or JHR 63: 33-49 (2018) JOURNAL OF | *rvteved cveraceioar doi: 10.3897/jhr.63.23724 RESEARCH ARTICLE (ME Hymenoptera http://jhr.pensoft.net The Inerational Society of Hymenoptersts. RESEARCH Host acceptance by three native braconid parasitoid species attacking larvae of the Mexican fruit fly, Anastrepha ludens (Diptera, Tephritidae) Amanda Ayala', Gabriela Pérez-Lachaud’, Jorge Toledo', Pablo Liedo', Pablo Montoya? | El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, Carretera Antiguo Aeropuerto Km 2.5, Tapachula, Chiapas, CP 30700, México 2 El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, Avenida Centenario km 5.5, Chetumal, Quintana Roo, CP 77014 México 3 Programa Moscafrut SAGARPA -IICA. Camino a los Cacaotales S/N, Metapa de Dominguez, Chiapas, CP 30860 México Corresponding author: Amanda Ayala (apayala@ecosur.edu.mx) Academic editor: /. Fernandez-Triana | Received 18 January 2018 | Accepted 29 March 2018 | Published 30 April 2018 http://zoobank.org/OB4B0161-BB79-4290-9629-120F9A04A610 Citation: Ayala A, Pérez-Lachaud G, Toledo J, Liedo P, Montoya P (2018) Host acceptance by three native braconid parasitoid species attacking larvae of the Mexican fruit fly, Amastrepha ludens (Diptera, Tephritidae). Journal of Hymenoptera Research 63: 33-49. https://doi.org/10.3897/jhr.63.23724 Abstract We studied the oviposition and host acceptance behavior of three braconid parasitoid species native to Mexico, Doryctobracon crawfordi (Viereck), Opius hirtus (Fischer), and Utetes anastrephae (Viereck), with potential to be considered as biocontrol agents against tephritid fruit fly pests in the Neotropics. Third instar larvae of Anastrepha ludens (Loew), with and without previous parasitization by conspecifics, were simultaneously offered to females of each species, and the individual behavior was video recorded to con- struct oviposition flow diagrams. The patterns of foraging and host acceptance were similar in the studied species; all rejected mostly parasitized hosts suggesting that this strategy is common in the guild of larval parasitoids attacking Anastrepha spp. The complete searching and host acceptance process took 2.2 + 0.1 min (mean + SE) in D. crawfordi, 1.7 + 0.1 s in U. anastrephae and 1.5 + 0.1 s in O. Airtus. Notably, be- cause of toxins injected by parasitoid females during oviposition, the parasitized hosts experienced a tran- sient paralysis of variable duration. Hosts attacked by U. anastrephae remained immobile for the shortest time (12.5 + 1 min) (mean+SE), followed by D. crawfordi (20.5 + 3.4 min) and O. /irtus (24.1 + 2 min). Our data revealed a notable discrimination ability in all three species, and that behavioral differences lay Copyright Amanda Ayala et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. 34 Amanda Ayala et al. / Journal of Hymenoptera Research 63: 33-49 (2018) mainly in the time of parasitization and in the duration of paralysis experienced by attacked hosts. ‘This suggest that the three species could be valuable as biocontrol agents, but additional studies are necessary to better understand the advantages and limitations of each one as natural enemies of fruit fly pests. Keywords Host discrimination, transient host paralysis, biocontrol agents, Doryctobracon crawfordi, Opius hirtus, Utetes anastrephae Introduction Fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) are considered one of the main fruit pests worldwide (Enkerlin 2005). To reduce pest populations, various control tactics have been devel- oped among which the augmentative release of parasitoids has arisen as one sound and well oriented strategy against these pests (Sivinski et al. 1996, Montoya et al. 2007). Parasitoids are insects whose larvae develop by feeding in or on the body of other arthropods, usually insects; larval feeding almost always results in the death of the host (Godfray 1994). Parasitoids are immersed in a multitrophic context (Hassell and Waa- ge 1984, Vet and Dicke 1992), where foraging for nutrients and hosts is performed at different scales (Kramer 2001, Gingras et al. 2002). In general, it is the female parasitoid that locates a suitable host. Because parasitoid development is dependent on limited resources (the host), adult preference and larval performance should be correlated to maximize fitness (Harvey et al. 2015) and the host acceptance proce- dure is considered the definitive step in host searching behavior (Vinson 1984). The hosts are often hidden in the interior of stems, leaves or fruits (Richerson and Borden 1972), consequently parasitoid females must detect and respond to a number of in- direct signals where chemical-sensorial information plays a fundamental role (Vinson 1976, 1998, van Alphen and Vet 1986, Vet and Dicke 1992). In addition to chemical stimuli, parasitoids are also capable of identifying vibrations emitted by their hosts through the substrates in which they develop (van Alphen and Janssen 1982, Vet and van Alphen 1985, Meyhofer et al. 1997). Once female parasitoids have located their hosts, they have the capacity to distin- guish between parasitized and not parasitized hosts, a strategy known as discrimination ability (van Alphen and Visser 1990). This ability can occur at three levels: (1) self- discrimination, (2) conspecific discrimination and (3) heterospecific discrimination (Mackauer 1990). This ability has been observed in many species of hymenoptera parasitoids (Vinson 1976), and is particularly important in the case of potential bio- control agents, since these are expected to be efficient in host searching and to have the ability to discriminate between parasitized and non-parasitized hosts (van Lenteren et al. 1978). The latter helps females to avoid superparasitism, reducing the time and energy spent in searching behavior (Mackauer 1990, Godfray 1994). Host location and host acceptance behavior has been widely studied in the general- ist fruit fly parasitoid Diachasmimorpha longicaudata (Ashmead) (Greany et al. 1977, Anastrepha host acceptance by native parasitoid species 35 Lawrence 1981, Carrasco et al. 2005). This species is exotic in the Americas where it has been successfully reared for augmentative biological control of Anastrepha (Schin- er) fruit flies in Mexico (Montoya et al. 2000, 2007) and in Florida USA (Sivinski et al. 1996); and for Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) in Argentina (Sanchez et al. 2016). However, there is a guild of native opiine braconid parasitoids (Sivinski et al. 2000, 2001) with potential as biocontrol agents, for which little information exists regarding their foraging and host acceptance behavior. This is the case of Doryctobracon crawfordi (Viereck), Utetes anastrephae (Viereck) and Opius hirtus (Fischer), all of which are soli- tary, larval-pupal endoparasitoids of Anastrepha spp. (Lopez et al. 1999), that coexist in different regions of America (Sivinski et al. 2000). It has been postulated that dif- ferences in ovipositor size, as well as specific foraging behaviors, serve to prevent direct competition among these species (Ovruski et al. 2000, Sivinski et al. 2000). Under laboratory conditions, the three species can develop in the third instar larvae of Anas- trepha ludens (Diptera: Tephritidae) (Aluja et al. 2009). Doryctobracon crawfordi is native in habitats above 600 mas! from Mexico to Ar- gentina (Ovruski et al. 2005); possess a long ovipositor 5.39 + 0.08 mm and attacks Anastrepha spp. mainly in citrus fruits and is sensitive to both high temperature and low humidity (Sivinski et al. 2000). Utetes anastrephae is characterized by a short ovi- positor (1.57 + 0.04 mm, Sivinski et al. 1997, 2001) and can be found associated with small fruits such as those of Spondias spp. (Anacardiaceae), with 2-5 cm of diam and 4 to 33 g weight (Avitia 2000). Opius hirtus is a more specialized parasitoid being recov- ered from Anastrepha obliqua (Macquatrt) in Spondias mombin L. and from Anastrepha alveata (Stone) infesting Ximenia americana L. (Olacaceae) (Sivinski et al. 2000). The three species are synovigenic (Sivinski et al. 2001). The purpose of this study was to compare the foraging and host acceptance behav- iors of the parasitoid species D. crawfordi, U. anastrephae and O. hirtus on previously parasitized and non-parasitized larvae of A. /udens, using video recording equipment under laboratory conditions. This knowledge should allow an improved understanding of the oviposition performance and potential of these parasitoid species as biocontrol agents against fruit fly pest species. Material and methods Study site and biological material The experiments were conducted in the Biological Control laboratory of the Moscafrut Program SAGARPA-IICA, located in Metapa de Dominguez, Chiapas, Mexico. The parasitoid colonies were initiated from field infested fruits and maintained at 2541 °C, 7045% HR with a photoperiod of 12:12 (L:D) h. Eight-day-old larvae of A. /udens mixed with artificial diet were provided as host by the Moscafrut facility, where this species is mass reared as described by Orozco-Davila et al. (2017). Adult parasitoids of the species D. crawfordi, U. anastrephae and O. hirtus were reared according to Aluja et al. (2009). 36 Amanda Ayala et al. / Journal of Hymenoptera Research 63: 33-49 (2018) Preparation of host larvae Parasitized host larvae were obtained by exposing groups of approximately 100 host larvae for two hours to 100 females and 50 males of each species separately. Larvae with three or more oviposition scars were considered as being successfully parasitized (Mon- toya et al. 2000, 2003). Host larvae without previous parasitization were allocated to the “not parasitized host group”. Preparation of the parasitoids Copulated females, 5—6 day old with previous experience of oviposition were used. To gain this experience, groups of ~150 recently emerged adults (1female: 1male) were confined in aluminum frame acrylic cages (30 x 30 x 30 cm) and provided with water and honey as a source of food. Twenty-four hours before conducting the bioassays, ~200 A. ludens larvae mixed with larval diet were offered to these parasitoids in a Petri dish oviposition unit, for 2 h. Host acceptance test The host searching and acceptance performance of individual parasitoid females was observed with two different types of A. /udens host larvae that were exposed simultane- ously: 1) larvae previously parasitized (24 h earlier) by conspecifics, and 2) larvae with no previous parasitization. Bioassays were conducted in oviposition units consisting of Petri dishes (55 mm in diameter x 9 mm in depth) with the edges reduced to five mm in depth and a central division of 5 mm to separate the two type of larvae. Five previously parasitized A. /udens larvae were placed in one of the two sides, and five non- parasitized larvae, of the same age, were placed in the other side. The oviposition unit was covered with an organza elastic cloth and secured with a rubber band in order to prevent larval escape. This cloth was semi-transparent making possible the observation of the host larvae through it. Guava juice was added on the surface of the cloth in order to attract the females and keep them on the parasitization units until larval detection. Video recording procedure The oviposition sequences of thirty females per species were observed and video record- ings made with a Samsung KREUZNACH video camera (f = 2.3—-78.2 mm; F:1.6; 930.5). One female was released onto the surface of the oviposition unit in each ob- servation. The larvae and females were replaced after each observation, as well as the cloth and the oviposition unit. Environmental conditions were 25 + 1 °C and 75 + 5% Anastrepha host acceptance by native parasitoid species 37 RH. Bioassays were conducted between 8:30 and 15:00 and the time of observation was ~1 h per female. If the female presented null activity for the first five minutes, it was replaced. Time of latency (defined here as “time that elapsed between two oviposi- tions”), the number of ovipositions, oviposition attempts, duration of oviposition and duration of host paralysis following oviposition (from the moment the stung larva remained immobile, to the moment it resumed crawling), were recorded for both host types. Video recordings were independently analyzed using the Movie Maker software version 2.6.4037.0, in order to obtain the sequences and transition frequencies of the different behaviors. Statistical analysis The number of ovipositions and oviposition attempts on the two larval types were compared using the ¢ test for each parasitoid species. In order to compare the time spent on the different activities observed among the three species, a one-way analysis of variance with the Tukey-HSD test was conducted. Prior to analysis, a Box -Cox trans- formation of the data was conducted. For all analyses we used the JMP Starter software version 7.0.1 (SAS Institute 2007). Results The general behavioral sequences of the three parasitoid species on the two host types were identified. The operational definitions for the observed behaviors are presented in Table 1. The most common sequence for any of the three-braconid species included: 1. Walking (W), 2. Searching for a host (S), 3. Detection of a host (D), 4. Oviposition attempt (OP), 5. Oviposition (O), 6. Rejection (RE), and 7. Failure (F) with some variants occurring depending on species (Figs la, b; 2a, b; 3a, b). Searching and oviposition behavior In general, the females walked on the surface of the oviposition unit with their anten- nae in close contact with the surface of the oviposition unit. Once the females detected a larva, they attempted to establish contact with the host by introducing their oviposi- tor and began a movement of abdominal vibration (associated with the descent of the ege (Montoya et al. 2009); they then moved the antenna and extracted the ovipositor. Even though the three species maintained a similar pattern of oviposition behavior, U. anastrephae was often observed to perform a wing movement when inserting its ovi- positor into a host. D. crawfordi rotated on its axis once contact was established with the larva. These specific behavioral acts led to successful ovipositions (Figs 1, 2 and 3). 38 Amanda Ayala et al. / Journal of Hymenoptera Research 63: 33-49 (2018) Table |. Definitions of the different behaviors exhibited by Utetes anastrephae, Doryctobracon crawfordi and Opius hirtus while foraging for host larvae. Behavior Description 1. Walking Female walking on the oviposition unit surface, antennae not directed to the substrate 2. Searching for a host | While walking the female touches the surface of the oviposition unit with the antennae 3. Detection of a host |The female stays immobile over a host larva 4, Oviposition attempt Insertion of the ovipositor in order to have contact with the host. The latter is very mobile 5. Oviposition Oviposition, the female remains immobile during a certain period of time with the ovipositor inserted in the interior of the host larva 6. Rejection The female inserts the ovipositor in the host for a few seconds, but withdraws the ovipositor without actually laying an egg. 7 Fail When the female inserts the ovipositor in the oviposition unit without having contact . Failure : ; with some host, mainly by the escape of the larvae a) 543 (88%) 31 20 (36%) (69%) DETECTING oviPcsioR | —— —" 77 (4%) BODY ROTATION 77 9 (100%) (1%) OVIPOSITION BEECH b) WALKING 19 (95%) SEARCHING 76 (92%) DETECTING 121 (97%) 1110 (94%) OVIPOSITOR =n eBaine > FAILURE 18 (2%) BODY ROTATION 18 2 (100%) (1%) OVIPOSITION REJECT Figure |. Ethogram of oviposition of females of Doryctobracon crawfordi on non-parasitized larvae (a) and larvae previously parasitized by conspecifics (b) under laboratory conditions. The width of the arrow is proportional to the relative frequency of transition. The numbers associated with the arrows represent the observed frequencies of the successive behaviors of a complex sequence of behavior (proportions are indicated in parentheses). No marked differences in the flow diagrams were observed between non-parasitized hosts and parasitized hosts for any of the braconids studied here. However, females sig- nificantly rejected hosts previously parasitized by conspecifics following insertion of the Anastrepha host acceptance by native parasitoid species 39 a) b) WALKING WALKING 154 57 66%) (87%) SEARCHING SEARCHING 138 (86%) 360 (95%) DETECTING 294 (72%) OVIPOSITOR BORG —) FAILURE (59%) — 95 (45%) DETECTING 189 (79%) == OVIPOSITOR PROBING —) FAILURE 5 (60%) wo Ty WINGS VIBRATION 8 28 (100%) (6%) OVIPOSITION REJECT OVIPOSITION REJECT Figure 2. Ethogram of oviposition of females of Utetes anastrephae on non-parasitized larvae (a) and (13%) larvae previously parasitized by conspecifics (b) under laboratory conditions. The width of the arrow is proportional to the relative frequency of transition. The numbers associated with the arrows represent the observed frequencies of the successive behaviors of a complex sequence of behavior (proportions are indicated in parentheses). ovipositor compared to those not parasitized (F = 2.35; df = 2, P < 0.001). Overall, U. anastrephae females rejected 79% of parasitized hosts, D. crawfordi 74% and O. hirtus 62%. Furthermore, a more intensive searching was observed when a failure (because the host moved away) occurred when attacking non-parasitized hosts than when attacking parasitized hosts. The complete process of searching and host acceptance (from the begin- ning of the observation until ovipositor removal) was completed in 2.2 + 0.8 min (mean + SE) in D. crawfordi, 1.7 + 0.75 min in U. anastrephae and 1.52 + 0.75 min in O. hirtus. Latency The time elapsed between ovipositions differed significantly between U. anastrephae and the other two species when the hosts had previously been parasitized (F = 0.5, df = 2, P < 0.05; N = 30). Regarding the time of latency with non-parasitized larvae, U. anastre- phae presented the shortest time (3.25 + 0.3 min) (mean + SE) (Fig. 4) (F= 10.6, df= 2, P < 0.001), compared to that of the other two species (D. crawfordi = 4.88 + 0.48 min and O. hirtus = 5.65 + 0.75 min) (mean + SE). 40 Amanda Ayala et al. / Journal of Hymenoptera Research 63: 33-49 (2018) a) b) WALKING SEARCHING SEARCHING 339 112 (90%) (89%) 34 25 (49%) DETECTING ae DETECTING 371 : 121 a | me 232 81 (62%) OVIPOSITOR oviPosiioR | — PROBING PROBING | Kim [FAILURE 320 (80%) OVIPOSITION REJECT OVIPOSITION REJECT Figure 3. Ethogram of oviposition of females of Opius hirtus on non-parasitized larvae (a) and larvae previ- ously parasitized by conspecifics (b) under laboratory conditions. The width of the arrow is proportional to the relative frequency of transition. The numbers associated with the arrows represent the observed frequen- cies of the successive behaviors of a complex sequence of behavior (proportions are indicated in parentheses). Discrimination ability The first host choice in the three parasitoid species corresponded mostly to the non- parasitized larvae (D. crawfordi 22/30; U. anastrephae 18/30 and O. hirtus 19/30). Utetes anastrephae parasitized a significantly (F = 3.39, df = 2, P = 0.03) higher quantity of non-parasitized hosts (3.3 + 0.25) compared to the other two species (D. crawfordi 2.7 + 0.23 and O. hirtus 2.3 + 0.32). Doryctobracon crawfordi performed a greater number of oviposition attempts than U. anastrephae and O. hirtus in both types of larvae (Table 2). The time of ovipositor insertion on previously parasitized larvae differed signifi- cantly (F = 4.7, df = 2, P = 0.001) among species, with D. crawfordi spending more time with the ovipositor inserted, and O. /irtus the shortest one (Table 3). The time of ovipositor insertion of O. /irtus was significantly shorter in previously parasitized lar- vae compared to that in non-parasitized larvae (¢ = 2.67, df = 67, P = 0.0094, Table 3), while in the other two species no significant difference was found between the two host types. No significant differences were found between the two types of larvae in the duration of abdomen vibration and duration of the host paralysis after the attack by each parasitoid species. However, the duration of paralysis of the host differed among Anastrepha host acceptance by native parasitoid species 4] Table 2. Average values (tSE) of number of ovipositions and attempts at oviposition on host larvae para- sitized by conspecifics and non-parasitized host larvae. Numbenokovipastibns Number of oviposition attempts jecti: Species of parasitoid = ; (ee) ections) N Non-parasitized inte Non-parasitized aS Parasitized larvae Parasitized larvae larvae larvae Doryctobracon crawfordi 2.720.23* 0.6+0.15* 56.9+5.1? 42,447.58 Utetes anastrephae 3.340.25° ere w ek 12922210 14.7+2.2° 30 Opius hirtus 2.340.32° 1+0.16* T5.942¢2? 12.26+2.3> Different letters indicate statistically significant differences (Anova, 0=0.05) between species of parasitoids. *Indicates a statistically significant difference between parasitized and non-parasitized hosts. Table 3. Average values (+SE) of duration of oviposition, vibration of the abdomen of the females, and im- mobility of the host after stinging (all in minutes) in non-parasitized and parasitized host larvae of A. /udens. Duration of oviposition | Vibration of the abdomen Host immobility Species | Unparasitized | Parasitized | Unparasitized | Parasitized | Unparasitized | Parasitized | N host host host host host host Oe Lcd Me YD ZION 0.35+0.01? | 0.3540.03 | 21.341.28 | 20.5+3.4 | 30 crawfordi Bieta 1.640.1° 1.940.1 | 0.28+0.01% | 0.26+0.01 | 13.4+0.6° 12.141 | 30 anastrephae Opius hirtus 1.5+0.1° 12200" 0.26+0.01° 0.30.01 25:84i1,2* 24.542 | 30 Different letters indicate a statistically significant difference per columns for each parameter (ANOVA, a=0.05). *Indicates a statistically significant difference between parasitized and non-parasitized hosts for each species per parameter. @ Non-parasitized @ Parasitized Average time (minutes) iy Opius hirtus Utetes anastrephae Doryctobracon crawfordi Figure 4. Latency (average + SE, in minutes) between ovipositions of three native opine parasitoids at- tacking non-parasitized and previously parasitized Anastrepha ludens larvae. Different capital letters indicate statistically significant difference between the bars. Different letters, indicate statistically significant differ- ence between the bars. Different lower case letters, indicate statistically significant difference between species. 42 Amanda Ayala et al. / Journal of Hymenoptera Research 63: 33-49 (2018) the three species (parasitized hosts, F = 12.8, df = 2, P = 0.00001; non-parasitized hosts, F = 29.5, df = 2, P = 0.000001). All hosts successfully stung showed temporary paralysis: D. crawfordi = 21.3 + 1.2 min, O. hirtus = 23.8 + 1.2 min and U. anastrephae = 13.4 + 0.6 min) (mean + SE) (Table 3). Discussion Knowledge on host acceptance behavior in insect parasitoids is fundamental to im- prove our understanding on the plant-herbivore-natural enemy tritrophic relations (Vet and Dicke 1992), as well as the population dynamics and their possible implica- tions in pest biological control programs (Minkenberg et al. 1992). Several studies have indicated that responses of natural enemies are mediated mainly by chemical signals detected in the environment (Vinson 1998, Vet and Dicke 1992, van Alphen and Visser 1990), by host-generated vibrations in its microhabitat (Meyhofer et al. 1997, Vet and van Alphen 1985), and by the individual learning experiences of foraging females. Its stated that parasitoids perceive stimuli about host quality once direct contact has been made with the host, influencing the host accept- ance process (Brodeur and Boivin 2004, Wajnberg et al. 2008). Here we established the patterns of host acceptance by D. crawfordi, U. anastrephae and O. hirtus in the presence of both non-parasitized and previously parasitized hosts. We further charac- terized the time spent in different behaviors, and the duration of the paralysis induced through parasitism. The three studied species presented typical behavior of antennal contact with the surface of the oviposition unit during the process of searching for the host larvae, which is an important step for host detection (Leyva et al. 1991, Gonzalez et al. 2010). All of the species presented a similar foraging pattern, beginning the search for the host by walking and touching the oviposition surface with the antennae. Once a larva was detected, the females adopted an alert position that consisted of remaining immobile for some seconds with the antennae extended to the front, skimming the surface of the parasitization unit. On locating a larva, the females performed small turns on their axis until positioning their first pair of legs towards the front and arranging their oviposi- tor to form a 90° angle to the contact surface. On initiating the process of oviposition in the parasitization unit, as reported for D. longicaudata (Montoya et al. 2003), the females make various attempts to insert the ovipositor until contact was made with a host, which then was accepted or rejected. According to our results, the three parasitoid species have a high discrimination ability in the form defined by van Alphen and Visser (1990), given that females re- jected most of the previously parasitized hosts compared to those with no previous parasitization. However, U. anastrephae notoriously presented the highest frequency of rejection of parasitized hosts (79%). This suggests that this species possesses a high per- formance avoiding superparasitism and saving time and energy when foraging for their hosts (Godfray 1994, Mackauer 1990). This corroborate previous findings by Aluja et Anastrepha host acceptance by native parasitoid species 43 al. (2013), who showed that this species avoids ovipositing on previously parasitized hosts under conspecific and heterospecific situations, although it also has been noted that superparasitized hosts yielded relatively more daughters (Alvarenga et al. 2016), as referred for D. longicaudata (Montoya et al. 2011). The host acceptance behavior pre- sented by the three species was similar to that reported for D. longicaudata by Montoya et al. (2003), who observed that the previously parasitized hosts experienced a lower number of ovipositions than the hosts with no previous parasitization. Doryctobracon crawfordi presented the longest time spent on oviposition compared to the other two species. Host acceptance may depend on extrinsic factors such as host availability and quality, as well as intrinsic factors such as the quantity of eggs in the females, the age and their nutritional state (Vet et al. 2002, Bernstein and Jervis 2008). In the case of D. crawfordi, availability of eggs in the females can be an important lim- iting factor (Iwasa et al. 1984). Females of this species may tend to be more selective, avoiding oviposition on previously parasitized hosts or those considered to be of poor quality (Rosenheim 1996, Ayala et al. 2014). This could explain the large numbers of oviposition attempts (host probing) observed and the greater time on selection of non- parasitized hosts. The native parasitoids D. crawfordi, U. anastrephae and O. hirtus in- vest more time in the process of oviposition (2.2 + 0.8, 1.7 + 0.1 and 1.52 + 0.75 min, respectively) than exotic species such as D. longicaudata (0.49 + 0.2 min; Montoya et al. 2003) and D. tryoni (0.69 + 0.065 min; Ramadan et al. 1994) under laboratory conditions. This could be related to the level of host discrimination ability, since D. longicaudata has a strong tendency to superparasitize (Montoya et al. 2003) while the native species here studied seem to avoid superparasitism. In O. Airtus, the duration of oviposition when parasitizing previously parasitized hosts was significantly smaller (1.2 + 0.1 min) than with non-parasitized | hosts (1.6 + 0.1). The time invested in oviposition can vary according to the particular species and host size (Rivero 2000). In our study, females with experience that had contact with previously parasitized hosts, proved to be the most insistent and inserted their ovipositor a second time in order to conduct contact (D. crawfordi 16/30, U. anastrephae 22/30 and O. hirtus 16/30). Though koinobionts do not arrest host development, some species can induce transient host paralysis (temporary paralysis after being stung by the female wasp; e.g. Desneux et al. 2009, Chau and Maeto 2009). Our data show that the three braconids studied here temporarily paralyzed their hosts, with 100 percent of hosts undergoing transient paralysis. Interestingly, the duration of paralysis was species specific. Larvae parasitized by U. anastrephae remained immobile for 13 + 1 minutes, and thus present- ed this state for the shortest time, compared to the immobility presented by host larvae parasitized by D. crawfordi and O. hirtus (20.9 + 1.1 and 23.8 + 1 min, respectively). The duration of immobility caused by oviposition of the native parasitoids exceeds the time of immobility experienced by larvae parasitized by D. longicaudata (4.8 + 27 min; Montoya et al. 2003). The factors associated with host immobility are toxic substances in a mixture such as venom, as well as polydnaviruses (PDVs) that function as regulatory elements and disrupt the host metabolism (Moreau and Guillot 2005, Kaeslin et al. 2010), affecting 44 Amanda Ayala et al. / Journal of Hymenoptera Research 63: 33-49 (2018) the immune system (Richards and Parkinson 2000, Cai et al. 2004). Two hypothesis have been advanced to explain the adaptive value of transient host paralysis: 1) facilita- tion of oviposition by interfering with host defensive behaviors; and 2) self-superpara- sitism avoidance. Support for the latter hypothesis comes from the work of Desneux et al. (2009) with two species of aphidiine braconids of the genus Binodoxys that attack aphids, and from the work of Chau and Maeto (2009) with Meteorus pulchricornis also a braconid (Euphorinae) that attacks a wide range of lepidopteran larvae. Transient paralysis caused by Binodoxys spp. lasted up to 15 min and paralyzed aphids were ac- cepted at a significantly lower rate than control aphids (Desneux et al. 2009). Likewise, in M. pulchricornis, host movements remained at a low level for approximately 1h after oviposition, and additional ovipositions on paralyzed hosts were not observed (Chau and Maeto 2009). We further hypothesize that transient host paralysis may also be a means to avoid host detection by conspecifics and heterospecific competitors, reducing the risk of larval competition not only from superparasitism but also from multipara- sitism. In solitary endoparasitoids only one adult emerges per host, all other larvae are eliminated through direct (intrinsic) competition. Intrinsic competition in the guild of opine braconids that attack Anastrepha spp. has been demonstrated in U. anastrephae and D. areolatus, with the first instar larva of U. anastrephae being a superior competi- tor (Aluja et al. 2013). The duration of paralysis of the host in the three species studied here may allow some advantage to the developing embryo, delaying additional attacks. The first eclosed first instar larva might have more chances to win when competing with second laid individuals. There are few studies regarding the oviposition behavior of opiine parasitoid spe- cies native to the Neotropical region, which makes our data of valuable importance. Our study reveals that behavioral differences among the studied parasitoid species lay mainly in the time of parasitization and in the time for which the parasitized hosts remained immobile, which could delay or minimize superparasitism. ‘The three species were significantly capable of discriminating previously parasitized hosts, suggesting that this strategy is commonly present in the guild of fruit fly parasitoids attacking larvae in the Neotropics. Finally, our data also suggest that the studied species have the potential to be considered as suitable biological control agents. However, more studies are necessary to better understand the advantages and limitations that each one presents as natural enemies of fruit fly pests under field conditions. Acknowledgements We thank the technical support provided by Velisario Rivera, César Galvez, Patricia Lopez and Patricia Rosario. We also thank Javier Valle Mora (ECOSUR) for statisti- cal advice, and the Moscafrut program (SAGARPA-IICA) for providing the biologi- cal material for this study. The CONACyT granted a doctoral scholarship to A.A. (CVU 350406). Anastrepha host acceptance by native parasitoid species 45 References Aluja M, Sivinski J, Ovruski SM, Guillen L, Lopez M, Cancino J, Ruiz L (2009) Colonization and domestication of seven species of native New World hymenopterous larval-prepupal and pupal fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) parasitoids. Biocontrol Science and Technology 19: 49-79. https://doi.org/10.1080/09583 150802377373 Aluja M, Ovruski SM, Sivinski J, Cordova-Garcia G, Schliserman P, Nufiez-Campero SR, Or- dano M (2013) Inter-specific competition and competition-free space in the tephritid para- sitoids Utetes anastrephae and Doryctobracon areolatus (Hymenoptera: Braconidae: Opiinae). Biocontrol Science and Technology 38: 485-496. https://doi.org/10.1111/een.12039 Alvarenga CD, Dias V, Stuhl C, Sivinski J (2016) Contrasting brood sex ratio flexibility in two opine (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) parasitoids of tephritid (Diptera) fruit flies. Journal of Insect Behavior 29: 25-36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10905-015-9532-2 Avitia GE, Castillo GAM, Pimienta BE (2000) Ciruela mexicana y otras especies del genero Spondias L. Universidad Autonoma Chapingo. Chapingo, Estado de México, México. 75 pp. Ayala A, Martinez AM, Figueroa I, Pineda S, Miranda M, Liedo P, Montoya P (2014) Super- parasitism strategies by a native and an exotic parasitoid species attacking the Mexican fruit fly, Anastrepha ludens (Diptera: Tephritidae). Biocontrol Science and Technology 24: 925-935. https://doi.org/10.1080/09583157.2014.904503 Bernstein C, Jervis M (2008) Food-searching in parasitoids: the dilemma of choosing between ‘immediate’ or future fitness gains. In: Wajnberg E, Bernstein C, van Alphen JJM (Eds) Behavioural Ecology of Insect Parasitoids. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford, 129-171. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470696200.ch7 Brodeur J, Boivin G (2004) Functional ecology of immature parasitoids. Annual Review of Entomology 49: 27-49. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.49.061703.153618 Cai J, Ye G, Hu C (2004) Parasitism of Pieris rapae (Lepidoptera: Pieridae) by a pupal en- doparasitoid, Pteromalus puparum (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae): effects of parasitization and venom on host hemocytes. Journal of Insect Physiology 50: 315-322. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jinsphys.2004.01.007 Carrasco M, Montoya P, Cruz-Lopez L, Rojas JC (2005) Response of the fruit fly parasitoid Diachasmimorpha longicaudata (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) to mango fruit volatiles. Envi- ronmental Entomology 34: 576-583. https://doi.org/10.1603/0046-225X-34.3.576 Chau NNB, Maeto K (2009) Temporary host paralysis and avoidance of self-superparasitism in the solitary endoparasitoid Meteorus pulchricornis. Entomologia Experimentalis et Ap- plicata 132: 250-255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.2009.00894.x Desneux N, Barta RJ, Delebecque J, Heimpel GE (2009) Transient host paralysis as a means of reducing self-superparasitism in koinobiont endoparasitoids. Journal of Insect Physiology 55: 321-327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinsphys.2008.12.009 Enkerlin W (2005) Impact of fruit fly control programmes using the sterile insect technique. In: Dyck VA, Hendrichs J, Robinson AS (Eds) Sterile Insect Technique. Principles and Practice in Area-Wide Integrated Pest Management. Springer, Dordrecht, 651-673. htt- ps://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4051-2_25 46 Amanda Ayala et al. / Journal of Hymenoptera Research 63: 33-49 (2018) Gingras D, Dutilleul P Boivin G (2002) Modeling the impact of plant structure on host-finding behavior of parasitoids. Oecologia 130: 396-402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004-001-0819-y Godfray HCJ (1994) Parasitoids: behavioral and evolutionary ecology. Princeton University Press, 1-473. Gonzalez PI, Montoya P, Pérez-Lachaud G, Cancino J, Liedo P (2010) Host discrimination and superparasitism in wild and mass-reared Diachasmimorpha longicaudata (Hym.: Braconidae) females. Biocontrol Science and Technology 20: 137-148. https://doi. org/10.1080/09583150903437266 Greany PD, Tumlinson JH, Chambers DL, Boush GM (1977) Chemically mediated host find- ing by Biosteres (Opius) longicaudatus, a parasitoid of Tephritid fruit fly larvae. Journal of Chemical Ecology 3: 189-195. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00994145 Harvey JA, Gols R, Snaas R, Malcicka M, Visser B (2015) Host preference and offspring per- formance are linked in three congeneric hyperparasitoid species. Ecological Entomology 40: 114-122. https://doi.org/10.1111/een.12165 Hassell MP, Waage JK (1984) Host-parasitoid population interactions. Annual Review of Ento- mology 29: 89-114. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.en.29.010184.0005 13 Iwasa Y, Suzuki Y, Matsuda H (1984) Theory of oviposition strategy of parasitoids. I. Effect of mortality and limited egg number. Theoretical Population Biology 26: 205-227. https:// doi.org/10.1016/0040-5809(84)90030-3 Kaeslin M, Reinhard M, Biihler D, Roth T, Pfister-Wilhelm R, Lanzrein B (2010) Venom of the egg-larval parasitoid Chelonus inanitus is a complex mixture and has multiple bio- logical effects. Journal of Insect Physiology 56: 686-694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jin- sphys.2009.12.005 Kramer DL (2001) Foraging Behavior. In: Fox CW, Roff DA, Fairbairn DJ (Eds) Evolutionary Ecology Concepts and Case Studies. Oxford University Press, New York, 232-246. Lawrence PO (1981) Host vibration? A cue to host location by the parasite Biosteres longicau- datus. Oecologia 48: 249-251. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0034797 1 Leyva JL, Browning HW, Gilstrap FE (1991) Effect of host fruit species, size, and color on parasitization of Anastrepha ludens (Diptera: Tephritidae) by Diachasmimorpha longicau- data (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Environmental Entomology 20: 1469-1474. https:// doi.org/10.1093/ee/20.5.1469 Lopez M, Aluja M, Sivinski J (1999) Hymenopterous larval—pupal and pupal parasitoids of Anastrepha flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Mexico. Biological Control 15: 119-129. https:// doi.org/10.1006/bcon.1999.0711 Mackauer M (1990) Host discrimination and larval competition in solitary endoparasitoids. In: Mackauer M, Ehler LE, Roland J (Eds) Critical issues in biological control. Intercept, Andover, 41-62. Meyhéfer R, Casas J, Dorn S (1997) Vibration—mediated interactions in a host—parasitoid system. Procedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 264: 261-266. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1997.0037 Minkenberg OP, Tatar M, Rosenheim JA (1992) Egg load as a major source of variability in insect foraging and oviposition behavior. Oikos 65: 134-142. https://doi.org/10.2307/3544896 Anastrepha host acceptance by native parasitoid species 47 Montoya P, Liedo P, Benrey B, Barrera JF, Cancino J, Aluja M (2000) Functional response and superparasitism by Diachasmimorpha longicaudata (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), a parasit- oid of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae). Annals of Entomological Society of America 93: 47-54. https://doi.org/10.1603/0013-8746(2000)093[0047:FRASBD]2.0.CO;2 Montoya P, Benrey B, Barrera JF, Zenil M, Ruiz L, Liedo P (2003) Oviposition behavior and conspecific host discrimination in Diachasmimorpha longicaudata (Hymenoptera: Braconi- dae), a fruit fly parasitoid. Biocontrol Science and Technology 13: 683-690. https://doi.or g/10.1080/09583150310001606273 Montoya P, Cancino J, Zenil M, Santiago G, Gutierrez JM (2007) The augmentative biologi- cal control component in the Mexican National Campaign against Avastrepha spp. fruit flies. In Vreysen, MJB, Robinson AS, Hendrichs J (Eds) Area-Wide Control of Insect Pests, Springer Netherlands, 661-670. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6059-5_61 Montoya P, Suarez A, Lopez F, Cancino J (2009) Fopius arisanus oviposition in four Anastrepha fruit fly species of economic importance in Mexico. BioControl 54: 437-444. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10526-008-9 193-6 Montoya P, Cancino J, Pérez-Lachaud G, Liedo P (2011) Host size, superparasitism and sex ratio in mass-reared Diachasmimorpha longicaudata, a fruit fly parasitoid. BioControl 56: 11-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-010-9307-9 Moreau SJM, Guillot S (2005) Advances and prospects on biosynthesis, structures and func- tions of venom proteins from parasitic wasps. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 35: 1209-1223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibmb.2005.07.003 Orozco-Davila D, Quintero L, Hernandez E, Solis E, Artiaga T, Hernandez R, Montoya P (2017) Mass rearing and sterile insect releases for the control of Anastrepha spp. (Diptera: Tephritidae) pests in Mexico. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 164: 176-184. https://doi.org/10.1111/eea.12581 Ovruski SM, Aluja M, Sivinski J, Wharton R (2000) Hymenopteran parasitoids on fruit-in- festing Tephritidae (Diptera) in Latin America and the southern United States: diversity, distribution, taxonomic status and their use in fruit fly biological control. Integrated Pest Management Reviews 5: 81-107. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009652431251 Ovruski SM, Wharton RA, Schliserman P, Aluja M (2005) Abundance of Azastrepha fra- terculus (Diptera: Tephritidae) and its associated native parasitoids (Hymenoptera) in “feral” guavas growing in the endangered northernmost Yungas forests of Argentina with an update on the taxonomic status of Opiine parasitoids previously reported in this country. Environmental Entomology 34: 807-818. Https://doi.org/10.1603/0046- 225X-34.4.807 Ramadan MM, Wong TT, Herr JC (1994) Is the oriental fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) a natu- ral host for the opiine parasitoid Diachasmimorpha tryoni (Hymenoptera: Braconidae)? Environmental Entomology 23: 761-769. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/23.3.761 Richards EH, Parkinson NM (2000) Venom from the endoparasitic wasp Pimpla hypochondri- aca adversely affects the morphology, viability, and immune function of hemocytes from larvae of the tomato moth, Lacanobia oleracea. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 76: 33-42. https://doi.org/10.1006/jipa.2000.4948 48 Amanda Ayala et al. / Journal of Hymenoptera Research 63: 33-49 (2018) Richerson J, Borden J (1972) Host finding by heat perception in Coeloides brunneri (Hymenop- tera: Braconidae). The Canadian Entomologist 104: 1877-1881. https://doi.org/10.4039/ Ent1041877-12 Rivero A (2000) The relationship between host selection behaviour and offspring fitness in a koinobiont parasitoid. Ecological Entomology 25: 467-472. https://doi.org/10.1046/ j.1365-2311.2000.00276.x Rosenheim JA (1996) An evolutionary argument for egg limitation. Evolution 50: 2089-2094. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1996.tb03595.x Sanchez G, Murua F, Suarez L, Van Nieuwenhove G, Taret G, Pantanto V, Bilbao M, Schlis- erman P, Ovruski SM (2016) Augmentative releases of Diachasmimorpha longicaudata (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) for Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) control in a fruit- growing region of Argentina. Biological Control 103: 101-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. biocontrol.2016.08.002 SAS Institute (2007) JMP Statistical Discovery Software, Version 7.0.1. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina. Sivinski J, Calkins CO, Baranowski RM, Harris D, Brambila J, Diaz J, Bums RE, Holler T, Dodson D (1996) Suppression Caribbean fruit fly (Anastrepha suspensa (Loew) Diptera: Tephritidae) population through releases of the parasitoid Diachasmimorpha longicauda- ta (Ashmead) (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Biological Control 6: 177-185. https://doi. org/10.1006/bcon.1996.0022 Sivinski J, Aluja M, Lopez M (1997) Spatial and temporal distributions of parasitoids of Mexican Anastrepha species (Diptera: Tephritidae) within the canopies of fruit trees. An- nals of the Entomological Society of America 90: 604-618: https://doi.org/10.1093/ aesa/90.5.604 Sivinski J, Pifiero J, Aluja M (2000) The distributions of parasitoids (Hymenoptera) of Anas- trepha Fruit Flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) along an altitudinal gradient in Veracruz, Mexico. Biological Control 18: 258-269. https://doi.org/10.1006/bcon.2000.0836 Sivinski J, Vulinec K, Aluja M (2001) Ovipositor length in a guild of parasitoids (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) attacking Anastrepha spp. fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in southern Mexico. Annals Entomological Society of America 94: 886-895. https://doi.org/10.1603/0013- 8746(2001)094[0886:OLIAGO]2.0.CO;2 van Alphen JJM, Janssen ARM (1982) Host selection by Asobara tabida Nees (Braconidae: Alysiinae) a larval parasitoid of fruit inhabiting Drosophila species. II. Host species selection. Netherlands Journal of Zoology 32: 194-214. https://doi.org/10.1163/002829682X00139 van Alphen JJM, Vet LEM (1986) An evolutionary approach to host finding and selection. In: Waage J, Greathead D (Eds) Insect Parasitoids. Academic Press, London, 23-61. van Alphen JJM, Visser ME (1990) Superparasitism as an adaptive strategy for insect para- sitoids. Annual Review of Entomology35: 59-79. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev. en.35.010190.000423 van Lenteren JC, Bakker K, van Alphen JJM (1978) How to analyze host discrimination. Ecological Entomology 3: 71-75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2311.1978.tb00904.x Anastrepha host acceptance by native parasitoid species 49 Vet LEM, van Alphen JJM (1985) A comparative functional approach to the host detection behaviour of parasitic wasps. I. A qualitative study on Eucoilidae and Alysiinae. Oikos 44: 478-486. https://doi.org/10.2307/3565789 Vet LE, Dicke M (1992) Ecology of infochemical use by natural enemies in a tritrophic con- text. Annual Review of Entomology 37: 141-172. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev. en.37.010192.001041 Vet LE, Hemerik L, Visser ME (2002) Flexibility in host-search and patch-use strategies of Insect. In: Lewis EE, Campbell JE, Sukhdeo MVK (Eds) The Behavioural Ecology of Para- sites. CAB International, 39-64. https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851996158.0039 Vinson SB (1976) Host selection by insect parasitoids. Annual Review of Entomology 21: 109-134. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.en.21.010176.000545 Vinson SB (1984) Parasitoid—host relationship. In: Bell WJ, Cardé RT (Eds) Chemical Ecol- ogy of Insects. Springer, Boston, MA, 205-233. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899- 3368-3_8 Vinson SB (1998) The general host selection behavior of parasitoid Hymenoptera and a com- parison of initial strategies utilized by larvaphagous and oophagous species. Biological Control 11: 79-96. https://doi-org/10.1006/bcon.1997.0601 Wajnberg E, Bernstein C, van Alphen J (2008) Behavioral Ecology of Insect Parasitoids: From Theoretical Approaches to Field Applications. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford, 464 pp. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470696200