IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v26y2015i1p262-268..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mortal combat and competition for oviposition sites in female pollinating fig wasps

Author

Listed:
  • Derek W. Dunn
  • K. Charlotte Jandér
  • Anayra G. Lamas
  • Rodrigo A. S. Pereira

Abstract

Aggressive contests between animals are common but rarely result in death because the benefits of winning a fight rarely exceed the cost of losing. Lethal combat can evolve, however, when the contested resource translates to much of the future reproductive success of each combatant. Female agaonid fig wasps pollinate and lay their eggs in the flowers within the enclosed inflorescences ("figs") of fig trees (Ficus spp.). Wasps rarely leave the first fig entered so the reproductive success of each "foundress" usually depends on the availability of flowers within a single fig. We report for the first time lethal combat between female agaonids, in the undescribed Pegoscapus sp. that pollinates Ficus citrifolia in southeastern Brazil. In staged dyadic contests, wasps showed no aggression outside or inside the fig until one foundress oviposited. The first wasp to oviposit then became aggressive, which usually resulted in the death of its competitor. Examination of dead foundresses in naturally occurring figs showed that injuring competitors, particularly through decapitation, was effective at reducing their oviposition rates. In a Panamanian F. citrifolia population, pollinated by another wasp species, Pegoscapus tonduzi, there was little aggression between foundresses in similar contests. We suggest that reduced aggression in P. tonduzi reflects less competition for resources essential for successful reproduction due to on average fewer foundresses per flower in Panama.

Suggested Citation

  • Derek W. Dunn & K. Charlotte Jandér & Anayra G. Lamas & Rodrigo A. S. Pereira, 2015. "Mortal combat and competition for oviposition sites in female pollinating fig wasps," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 26(1), pages 262-268.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:26:y:2015:i:1:p:262-268.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/aru191
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:26:y:2015:i:1:p:262-268.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.