The Symbiotic Relationship Between Arthropod Antagonists and Associated Herbivory
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
IJSART - Volume 7 Issue 2 – FEBRUARY 2021 ISSN [ONLINE]: 2395-1052 The Symbiotic Relationship Between Arthropod Antagonists And Associated Herbivory Rohan Bhansali Loudoun Academy of Science Ashburn, VA 20148 Abstract- Goldenrods are clonal plants on which Eurosta solidaginis oviposits its eggs, ultimately leading to a gall being formed in the peduncle of the goldenrod. The common predators of E. solidaginis larvae include Eurytoma gigantea, Eurytoma obtusiventris, and Mordellistena unicolor. This investigation studied the relationship between arthropod antagonists and associated herbivory to determine their unique symbiotic relationship. Keywords- predatory arthropods, goldenrod galls, larvae I. INTRODUCTION Figure 1: Goldenrods in their native habitat Solidago altissima is a clonal plant that spreads using underground stems called rhizomes and by seeds [4]. Because The relationship between S. altissima and E. of this growth using rhizomes, S. altissima forms clumps of solidaginis larva is symbiotic, which means that there are two stems, all of which are genetically identical. During the spring, organisms that are living “close” together [5]. There are three S. altissima is short and green [3]. It is during this time that the types of symbiotic relationships: Eurosta solidaginis lays its eggs at the very top of the plant, called the meristem, through its ovipositor. Even though 1. Both organisms benefit (mutualistic) multiple eggs are laid, usually only one gall is formed, usually 2. One organism benefits, the other is harmed (parasitic) appearing three weeks after oviposition and reaching full size 3. One organism benefits, the other is unaffected in an additional three to four weeks [1]. (commensalism) These eggs form into larvae, which have the ability to II. PREDATORY ARTHROPODS eat and chew using the plant it is in as food. In the saliva of the larva is a plant hormone mimic called auxin. This induces Solidago and E. solidaginis larvae have a parasiticrelationship, the development of tumor-like stem cell growth from its as the larva uses solidago for food. normal tissue. The galls on the plant are in the middle to low section, which is an indication that E. solidaginis lays its eggs E. solidaginis larva is ovoid/barrel-shaped, has mandibles, and early in the season [6]. is yellow or white [3]. In fall, as the gall begins to turn brown, the larva forms an exit tunnel, and subsequently goes into There are distinct differences between a male E. diapause [2]. In the late winter/early spring, the larva pupates, solidaginis and its female counterpart [2]. In addition to being which takes away its mandibles and ability to eat. E. smaller and lacking an ovipositor, male E. solidaginis are solidaginis inflates its head and pushes out of the gall. Larvae unable to fly while females are. This is advantageous because live from fall to spring, but once they become E. solidaginis the females need to find a plant to lay their eggs, something they die after two weeks. E. solidaginis larva has primary four the males can’t do. predators, which consists of two wasp species, a beetle, and predatory birds [6]. The first wasp is known as Eurytoma obtusiventris. E. obtusiventris lays its egg about the same time as E. solidaginis eggs are laid. E. obtusiventris gives E. solidaginis a hormone to pupate early, then eats it and lives Page | 15 www.ijsart.com IJSART - Volume 7 Issue 2 – FEBRUARY 2021 ISSN [ONLINE]: 2395-1052 inside. E. obtusiventris attacks galls of all diameters. The To make this research better, it should incorporate second wasp is Eurytoma gigantea. E. gigantea lays its eggs other characteristics of the gall, such as the thickness of the through the gall. The E. gigantea larva eats the E. solidaginis gall (which can affect predators with certain types of larva and lives inside of the gall until spring. E. gigantea tends ovispositors) or the proximity of the gall to a heavily wooded to attack galls of smaller diameters. The beetle, known as area (predatory birds are affected by this). Moredellistena, attacks galls of all diameters. Finally, predatory birds tend to attack galls of larger diameters. REFERENCES III. PAST STUDIES [1] Abrahamson, W. G., Sattler, J. F., Mccrea, K. D., & Weis, A. E. (1989). Variation in selection pressures on the A 2004 study regarding the impact of Atriplex goldenrod gall fly and the competitive interactions of its canescens gall size on the survival of the cecidomyiidae larva natural enemies. Oecologia,79 (1), 15-22. was performed in Phoenix, AZ [4]. In this study, the [2] Heinrich, P. (n.d.). Ecology and Evolution. Retrieved researchers investigated the survival rate of the larva and from compared it to the size of the gall to determine if there was a http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/abrahmsn/solidago/gallr relationship, and what type. The results indicated that larval esearch.html mortalitywas directly proportional to gall size. Gall size [3] Mahr, S. (2015, October 12). Goldenrod Gall Fly, Eurosta changes based on season, environment, and plant diversity [3]. solidagnis. Retrieved from https://wimastergardener.org/article/goldenrod-gall-fly- A similar study, published in Oecologia, was eurosta-solidagnis conducted to determine whether gall size affects the survival [4] Marchosky, R. J., & Craig, T. P. (2004). Gall Size- probability of the Eurosta solidaginis larva [1]. In this study, Dependent Survival forAsphondyliaatriplicis(Diptera: fly populations from 20 fields in central Pennsylvania were Cecidomyiidae) onAtriplex canescens. Environmental monitored to examine the distribution of the natural enemies Entomology,33(3), 709-719. (as discussed above, the parasitoids Eurytoma gigantea and E. [5] Weis, A. E., & Kapelinski, A. (1994). Variable Selection obtusiventris, Mordellistena unicolor, and predatory birds) [2]. on Eurostas Gall Size. II. A Path Analysis of the The researchers learned that Mordellistena and E. Ecological Factors Behind Selection. Evolution,48(3), obtusiventris were able to attack galls of all diameters, while 734. E. gigantea preferred small diameter galls and predatory birds [6] Yahnke, C. J. (2006). Testing Optimal Foraging Theory: favored the larger diameter galls. Using Bird Predation on Goldenrod Galls. The American Biology Teacher,68(8), 471-475 While these studies are insightful into the interactions between the natural enemies and parasitoids of the Eurosta solidaginis, they do not determine the optimal volume for a goldenrod gall, which this research will determine. It is important to investigate this because the current method of analyzing gall diameter instead of volume is not as concise. This is because galls are ellipsoids, not spheres, so each diameter changes in the gall. By knowing the optimal volume for the survival of the E. solidaginis larvae, scientists will better understand the interactions between the larva and the predators of the larvae. IV. CURRENT RESEARCH For this study, approximately 300 S. altissima plants were brought from Rochester, New York. From each plant, a gall was removed from the stem, and each diameter was measured to calculate the volume. After the measurements had taken place, the gall was delicately opened to inspect its contents. Depending on what was found, the gall was classified based on the inhabitant. Page | 16 www.ijsart.com.