Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

resumen

Resumen
Tephritidae fruit fly larvae develop entirely in the host chosen by the females. To improve the fitness of their progeny, females would benefit from rejecting previously exploited hosts. Anastrepha fraterculus and Ceratitis capitata are two species of fruit flies having similar nutritional requirements and overlapping in their distribution. Previous studies found that competition between the larvae of these species might reach high levels, suggesting that [ver mas...]
dc.contributor.authorLiendo, María Clara
dc.contributor.authorParreño, María Alejandra
dc.contributor.authorPietrek, Alejandro G.
dc.contributor.authorBouvet, Juan Pedro
dc.contributor.authorMilla, Fabian Horacio
dc.contributor.authorVera, María Teresa
dc.contributor.authorCladera, Jorge Luis
dc.contributor.authorSegura, Diego Fernando
dc.date.accessioned2020-09-15T11:22:03Z
dc.date.available2020-09-15T11:22:03Z
dc.date.issued2020-09
dc.identifier.issn1439-0418
dc.identifier.otherhttps://doi.org/10.1111/jen.12791
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/7893
dc.identifier.urihttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jen.12791
dc.description.abstractTephritidae fruit fly larvae develop entirely in the host chosen by the females. To improve the fitness of their progeny, females would benefit from rejecting previously exploited hosts. Anastrepha fraterculus and Ceratitis capitata are two species of fruit flies having similar nutritional requirements and overlapping in their distribution. Previous studies found that competition between the larvae of these species might reach high levels, suggesting that cross‐recognition would be an adaptive trait. In this work, we tested the ability of A. fraterculus and C. capitata females to recognize and avoid fruits previously infested by both conspecific and heterospecific females. In laboratory behavioural arenas, females were presented with fruits that had been previously exposed to either conspecific or heterospecific females. Then, we conducted choice and non‐choice assays to compare the response of A. fraterculus and C. capitata females to infested and non‐infested fruits. In non‐choice tests, the females from both species rejected fruits previously infested by conspecific and heterospecific individuals. However, the rejection occurred at different steps of the sequence leading to oviposition: A. fraterculus showed a lower rate of visits to infested fruits, whereas C. capitata visited both infested and non‐infested fruits, but the latency to visit a fruit and the rejection frequency were higher and the duration of the visit to infested fruit was lower. In choice assays, the rejection of heterospecific infested fruit was higher than that of conspecific infested fruits, for both species. Our results suggest that, regardless of the sensory mechanism used by females, the recognition of previous infestation is bidirectional and females of both species, belonging to different genera, recognize fruit infested by heterospecifics. These responses indicate that cross‐recognition, supposedly a highly beneficial trait, could be occurring in nature, thus reducing interspecific competition and contributing to the coexistence of these species.eng
dc.formatapplication/pdfes_AR
dc.language.isoenges_AR
dc.publisherWileyes_AR
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccesses_AR
dc.sourceJournal of Applied Entomology 144 (8) : 701-709 (Septiembre 2020)es_AR
dc.subjectAnastrepha fraterculuses_AR
dc.subjectCeratitis capitataes_AR
dc.subjectOviposition Deterrentseng
dc.subjectDisuasores de Oviposiciónes_AR
dc.subjectFemaleseng
dc.subjectHembraes_AR
dc.subject.otherCoexistenceeng
dc.subject.otherCoexistenciaes_AR
dc.subject.otherCross Recognitioneng
dc.subject.otherReconocimiento Cruzadoes_AR
dc.titleInfestation of fruit by conspecific and heterospecific females deters oviposition in two Tephritidae fruit fly specieses_AR
dc.typeinfo:ar-repo/semantics/artículoes_AR
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees_AR
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiones_AR
dc.description.origenInstituto de Genéticaes_AR
dc.description.filFil: Liendo, Marí­a Clara. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Genética. Laboratorio de Insectos de Importancia Agronómica; Argentina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Agrobiotecnología y Biología Molecular; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentinaes_AR
dc.description.filFil: Parreño, Marí­a Alejandra. University of Zurich. Department of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies; Suizaes_AR
dc.description.filFil: Pietrek, Alejandro G. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Bio y Geociencias (IBIGEO); Argentinaes_AR
dc.description.filFil: Bouvet, Juan Pedro. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Concordia; Argentinaes_AR
dc.description.filFil: Milla, Fabian Horacio. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Genética. Laboratorio de Genética de Insectos de Importancia Económica; Argentina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Agrobiotecnología y Biología Molecular; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentinaes_AR
dc.description.filFil: Vera, Maria Teresa. Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. Facultad de Agronomía y Zootecnia; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Tucumán; Argentinaes_AR
dc.description.filFil: Cladera, Jorge Luis. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Genética. Laboratorio de Insectos de Importancia Agronómica; Argentina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Agrobiotecnología y Biología Molecular; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentinaes_AR
dc.description.filFil: Segura, Diego Fernando. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Genética. Laboratorio de Insectos de Importancia Agronómica; Argentina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Agrobiotecnología y Biología Molecular; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentinaes_AR
dc.subtypecientifico


Ficheros en el ítem

Thumbnail

Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

common

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem