like other

antsaphids5

Stomaphis aceris, also ant attended.  Imagine trying to drag that mouth part out of a tree trunk quickly 🙂

Stomaphis species, has giant mouthparts, and so needs plenty of time to remove its mouthparts safely definitely needs ant protection to cover its back when involved in the delicate operation of stylet unplugging. In this case, it turns out that the aphids smell like that ants, they have cuticular hydrocarbons that resemble those of their ant protector Lasius fuji and thus encourages the ants to treat them as their own (Endo & Itino (2013).  Earlier work on the ant-attended tree-dwelling aphids, Lachnus tropicalis and Myzocallis kuricola, in Japan showed that the ant Lasius niger preyed on aphids that had not been attended by nest mates, but tended those that had been previously tended (Sakata 1994).  This too would indicate the presence of some sort of chemical marker or brand.

To add support to this, just over twenty years ago (1996), I supervised an undergraduate student Arran Frood*****.   He worked with the maple aphid, and the ants L. niger and L. fulginosus.  Aphids on ant-attended sycamore trees were washed with diluted acetone or water.   Those that had been washed with acetone were predated more than unwashed aphids suggesting that It was like washing off the colony specific pheromone marker. In support of this hypothesis, Arran found that predation would also increase if he swapped a twig full of aphids between colonies, but not from one part of the colony to another. It also worked between the two ant species, Lasius niger and L. fuliginosus, so it seems like the ants have a colony specific marker on their aphids.  We should really have written this up for publication.

Although aphids do not actively seek ant partners, they may compete with each other to retain the services of their ant bodyguards by producing more honeydew (Addicott, 1978).  There is evidence that ants make their decisions of whether to predate or tend aphids by monitoring honeydew production and choose to prey on aphids in colonies that produce less honeydew (Sakata, 1995).  Recent work has also shown that the honeydew of the black bean aphid, Aphis fabae is often colonised by the bacterium Staphylococcus xylosus. Honeydew so infected produces a bouquet of volatile compounds that are attractive to the ant L. niger thus increasing the cahnces of the aphids being ant-attended (Fischer et al., 2015b).  This adds yet another layer of complexity to the already complicated mutualistic life style that aphids have adopted.

And finally, you may remember me writing about the wonderful colour variations seen in some aphid species and how this could be modified by their symbionts. In another twist, it seems that ants may have a say in this too, albeit at a colony level rather than at the clonal level.  The improbably named Mugwort aphid, Macrosiphoniella yomogicola  which is obligately ant-attended by the ant L. japonicus, is found in  colonies that are typically 65% green 35% red (Watanabe et al. 2016).  The question Watanabe and his colleagues asked is why do ants like this colour balance? One possibility is that red and green aphids have slightly different effects on the mugwort plants where they feed. Though green aphids produce more honeydew, red aphids seem to prevent the mugwort from flowering. Given that aphid colonies on a flowering mugwort go extinct, ants looking to maintain an aphid herd for more than a year might see an advantage to keeping reds around to guarantee a long-term food supply from their green sisters.

Aren’t insects wonderful?

 

References

Addicott, J.F. (1978) Competition for mutualists: aphids and ants.  Canadian Journal of Zoology, 56, 2093-2096.

Carroll, C.R. & Janzen, D.H. (1973) Ecology of foraging by ants.  Annual Review of Ecology & Systematics, 4, 231-257

Collins, C.M. & Leather, S.R. (2002) Ant-mediated dispersal of the black willow aphid Pterocomma salicis L.; does the ant Lasius niger L. judge aphid-host quality?  Ecological Entomology, 27, 238-241.

Dixon, A.F.G. (1958a) The escape responses shown by certain aphids to the presence of the coccinellid Adalia decempunctata (L.). Transactions of the Royal Entomological Society London, 110, 319-334.

Dixon, A.F.G. (1958b) The protective function of the siphunculi of the nettle aphid, Microlophium evansi (Theob.). Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine, 94, 8.

El-Ziady, S. & Kenendy, J.S. (1956) Beneficial effects of the common garden ant, Lasius niger L., on the black bean aphid, Aphis fabae Scopoli.  Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society London (A), 31, 61-65

Endo, S. & Itino, T. (2012) The aphid-tending ant Lasius fuji exhibits reduced aggression toward aphids marked with ant cuticular hydrocarbons.  Research on Population Ecology, 54, 405-410.

Endo, S. & Itino, T. (2013) Myrmecophilus aphids produce cuticular hydrocarbons that resemble those of their tending ants.  Population Ecology, 55, 27-34.

Fischer, C.Y., Vanderplanck, M., Lognay, G.C., Detrain, C. & Verheggen, F.J. (2015a) Do aphids actively search for ant partner?  Insect Science, 22, 283-288.

Fischer, C.Y., Lognay, G.C., Detrain, C., Heil, M., Sabri, A., Thonart, P., Haubruge, E., & Verheggen, F.J. (2015) Bacteria may enhance species-association in an ant-aphid mutualistic relationship. Chemoecology, 25, 223-232.

Goidanich, A.  (1959) Le migrazioni coatte mirmecogene dello Stomaphis quercus Linnaeus, afido olociciclio monoico omotopo. Bollettino dell’Istituto di Entomologia della Università degli Studi di Bologna, 23, 93-131.

Goedart, J. & Lister, M. (1685) De Insectis, in Methodum Redactus; cum Notularum Additione. [Metamorphosis Naturalis] Smith, London.

Heie, O. (1980)  The Aphdioidea (Hemiptera) of Fennoscandia and Denmark. 1. Fauna Entomologica Scandinavica 9.Scandinavian Science Press, Klampenborg, Denmark.

Hough, W.S (1922) Observations on two mealy bugs Trionymus tritolii Forbes and Pseudococcus maritimus Ehrh. Entomologist’s News, 33, 1 7 1-76.

Hopkins, G.W. & Thacker, J.I. (1999) Ants and habitat specificity in aphids. Journal of Insect Conservation, 3, 25-31.

Jones, C.R. (1927) Ants and Their Relation to Aphids.  PhD Thesis, Iowa State College, USA.

Mittler, T.E. (1958a) Studies on the feeding and nutrition of Tuberolachnus salignus (Gmelin) (Homoptera, Aphididae).  II. The nitrogen and sugar composition of ingested phloem sap and excreted honeydew.  Journal of Experimental Biology, 35, 74-84.

Mueller, T.F., Blommers, L.H.M. & Mols, P.J.M. (1992) Woolly apple aphid (Eriosoma lanigerum Hausm., Hom., Aphidae) parasitism by Aphelinus mali Hal. (Hym., Aphelinidae) in relation to host stage and host colony size, shape and location.  Journal of Applied Entomology, 114, 143-154.

Oliver, T.H., Leather, S.R. & Cook, J.M. (2008)  Macroevolutionary patterns in the origin of mutualisms,  Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 21, 1597-1608.

Pontin, A.J. (1958)  A preliminary note on the eating of aphids by ants of the genus Lasius. Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine, 94, 9-11.

Pontin, A.J. (1960)  Some records of predators and parasites adapted to attack aphids attended by ants.  Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine, 95, 154-155.

Pontin, A.J. (1960)  Observations on the keeping of aphid eggs by ants of the genus LasiusEntomologist’s Monthly Magazine, 96, 198-199.

Pontin, A.J. (1978) The numbers and distributions of subterranean aphids and their exploitation by the ant Lasius flavus (Fabr.). Ecological Entomology, 3, 203-207.

Sakata, H. (1994) How an ant decides to prey on or to attend aphids.  Research on Population Ecology, 36, 45-51.

Sakata, H. (1995) Density-dependent predation of the ant Lasius niger (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) on two attendant aphids Lachnus tropicalis and Myzocallis kuricola (Homoptera: Aphidae). Research on Population Ecology, 37, 159-164.

Skinner, G.J. & Whittaker, J.B. (1981) An Experimental investigation of inter-relationships between the wood-ant (Formica rufa) and some tree-canopy herbivores.  Journal of Applied Ecology, 50, 313-326.

Stadler, B. & Dixon, A.F.G. (1999)  Ant attendance in aphids: why different degrees of myrmecophily? Ecological Entomology, 24, 363-369.

Van Bruyssel, E. (1870) The Population of an Old Pear Tree.  MacMillan & Co, London

Vilagra, C.A., Ramirez, C.C. & Niemeyer, H.M. (2002) Antipredator responses of aphids to parasitoids change as a function of aphid physiological state.  Animal Behaviour, 64, 677-683.

Watanabe, S., Murakami, T., Yoshimura, J. & Hasegawa, E. (2016) Color piolymorphism in an aphid is maintained by attending ants.  Science Advances, 2, e1600606

Way, M.J. (1963) Mutualism between ants and honeydew-producing Homoptera.  Annual Review of Entomology, 3, 307-344.

*in my opinion at any rate 🙂

**I have had to take this on faith as have not been able to get hold of the original reference and read it myself

***Trophobiosis is a symbiotic association between organisms where food is obtained or provided. The provider of food in the association is referred to as a trophobiont. The name is derived from the Greek τροφή trophē, meaning “nourishment” and -βίωσις -biosis which is short for the English symbiosis

****Perhaps they are too big for ants to mess with?  They are, however, very often surrounded by Vespid wasps who do appreciate the huge amount of honeydew deposited on the willow leaves and stems.

***** He must have enjoyed it because he also did his MSc project with me the following year 🙂

 

Post script

I began this post with an illustration from Van Bruyssel.  I finish it with this illustration from another early attempt to get children interested in entomology.  Unfortunately in this case the  ant attended aphids are the very opposite of what they should look like and he further compounds his error by telling his youthful audience that the aphids milk the aphids via their siphunculi 😦

antsaphids-holdrich

The very opposite of what an ant-attend aphid looks like – from Half hours in the tiny world; wonders of insect life by C.F. Holder (1905)

Leave a comment

Filed under Aphidology, Aphids

Aphid life cycles – bizaare, complex or what?

In a very early post I mentioned that one of the reasons that I love aphids so much is their life-cycles https://simonleather.wordpress.com/aphidology/  and the fantastic jargon that is used to describe them.  Many undergraduates find the jargon off-putting but it was this complexity that really grabbed my imagination.

aphid jargon

Insects are probably the most diverse group of organisms on Earth (Grimaldi & Engel, 2005) and their life cycles range from simple sexual and asexual styles to complex life cycles encompassing obligate and facultative alternation of sexual and asexual components.  Nancy Moran (1992) suggests that in the insect world probably the most intricate and varied life cycles are found in aphids and I certainly wouldn’t disagree.

There are basically two types of aphid life-cycles, non-host alternating (autoecious, monoecious) and host alternating (heteroecious).   Autoecious aphids spend their entire life cycle in association with one plant species as shown below (Dixon, 1985).

autoecious lifecycle

(or group of related plant species), whereas heteroecious aphids divide their time between two very different species of host plant, usually a tree species (the primary host) on which they overwinter, and an herbaceous plant species (the secondary host) on which they spend their summer.

Heteroecious

Approximately 10% of aphid species are heteroecious.  The ancestral aphid life cycle is thought to have been winged, egg laying and autoecious on a woody host plant almost certainly conifers and the oldest families of woody angiosperms e.g. Salicaceae (Mordwilko, 1928; Moran, 1992).

aphid life cycle evolution

Aphid life cycles can also be described as holocyclic, in which cyclical parthenogenesis occurs, with aphids reproducing sexually in the autumn to produce an overwintering egg, in temperate regions and parthenogenetically during spring and summer as shown below for the sycamore aphid (Dixon, 1985).

Holocyclic.png

Some aphids are anholocyclic where the clone is entirely asexual reproducing by parthenogenesis throughout the year. This is often seen in locations where winter conditions are mild, in the tropics for example or as a bit of an oddity around hot-springs in Iceland.

Anholocyclic.png

Parthenogenesis in aphids is coupled with live births and reduced generation times through the phenomenon of telescoping generations.  Parthenogenesis in aphids developed early on but whether the oldest aphids (200 mya) were parthenogenetic is not known.

Host alternation appears to have arisen more than once (Moran, 1988) and occurs in four slightly different forms depending on the taxon in which it occurs.  The main differences being in whether the sexual forms are produced on the primary (winter) host (the host on which the eggs are laid), or as in the case of the Aphidini, the males being produced on the secondary (summer) host and the sexual females produced on the primary host.   The majority of aphids host alternate between unrelated woody and perennial hosts, but some species host alternate between herbaceous plants e.g. pea aphid Acyrthosiphon pisum alternates between the perennial vetches and the annual peas Pisum sativum (Muller & Steiner, 1985) and Urleucon gravicorne alternates between the perennial Solidago and the annual Erigeron (Moran 1983).  Some aphid species such as Rhopalosipum padi, have clones that are holocyclic and some that are anholocyclic, so hedge their bets and also gives me the opportunity to slip in a great slide kindly lent to me by my friend Richard Harrington at Rothamsted Research.

Mixed

One of the things that is rather puzzling is why some aphid species should have adopted a host alternating life cycle which on the face of it, seems to be rather a risky strategy.  You could liken it to looking for a needle in a hay-stack; only about 1 in 300 aphids that leave the secondary host at the end of summer are likely to find their primary host (Ward et al, 1998).  There are a number of theories as to why it has evolved.

1. The nutritional optimization through complementary host growth hypothesis states that heteroecy has been favoured by natural selection because it enables a high rate of nutrient intake throughout the season (Davidson, 1927; Dixon, 1971).  In essence, the clone moves from a host plant where food quality is low and moves onto a herbaceous host that is growing rapidly and thus provides a good source of nutrition.  In autumn, the clone moves back to its primary woody host where leaves are beginning to senesce and provide a better source of nutrition as seen below (Dixon, 1985).

Nutritional changes

On the other hand, non-host alternating aphids such as the sycamore aphid, Drepanosiphum platanoidis, or the maple aphid, Periphyllus testudinaceus, reduce their metabolism and tough it out over the summer months when the leaves of their tree hosts are nutritionally poor, the former as adults, the latter as nymphs (aphid immature forms) known as dimorphs. Mortality over the summer in these species is, however, very high.  In some years I have recorded almost 100% mortality on some of my study trees, so very similar to the 99.4% mortality seen in the autumn migrants (gynoparae) of the bird cherry-oat aphid, Rhoaplosiphum padi.  Other autoecious aphids are able to track resources if they live on host plants that continue to develop growing points throughout the summer.

 Tough it out

Verdict:  No apparent advantage gained

2. The oviposition site advantage hypothesis states that primary woody hosts provide better egg laying sites and provide emerging spring aphids with guaranteed food source (Moran, 1983).  There is however, no evidence that eggs laid on woody hosts survive the winter better than those laid in the herbaceous layer.  Egg mortality in both situations ranges from 70-90% (Leather, 1983, 1992, 1993).

Verdict:  No apparent advantage gained

3.  The enemy escape hypothesis states that by leaving the primary host as natural enemy populations begin to build up and moving to a secondary host largely devoid of enemies confers an advantage on those species that exhibit this trait (Way & Banks, 1968).  At the end of summer, when the natural enemies have ‘found’ the clone again, the clone then migrates back to its primary host, which theoretically is now free of natural enemies.  This is an attractive idea as it is well known that natural enemies tend to lag behind the populations of their prey.

Enemy escape

Verdict: Possible advantage gained

4. The Rendez-vous hosts hypothesis suggests that host alternation assists mate location and enables wider mixing of genes than autoecy (Ward, 1991; Ward et al. 1998).  This seems reasonable, but as far as I know, no-one has as yet demonstrated that host-alternating aphid species have a more diverse set of genotypes than non-host alternating aphids.

Verdict:  Not proven

5.  The temperature tolerance constraints hypothesis which postulates that seasonal morphs are adapted to lower or higher temperatures and that they are unable to exist on the respective host plants at the ‘wrong time of year’ (Dixon, 1985).  I don’t actually buy this one at all, as I have reared spring and autumn morphs at atypical temperatures and they have done perfectly well (Leather & Dixon, 1981), the constraint being the phenological stage of their host plant rather than the temperature.  In addition, there are some host alternating aphid species in which the fundatrix can exist on both the secondary and primary hosts (if the eggs are placed on the secondary host).  This has been experimentally demonstrated in the following species:

Aphis fabae                                 Spindle & bean                                        Dixon & Dharma (1980)

Cavariella aegopdii

Cavariella pastinacea              Willows and Umbelliferae                     Kundu & Dixon (1995)

Cavariella theobaldi

Metopolophium dirhodum       Rose and grasses                                    Thornback (1993)

Myzus persicae                           Prunus spp &  40 different plants       Blackman & Devonshire (1978)

Verdict: Unlikely

6.  The escape from induced host-plant defences hypothesis (Williams & Whitham, 1986), which states that by leaving the primary host as summer approaches, the aphids escape the plant defences being mustered against them.  This is only really applicable to those gall aphids where galled leaves are dropped prematurely by the host plant.

Verdict: Special case pleading?

7.  The constraint of fundatrix specialisation hypothesis is that of Moran (1988), who argues that heteroecy is not an optimal life cycle but that it exists because the fundatrix generation (the first generation that hatches from the egg in spring) on the ancestral winter host, are constrained by their host affinities and are unable to shift to newly available nutritionally superior hosts.  Whilst it is true that some host alternating aphids are however, very host specific as fundatrcies, some aphids are equally host-specific as oviparae at the end of the year the constraints of ovipara specialisation

For example, in the bird cherry-oat aphid Rhopalosiophum padi, the fundatrices are unable to feed on senescent leaf tissue of the primary host, their offspring can only develop very slowly on ungalled tissue and all their offspring are winged emigrants (the alate morph that flies from the primary host to the secondary host) (Leather & Dixon, 1981).  The emigrants are able to feed as nymphs on the primary host on which they develop and as adults on their secondary host, but not vice versa (Leather et al., 1983).  The autumn remigrants (gynoparae, the winged parthenogenetic females that fly from the secondary hosts to the primary hosts on the other hand, feed on the secondary host as nymphs but are unable to feed on the primary host as adults (Leather, 1982; Walters et al., 1984).  The black bean aphid shows similar, but less rigid host specificity and whilst there is a distinct preference for the relevant host plant (Hardie et al., 1989), parthenogenetic forms can occur throughout the summer on the primary host (Way & Banks, 1968), particularly if new growth is stimulated by pruning (Dixon & Dharma, 1980). There are also at least two examples of where both the primary and secondary host are herbaceous (see earlier).  In both these cases the fundatrices could exist on both the primary and secondary host plants

Verdict:  Not proven

So what do I think?  For years I was very firmly convinced that the nutritional optimization hypothesis was the obvious answer; after all Tony Dixon was my PhD supervisor 😉  Now, however, having lectured on the subject to several cohorts of students, if I was forced to pick a favourite from the list above, I would do a bit of fence-sitting and suggest a combination of the nutritional optimization and enemy escape hypotheses. What do you think? There are cetainly a number of possible research projects that would be interesting to follow up, the problem is finding the funding 😦

Sources

Blackman, R.L. & Devonshire, A.L. (1978)  Further studies on the genetics of the carboxylase-esterase regulatory system involved in resistance to orgaophosphorous insecticides in Myzus persicae (Sulzer).  Pesticide Science 9, 517-521

Davidson, J. (1927) The biological and ecological aspects of migration in aphids.  Scientific Progress, 21, 641-658

Dixon, A.F.G. (1971) The life cycle and host preferences of the bird cherry-oat aphid, Rhopalosiphum padi (L) and its bearing on the theory of host alternation in aphids. Annals of  Applied Biology, 68, 135-147.  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-7348.1971.tb06450.x/abstract

Dixon, A.F.G. (1985) Aphid Ecology Blackie, London.

Dixon, A.F.G. & Dharma, T.R. (1980) Number of ovarioles and fecundity in the black bean aphid, Aphis fabae. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 28, 1-14. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1570-7458.1980.tb02981.x/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=true

Grimaldi. D. & Engel, M.S. (2005)  Evolution of the Insects, Cambridge University Press, New York

Hardie, J. (1981) Juvenile hormone and photoperiodically controlled polymorphism in Aphis fabae: postnatal effects on presumptive gynoparae. Journal of Insect Physiology, 27, 347-352.

Hardie, J. Poppy, G.M. & David, C.T. (1989) Visual responses of flying aphids and their chemical modification. Physiological Entomology, 14, 41-51.  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-3032.1989.tb00935.x/abstract

Kundu, R. & Dixon, A.F.G. (1995) Evolution of complex life cycles in aphids. Journal of Animal Ecology, 64, 245-255.  http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/5759?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21102533364873

Leather, S.R. (1982) Do gynoparae and males need to feed ? An attempt to allocate resources in the bird cherry-oat oat aphid Rhopalosiphum padi. Entomologia experimentalis et applicata, 31, 386-390.  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1570-7458.1982.tb03165.x/abstract

Leather, S.R. (1983) Forecasting aphid outbreaks using winter egg counts: an assessment of its feasibility and an example of its application. Zeitschrift fur  Angewandte  Entomolgie, 96, 282-287. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1439-0418.1983.tb03670.x/abstract

Leather, S.R. (1992) Aspects of aphid overwintering (Homoptera: Aphidinea: Aphididae). Entomologia Generalis, 17, 101-113.  http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/19941101996.html;jsessionid=60EA025C7230C413B6094BCC4966EC06

Leather, S.R. (1993) Overwintering in six arable aphid pests: a review with particular relevance to pest management. Journal of Applied Entomology, 116, 217-233. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1439-0418.1993.tb01192.x/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=true

Leather, S.R. & Dixon, A.F.G. (1981) Growth, survival and reproduction of the bird-cherry aphid, Rhopalosiphum padi, on it’s primary host. Annals of applied Biology, 99, 115-118. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-7348.1981.tb05136.x/abstract

Moran, N.A. (1983) Seasonal shifts in host usage in Uroleucon gravicorne (Homoptera:Aphididae) and implications for the evolution of host alternation in aphids. Ecological Entomology, 8, 371-382. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2311.1983.tb00517.x/full

Moran, N.A. (1988) The evolution of host-plant alternation in aphids: evidence for specialization as a dead end. American Naturalist, 132, 681-706. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2461929?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21102533364873

Moran, N.A. (1992) The evolution of aphid life cycles. Annual Review of Entomology, 37, 321-348. http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.en.37.010192.001541

Mordwilko, A. (1928)  The evolution of cycles and the origin of heteroecy (migrations) in plant-lice.  Annals and Magazine of Natural History Series 10, 2, 570-582

Muller, F.P. & Steiner, H. (1985)  Das Problem Acyrthosiphom pisum (Homoptera: Aphididae).  Zietsschrift fur angewandte Entomolgie 72, 317-334

Thornback, N. (1983)  The Factors Determiining the Abundance of Metopolophium dirhodum (Walk.) the Rose Grain Aphid.  PhD Thesis, University of East Anglia.

Walters, K.F.A., Dixon, A.F.G., & Eagles, G. (1984) Non-feeding by adult gynoparae of Rhopalosiphum padi and its bearing on the limiting resource in the production of sexual females in host alternating aphids. Entomologia experimentalis et applicata, 36, 9-12. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1570-7458.1984.tb03398.x/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=true

Ward, S.A. (1991). Reproduction and host selection by aphids: the importance of ‘rendevous’ hosts. In Reproductive Behaviour of Insects: Individuals and Populations (eds W.J. Bailey & J. Ridsdill-Smith), pp 202-226. Chapman & Hall, London.

Ward, S.A., Leather, S.R., Pickup, J., & Harrington, R. (1998) Mortality during dispersal and the cost of host-specificity in parasites: how many aphids find hosts? Journal of Animal Ecology, 67, 763-773. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2656.1998.00238.x/full

Way, M.J. & Banks, C.J. (1968) Population studies on the active stages of the black bean aphid, Aphis fabae Scop., on its winter host Euonymus europaeus L. Annals of Applied Biology, 62, 177-197.  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-7348.1968.tb02815.x/abstract

Williams, A.G. & Whitham, T.G. (1986) Premature leaf abscission: an induced plant defense against gall aphids. Ecology, 67, 1619-1627.  http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1939093?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21102533364873

9 Comments

Filed under Aphidology, Aphids