Next Article in Journal
Identification Method of Cotton Leaf Diseases Based on Bilinear Coordinate Attention Enhancement Module
Previous Article in Journal
Short-Term Dynamics of Bacterial Community Structure in Restored Abandoned Agricultural Soils under Semi-Arid Conditions
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Two Better Than One? Potential Effects of Intraguild Predation on the Biological Control of Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) by the Parasitoid Aganaspis daci (Hymenoptera: Figitidae) and the Predator Pseudoophonus rufipes (Coleoptera: Carabidae)

1
CARTIF Centro Tecnológico, Environmental Division, Parque Tecnológico de Boecillo 205, 47151 Boecillo, Valladolid, Spain
2
Centro de Protección Vegetal y Biotecnología, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Agrarias (IVIA), Ctra. CV-315 km 10′7, 46113 Moncada, Valencia, Spain
3
Unidad de Zoología, Facultad de Biología, Universidad de Salamanca, 37007 Salamanca, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2023, 13(1), 87; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13010087
Submission received: 30 November 2022 / Revised: 21 December 2022 / Accepted: 22 December 2022 / Published: 27 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Topic Integrated Pest Management of Crops)

Abstract

:
The use of more than one species to manage a single insect pest is a common practice among biological control programs. However, the beneficial effects of natural enemies are not always additive, which in many cases may be attributed to interspecific interactions such as intraguild predation (IGP). Herein, we investigated the potential IGP between two relevant natural enemies of the Medfly (Ceratitis capitata), the predator Pseudoophonus rufipes and the parasitoid Aganaspis daci, as well as the possible implications of this phenomenon in their efficiency as biocontrol agents. To this end, we assessed their functional responses and different demographic parameters when acting alone and together against C. capitata under laboratory conditions. Coexistence led to a switch in the functional response of both species, from type III to type II in A. daci and the opposite in P. rufipes. Regarding demographic parameters, coexistence resulted in higher parasitoidism and population reduction by A. daci only at low host densities, probably due to competition pressure. In the same circumstances, P. rufipes reduced its predatory activity, rejecting those larvae that were presumably parasitized and causing negligible IGP. At high Medfly densities, A. daci efficiency decreased, and the reduced encounter probability enhanced the predatory activity by P. rufipes. As a result of these trends, Medfly population reduction reached almost 100% at all densities, which suggests an additive effect of both natural enemies and recommends combined releases of these agents as a strategy for the control of the Medfly.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

In biological control programs against agricultural pests, more than one species of natural enemy can be used to manage a single insect pest [1,2]. However, these natural enemies can also interact among themselves, and this interaction may impede the expected additive regulatory effects [3,4,5]. One of the most studied types of interspecific interactions due to its presumably negative effects on biological control is intraguild predation (IGP), which describes the interaction in which two species that compete for a common resource also engage in a trophic interaction with each other [6,7,8]. IGP can be uni- or bidirectional, with one or both species attacking the other [9], and may even occur between different types of natural enemies, e.g., a predator and a parasitoid, as long as they share the same prey/host. In predator/parasitoid interactions, unidirectional IGP is more common, with the predator (‘IGP predator’) feeding inadvertently on immature parasitoids (‘IGP prey’) when consuming the prey species [10,11]. Thus, the parasitic performance can be seriously jeopardized, and this should be taken into account in the design and implementation of biocontrol programs involving both types of agents [9,12].
The Mediterranean fruit fly or Medfly, Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Tephritidae), currently represents one of the main threats to fruit crops and is considered one of the most important agriculture pests worldwide [13,14]. The urgent need to develop efficient and environmentally safe control programs has led to the identification of a substantial number of natural enemies, some of which have demonstrated significant potential [15,16]. During the first phase of the Medfly life cycle, eggs and early larvae develop within the host fruit pulp, after which late-instar larvae jump out the fruit to pupate at a shallow depth in the ground until adult emergence [17]. Potential arthropod natural enemies therefore include both parasitoids that can bore the fruit skin and oviposit into the fly larvae and ground-dwelling predators that can feed on the pupae, late-instar larvae and even freshly emerged adults [15]. Therefore, accidental IGP of Medfly predators on parasitoids is expected to occur in agricultural systems, even when the current scarcity of studies dealing with this phenomenon and its implications suggests the opposite.
Among Medfly natural enemies, the predator Pseudoophonus rufipes De Geer (Coleoptera: Carabidae) has emerged as a potential biocontrol agent in Spain after the research of Monzó et al. [18,19]. These authors cited this ground-dwelling beetle as the most abundant carabid in Spanish citrus orchards and reported that it was able to efficiently prey on third instar larvae and pupae of C. capitata. This led to the idea that P. rufipes could play a relevant role in regulating the Medfly in citrus, wherein the incidence of this pest is significant [20,21]. The dominance of this predator in other southern European crops [22,23] suggests that it could also play an interesting role as a biocontrol agent in other cropping systems.
A current parasitoid being considered for biocontrol is the figitid Aganaspis daci (Weld) (Hymenoptera: Figitidae). This larval–pupal solitary endoparasitoid was first detected in Malaysia and Taiwan parasitizing flies from the genus Bactrocera [24], and its biocontrol potential against this genus has been well-known ever since [25,26,27]. However, the first report of A. daci as a Medfly parasitoid was not until 2003, when it was found emerging naturally from Medfly larvae on the Greek island of Chios [28]. From then on, Medfly parasitoidism by A. daci has been reported to be common in the Mediterranean Basin (Spain, Syria and Tunisia) [29,30,31,32]. The high natural parasitism rates observed in the field led to multiple studies assessing the efficacy of this parasitoid in controlling C. capitata with promising results [33,34,35].
There is a distinct scarcity of research on the IGP involving C. capitata natural enemies. The joint action of different species of natural enemies on the Medfly and other fruit flies has been widely assessed [36,37,38]. However, to our knowledge, IGP and its implications on Medfly control had only been specifically studied for P. rufipes and Spalangia cameroni Perkins (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae), another important Medfly parasitoid [39]. Herein, we assessed the consequences of IGP on the parasitic and predatory efficiency of A. daci and P. rufipes on the Medfly, in view of possible combined releases of these natural enemies for pest control purposes. Based on their nature and considering previous works such as [39], a certain mutual effect between these species could be expected. However, the direction and intensity of this interaction is completely unpredictable. Specifically, we measured (i) the functional responses and (ii) different demographic parameters (parasitoidism, fertility, induced mortality, population reduction and offspring sex ratio for A. daci and predation for P. rufipes) of these agents when acting both alone and together against C. capitata under laboratory conditions.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Center and Insect Rearing

All experiments in this study were performed in compliance with current Spanish law and carried out in 2018 at the facilities of the Museu Valencià d’Història Natural (MVHN) and the Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Agrarias (IVIA). Adult specimens of P. rufipes were captured from citrus fields in the Valencian community (Spain) using pitfall traps, then transported to a climate cabinet in the laboratory. Specimens were reared in a 50 × 50 × 50 cm methacrylate box with an upper mesh covering and fed with water and sucrose solution for 2 days prior to the assays. Medfly larvae and A. daci adults were obtained from their regular semimassive rearings, established at IVIA [40,41], and then maintained in the same type of terraria mentioned above before being used in the experiments. The climatic conditions were slightly different for natural enemies (22 ± 2 °C, 65 ± 10%RH, 16:8 (L:D)) and the Medfly (27 ± 2 °C, 65 ± 10%RH, 16:8 (L:D)).

2.2. Experimental Design

Four experiments were conducted throughout the present research. Experiments 1, 2 and 3 aimed to assess the functional response (defined by Solomon [42] as ‘the relationship between the number of prey or hosts attacked by a predator or parasitoid as a function of prey density’) of A. daci and P. rufipes on C. capitata, both when acting alone (Experiments 1–2) and together (Experiment 3). The last experiment consisted of a comparison of several demographic parameters of these natural enemies when acting alone and also together on C. capitata.

2.2.1. Experiment 1: Functional Response of A. daci

In this experiment, newly emerged (<20 h) adults of A. daci were collected from the terraria, then sexed and paired in 10 mL plastic tubes. The tubes were sealed with a piece of cotton and contained honey for the parasitoids to feed on. Breeding pairs were left undisturbed for 2 days, after which they were assumed to have mated. Then, the parasitoids were introduced into ‘experimental units’. Each cage consisted of a lidded translucent plastic box (20 × 15 × 10 cm). The lids were adapted with a 4 cm diameter gauze-covered hole for ventilation. Three breeding pairs were introduced in each experimental unit, which was also provided with water and honey as feeding sources. For 24 h over 6 consecutive days, Medfly late larvae (=L3) were supplied to the experimental units, by placing them into a Petri dish (60 mm ø) with 15, 60 or 120 per unit (i.e., 5, 20 or 40 per breeding pair). Eight repetitions (=experimental units) were employed per density in each replicate (=block), and two replicates were performed. To assess natural mortality in the host, a ‘control’ treatment was also included in each block, consisting of 8 experimental units each containing 15 larvae but no parasitoids at all. After exposure, larvae were recovered and put in ventilated Petri dishes (one per experimental unit) until parasitoid emergence. Petri dishes were kept in a Sanyo MLR 350 climate cabinet (Sartorius, Barcelona, Spain) at 24.5 ± 0.5 °C, 60 ± 10% RH and 16:8 (L:D). Emergences of the parasitoid were counted to assess both fertility (=number of total emergences) and percentage parasitoidism (=emergence rate, i.e., the number of emergences per exposed larvae).

2.2.2. Experiment 2: Functional Response of P. rufipes

Three P. rufipes adults (males or females, but never mixed) were introduced in the same type of experimental units as in Experiment 1, with water and honey and a Petri dish with Medfly larvae. Additionally, units contained a thin layer of moistened perlite (Floreal, Agroperlita F-13; Piquer Morte S.L., Rafelbunyol, Valencia, Spain) to facilitate predator locomotion. The density of larvae, number of repetitions and replicates, exposure time and control treatment were all the same as in Experiment 1. Predation, taken as the number and percentage of prey killed by P. rufipes, was recorded.

2.2.3. Experiment 3: Functional Response of A. daci and P. rufipes When Acting Jointly on the Medfly

Parasitoids and predators were introduced together in the experimental units, set up as in Experiment 2. Three P. rufipes adults and three A. daci mated females were introduced in each unit. The density of larvae, number of repetitions and replicates, exposure time and control treatment were all the same as the previous experiments. After exposure, the number of pupae predated by P. rufipes was recorded, and the remainder were reared as in Experiment 1 to determine parasitoid emergence.

2.2.4. Experiment 4: Demographic Parameters of A. daci and P. rufipes

The last experiment aimed to determine the effect of sharing host/prey on several life history parameters of both natural enemies. Experiments 1, 2 and 3 were repeated, but new variables were measured for A. daci, such as induced mortality, population reduction and offspring sex ratio. Induced mortality was determined as the proportion of pupae that did not eclose after 2 months and had evidence of parasitoid activity, namely oviposition holes and/or parasitoid immatures. Thus, every pupae that had not eclosed after this period was dissected and examined under the microscope. The other measured variables were the same as in previous experiments, i.e., fertility and percentage parasitoidism for A. daci and predation for P. rufipes.

2.3. Statistical Analyses

Functional responses (Experiments 1–3) were analyzed by a generalized linear model (GLM), aiming to discriminate between the two most common types of responses, type II and type III (see Discussion). The data were fit to a binomial distribution with Logit link function, then fit to their corresponding functional response equation [43,44,45]. Attack rate coefficient is known to be constant and independent of prey/host density in type II responses, while in type III responses, it varies with prey/host density and can be obtained as follows [46]: a′ = b × x/(1 + c × x), where x is the prey/host density and b and c are constants of itself. Data were fitted through a non-linear least-squares regression by means of the Levenberg–Marquardt iterative estimation procedure [47]. The parameters of the functional response, attack rate (a′) and handling time (Tm) were extracted from this regression.
The fertility, percentage parasitoidism, induced mortality and population reduction attributed to A. daci and the predation displayed by P. rufipes were tested when acting alone and when sharing host/prey (Experiment 4) by a two-way factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA), considering the replicates (block effect) as a random factor. Offspring sex ratio of the parasitoid was also compared between both situations (alone vs. sharing host/prey) by a Pearson’s chi squared (χ2) test. When the assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance were not fulfilled, data were transformed to meet those assumptions. Values are given as means ± standard error (SE) or percentage (%). Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Version 25.0 (Chicago, IL, USA), with a significance set at p = 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Experiment 1: Functional Response of A. daci

A generalized linear model for the proportion of emerged parasitoids revealed that the estimated values for the linear and quadratic coefficients were both positive (Table 1), which reveals a functional response from type III [43]. The estimated handling time and the b and c parameters are shown in Table 2. Based on these parameters, the estimated attack coefficients were 0.37, 0.68 and 0.78 days−1 for a density of 15, 60 and 120 larvae, respectively. The estimated maximum number of successfully emerging offspring was 85 per female in 24 h (Figure 1).

3.2. Experiment 2: Functional Response of P. rufipes

A generalized linear model for the proportion of killed pupae showed a negative estimated value of and a positive quadratic (Table 1), revealing a type II response [43]. The estimated attack rate coefficient and handling time are shown in Table 2. The estimated maximum number of predated pupae per adult was 14 specimens in 24 h (Figure 2).

3.3. Experiment 3: Functional Response of A. daci and P. rufipes When Acting Jointly on the Medfly

The joint action of both natural enemies resulted in A. daci showing a type II functional response, with a negative estimated value of the linear coefficient and a positive quadratic coefficient [43] (Table 1). The estimated attack rate coefficient and handling time are shown in Table 2. In this case, the estimated maximum number of emergences per female was 167 specimens in 24 h (Figure 3).
For its part, P. rufipes functional response switched to type III when sharing prey, with both linear and quadratic coefficients showing negative estimated values [43] (Table 1). The estimated b and c parameters (see Table 2) led to the following attack rate coefficients: 0.29 days−1 (for a prey density of 15 pupae), 0.41 days−1 (60 pupae) and 0.44 days−1 (120 pupae). The estimated maximum number of predated pupae per adult was 111 specimens in 24 h (Figure 4).

3.4. Experiment 4: Demographic Parameters of A. daci and P. rufipes

Two-way ANOVA revealed that the percentage parasitoidism of A. daci only differed between the two situations (acting alone vs. acting together with P. rufipes) at a density of 15 larvae (Table 3 and Table 4). The same applied to fertility and population reduction, while induced mortality did not differ between both situations in any case (Table 3 and Table 4). When differences were detected, values were always higher when in the presence of the predator (Table 4). Regarding offspring sex ratio, Pearson’s chi squared test showed significant differences at all densities (15 larvae: χ2 = 18.282, df = 1, p < 0.001; 60 larvae: χ2 = 108.789, df = 1, p < 0.001; 120 larvae: χ2 = 16.444, df = 1, p < 0.001; 15–120 larvae (global): χ2= 104.454, df = 1, p < 0.001). Offspring were female-biased in all cases, and the bias was especially marked when in the presence of P. rufipes (Table 4).
In the case of P. rufipes, the two-way ANOVA revealed that predation was significantly affected by the presence of A. daci at the three densities (15, 60 and 120 pupae) but not globally (15–120 pupae). Predation was higher when P. rufipes acted alone at densities of 15 and 60 pupae, but, with the highest prey availability, predation was greater when in the presence of A. daci (Table 3 and Table 4).

4. Discussion

Many insect pests are attacked by both predators and parasitoids, which frequently interact with each other while exerting their biocontrol activity [10,11]. Among these interactions, intraguild predation (IGP) has been reported to be especially common [48,49]. IGP between predators and parasitoids is asymmetric: while predators can frequently kill parasitoids when feeding on hosts that are already parasitized, parasitoids cannot cause direct mortality to predators [50,51,52,53,54]. Moreover, the presence of predators with whom they must share the same resource usually leads to alterations in the behaviour of parasitoids that can cause reduced parasitic efficiency [55]. In short, the coexistence with predators often leads to the disruption of the biological control by parasitoids, and this impedes the desired complementary action of both natural enemies [48,56,57,58,59].
In the present study, we studied the functional responses shown by the parasitoid A. daci and the predator P. rufipes when feeding on the Medfly as a way to understand the trophic interactions between these three species. Functional responses are classified into three types (type I to III), with type II being the most common for invertebrate parasitoids and predators [60]. This type of response leads to inverse density-dependent predation or parasitism [44], with values increasing with prey/host density at a constantly decreasing rate towards a maximum value determined by the maximum attack rate. Type III functional response, although more common among vertebrates, could also be characteristic for invertebrate natural enemies, especially when external factors affect their behavior [61,62]. This type of response resembles type II but includes an acceleration at low prey/host densities [63], which is believed to be due to learning behaviors and the subsequent increased searching efficiency and decreased host-handling time [60]. Therefore, under these circumstances, it is the only functional response that may lead to direct density dependence and can potentially stabilize predator–prey interactions [46].
We observed a type III functional response for A. daci in the absence of the predator, as was the case in the two previous works that assessed the functional response of this species under laboratory conditions. In de Pedro et al. [64], conditions were very similar to ours, with the only difference that hosts were offered an artificial Medfly diet. This could explain the lower handling times exhibited by the parasitoid when compared to the present study. In de Pedro et al. [65], the Medfly larvae received the artificial diet, and, moreover, A. daci was in the presence of the braconid parasitoid Diachasmimorpha longicaudata (Ashmead) (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), which also parasitizes the late larval instars of C. capitata [66,67]. Competition, in this case, resulted in higher handling times and lower attack rates but did not affect the functional response of A. daci. In contrast, in the present study, the presence of P. rufipes caused a shift to a type II response. The shift to a different functional response seems to be a common phenomenon in parasitoids when they compete for hosts with predators, whose presence may have different effects on parasitoid efficiency. For example, Vanaclocha et al. [45] observed that the coccinelid Chilocorus circumdatus (Gyllenhall) (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) modified the functional response of the aphelinid Aphytis lingnanensis Compere (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) on armored scales exclusively via IGP at low host densities. In most cases, however, the shift is linked to behavioral changes caused by the presence of the predator. In this regard, Martinou et al. [55] described an increase in the handling time of the parasitoid Aphidius colemani Viereck (Hymenoptera: Aphidiinae) when coexisting with the mirid Macrolophus caliginosus Wagner (Hemiptera: Miridae), while our study, as well as the one by Tormos et al. [39], revealed the opposite effect on A. daci and S. cameroni, respectively, in the presence of P. rufipes. The fact that these Medfly parasitoids displayed opposite responses could be attributed to differences in their searching ability, probably derived from the different ways in that hosts were offered in each case.
For its part, the functional response of P. rufipes also changed in the presence of A. daci, in this case from a type II to a type III response, suffering a significant decrease in handling time but also in the attack rate. Type II responses seem to be the most typical when P. rufipes acts alone on C. capitata [18,39], whereas the shift to type III in competition had never been observed prior to the present work. The attack rate and handling time we recorded are similar to those scored by Monzó et al. [18] for third instar Medfly larvae and significantly lower than the values obtained by the same author and Tormos et al. [39] for Medfly pupae, which seems to confirm that the latter is the preferred instar of this beetle species.
None of the A. daci parameters were globally affected by the presence of the predator, but some effects were observed at certain host densities. For example, at low densities, percentage parasitoidism and fertility were higher in the presence of P. rufipes. Under these circumstances, the parasitoid efficiency and, more specifically, the attack rate seems to be enhanced by the predator, probably via competition pressure. Induced mortality was very low (below 10%) in any case and was neither affected by host density nor by the presence of the carabid. This was unexpected considering that both factors seem to have a negative effect on superparasitism, which in turn seems to be one of the main causes of the induced mortality caused by Medfly parasitoids [68]. The stability of induced mortality led to population reduction by A. daci following a similar trend to percentage parasitoidism, with higher values in the presence of with P. rufipes at low host densities. Since Medfly population reduction is the final goal of biocontrol programs, the combined use of both natural enemies seems to be a proper strategy from the perspective of A. daci. Another argument in favor of this strategy is the strongly female-biased offspring recorded for A. daci in the presence of P. rufipes at all host densities. Female-biased sex ratio is very common among hymenopteran parasitoids and is always desirable within biocontrol programs because only females exert parasitic activity [69,70]. Until now, only temperature had been highlighted as a decisive factor affecting A. daci offspring sex ratio, with the proportion of females rising with increasing temperatures in the suitable developmental temperature range [33].
The predation of P. rufipes was significantly lower when in the presence of A. daci at low and medium host densities, and the opposite was the case when prey were abundant. As we mentioned before, it seems that at low densities, when the probability of encounter is higher, the competition pressure exerted by P. rufipes stimulated the parasitic activity of A. daci, which negatively affected the performance of the predator. At high host densities, the efficiency of the parasitoid stabilized, and the abundance of C. capitata was enough to ensure an optimal activity of both natural enemies. These results support the observation of Tormos et al. [39] that P. rufipes is able to discriminate between parasitized and unparasitized hosts, expressing a preference for the latter, which is common among predators in coexistence with parasitoids [48,71,72,73]. The main novelty in the present study is that P. rufipes discrimination seems to occur at all prey densities, even when the Medfly was scarce. The reason why Medfly juveniles parasitized by A. daci are avoided by P. rufipes to such an extent should be addressed in future research, as this phenomenon could have serious implications on predator survival under low prey availability. In any case, we can conclude that IGP between P. rufipes and A. daci is negligible, and this allows an additive effect of both natural enemies that improves their individual performance. The population reduction of the pest under the joint action of both natural enemies, i.e., the sum of the population reduction caused by A. daci and the percentage predation of P. rufipes, reached 100% or very close values at all densities. Therefore, combined releases of A. daci and P. rufipes seems to be a suitable strategy for the control of the Medfly regardless of the density of the pest. This could be greatly advantageous in comparison to other predator–parasitoid systems whose effects are only additive over a certain pest density threshold due to IGP [39,45,74]. Firm conclusions, however, will not be drawn until field studies are conducted to assess the real behavior of these species in nature.

5. Conclusions

The present work represents the first study of intraguild interactions involving A. daci, one of the most studied Mediterranean parasitoids of the Medfly in recent years [32,41,75]. Our results suggest that, when acting together against Medfly larvae, A. daci and P. rufipes affect each other’s functional response. At low host densities, A. daci improves its parasitic efficiency, while P. rufipes reduces its predatory activity due to an extreme host discrimination that causes the rejection of parasitized larvae. As host availability increases, the parasitic activity of A. daci reaches a maximum value and the reduced encounter probability enhances predation by P. rufipes, which even exceeds the values obtained in the absence of the parasitoid. The result of all these trends is a practically negligible IGP and a combined deleterious effect on Medfly populations that almost completely eliminate C. capitata at all densities. This lends support to the recommendation of combined releases of A. daci and P. rufipes in biocontrol programs against the Medfly. However, further ecological studies, especially under natural conditions, will be necessary to elucidate the long-term effects that competition may have on the population dynamics and the biocontrol performance of these natural enemies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.d.P., F.B. and J.T.; data curation, L.d.P., F.B. and J.T.; formal analysis, J.T.; funding acquisition, F.B.; investigation, L.d.P., F.B. and J.T.; methodology, F.B. and J.T.; project administration, F.B.; supervision, F.B. and J.T.; validation, F.B. and J.T.; writing—original draft, L.d.P.; writing—review and editing, F.B. and J.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work has been co-financed by the Valencian Institute of Agricultural Research (IVIA), project IVIA 52202 “Biological control of pests and diseases as a key element in boosting the sustainability of agricultural crops in the Valencian Community—SUSTAINABLE”. This project may be co-financed by the European Union through the FEDER Operational Programme for the Valencian Community 2021–2027.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We thank Azucena Gallardo-Paúls and Amparo Duato for their technical assistance. We also thank Alice Mockford, from the University of Worcester, UK, and currently Postdoctoral Research Associate at Christian-Albrechts-Universität in Kiel, Germany, for her comments on the written manuscript and her detailed English language review.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Denoth, M.; Frid, L.; Myers, J.H. Multiple agents in biological control: Improving the odds? Biol. Control. 2002, 24, 20–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Vafaie, E.K.; Pemberton, H.B.; Gu, M.; Kerns, D.; Eubanks, M.D.; Heinz, K.M. A comparison of repetitive releases of single or multiple natural enemy species on the suppression of Bemisia tabaci infesting poinsettias. Biol. Control. 2020, 151, 104407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Martin, E.A.; Reineking, B.; Seo, B.; Steffan-Dewenter, I. Natural enemy interactions constrain pest control in complex agricultural landscapes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 5534–5539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Borer, E.T.; Briggs, C.J.; Murdoch, W.W.; Swarbrick, S.L. Testing intraguild predation theory in a field system: Does numerical dominance shift along a gradient of productivity? Ecol. Lett. 2003, 6, 929–935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Bilu, E.; Coll, M. The importance of intraguild interactions to the combined effect of a parasitoid and a predator on aphid population suppression. Biol. Control. 2007, 52, 753–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Rosenheim, J.A.; Kaya, H.K.; Ehler, L.E.; Marois, J.J.; Jaffee, B.A. Intraguild predation among biological-control agents: Theory and evidence. Biol. Control. 1995, 5, 303–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kindlmann, P.; Houdková, K. Intraguild predation: Fiction or reality? Popul. Ecol. 2006, 48, 317–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hall, R.J. Intraguild predation in the presence of a shared natural enemy. Ecology 2011, 92, 352–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Vance-Chalcraft, A.H.D.; Rosenheim, J.A.; Vonesh, J.R.; Craig, W.; Sih, A. The influence of intraguild predation on prey suppression and prey release: A meta-analysis. Ecology 2007, 88, 2689–2696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Aguirre, M.B.; Bruzzone, O.A.; Triapitsyn, S.V.; Diaz-Soltero, H.; Hight, S.D.; Logarzo, G.A. Influence of competition and intraguild predation between two candidate biocontrol parasitoids on their potential impact against Harrisia cactus mealybug, Hypogeococcus sp. (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 13377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Frago, E. Interactions between parasitoids and higher order natural enemies: Intraguild predation and hyperparasitoids. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 2016, 14, 81–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Rosenheim, J.A.; Harmon, J.P. The influence of intraguild predation on the suppression of a shared prey population: An empirical reassessment. In Trophic and Guild Interactions in Biological Control; Brodeur, J., Boivin, G., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2006; pp. 1–20. [Google Scholar]
  13. White, I.; Elson-Harris, M. Fruit Flies of Economic Significance: Their Identification and Bionomics; CAB Inc.: Oxford, UK, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  14. Aluja, M.; Mangan, R.L. Fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) host status determination: Critical conceptual, methodological, and regulatory considerations. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2008, 53, 473–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. García, F.R.M.; Ovruski, S.M.; Suárez, L.; Cancino, J.; Liburd, O.E. Biological control of tephritid fruit flies in the Americas and Hawaii: A review of the use of parasitoids and predators. Insects 2020, 11, 662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. CABI (Centre for Agricultural Bioscience International)—Invasive Species Compendium. Available online: https://www.cabi.org/isc/ (accessed on 20 January 2021).
  17. Sela, S.; Nestel, D.; Pinto, R.; Nemny-Lavy, E.; Bar-Joseph, M. Mediterranean fruit fly as a potential vector of bacterial pathogens. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2005, 71, 4052–4056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Monzó, C.; Sabater-Muñoz, B.; Urbaneja, A.; Castañera, P. The ground beetle Pseudophonus rufipes revealed as predator of Ceratitis capitata in citrus orchards. Biol. Control. 2011, 56, 17–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Monzó, C.; Vanaclocha, P.; Outerelo, R.; Ruiz-Tapiador, I.; Tortosa, D.; Pina, T.; Castañera, P.; Urbaneja, A. Catalogación de especies de las familias Carabidae, Cicindelidae y Staphylinidae en el suelo de los cítricos de la provincia de Valencia, España. Boletín Sanid. Veg. Plagas 2005, 31, 492. [Google Scholar]
  20. Liquido, N.J.; Shinoda, L.A.; Cunningham, R.T. Host plants of the Mediterranean Fruit fly (Diptera, Tephritidae). An Annotated World List; Miscellaneous Publication: Lanham, MD, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  21. Papadopoulos, N.T.; Papachristos, D.P.; Ioannou, C. Citrus fruits and the Mediterranean fruit fly. Acta Hortic. 2015, 1065, 1009–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Farinós, G.P.; de la Poza, M.; Hernández-Crespo, P.; Ortego, F.; Castañera, P. Diversity and seasonal phenology of aboveground arthropods in conventional and transgenic maize crops in Central Spain. Biol. Control. 2008, 44, 362–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Miñarro, M.; Espadaler, X.; Melero, V.X.; Suárez-Álvarez, V. Organic versus conventional management in an apple orchard: Effects of fertilization and tree-row management on ground-dwelling predaceous arthropods. Agric. For. Entomol. 2009, 11, 133–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Weld, L.H. A New Species of Trybliographa (Hymenoptera: Cynipidae). Proc. Hawaiian Entomol. Soc. 1951, 14, 331–332. [Google Scholar]
  25. Clausen, C.P. Tephritidae (Trypetidae, Trupaneidae). In Introduced Parasites and Predators of Arthropod Pests and Weeds: A World Review; Clausen, C.P., Ed.; USDA-ARS: Washington, DC, USA, 1978; pp. 320–335. [Google Scholar]
  26. Wharton, R.A.; Gilstrap, F.E.; Rhode, R.H.; Fischel-m, M.; Hart, W.G. Hymenopterous egg-pupal and larval-pupal parasitoids of Ceratitis capitata and Anastrepha spp. (Dip.: Tephritidae) in Costa Rica. Entomophaga 1981, 26, 285–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. El-Heneidy, A.; Hosny, M.; Ramadan, M. Potential of the parasitoid species, Aganaspis daci (Weld) (Hymenoptera: Eucoilidae) against the peach fruit fly Bactrocera zonata (Saund.) (Diptera: Tephritidae). In Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on Fruit Flies of Economic Importance (ISFFEI), Bangkok, Thailand, 12–16 May 2014; Sabater-Muñoz, B., Vera, T., Pereira, R., Orankanok, W., Eds.; pp. 395–400. [Google Scholar]
  28. Papadopoulos, N.T.; Katsoyannos, B.I. Field parasitism of Ceratitis capitata larvae by Aganaspis daci in Chios, Greece. Biol. Control. 2003, 48, 191–195. [Google Scholar]
  29. Verdú, M.J.; Falcó, J.V.; Beitia, F.; Sabater-Muñoz, B. Identificación de un nuevo agente de control biológico de Ceratitis capitata en España, el himenóptero eucoilino Aganaspis daci. In Proceedings of the XXVIII Jornadas de la Asociación Española de Entomología (AeE), Book of Abstracts, Ponferrada, Spain, 7–8 July 2011; p. 25. [Google Scholar]
  30. Sabater-Muñoz, B.; Falcó, J.V.; de Pedro, L.; Tormos, J.; Asís, J.D.; Papadopoulos, N.; Verdú, M.J.; Beitia, F. First record, surveillance and biological parameters of Aganaspis daci (Hymenoptera: Figitidae), as parasitoid of Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Spain. In Proceedings of the Second TEAM (Tephritid Workers of Europe Africa and the Middle East) Meeting; Biological Invasions of Tephritidae: Ecological and Economic Impacts, Book of Abstracts, Kolymbari, Crete, Greece, 6 July 2012; p. 117. [Google Scholar]
  31. Ali, A.Y.; Ahmad, A.M.; Amar, J.A. Hymenopteran parasitoids (Figitidae and Pteromalidae) of Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) on loquat and guava in Tartous, Syria. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2015, 25, 223–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ali, A.Y.; Ahmad, A.M.; Amar, J.A.; Darwish, R.Y.; Izzo, A.M.; Al-Ahmad, S.A. Field parasitism levels of Ceratitis capitata larvae (Diptera: Tephritidae) by Aganaspis daci on different host fruit species in the coastal region of Tartous, Syria. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2016, 26, 1617–1625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. De Pedro, L.; Beitia, F.; Sabater-Muñoz, B.; Asís, J.D.; Tormos, J. Effect of temperature on the developmental time, survival of immatures and adult longevity of Aganaspis daci (Hymenoptera: Figitidae), a natural enemy of Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae). Crop Prot. 2016, 85, 17–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. De Pedro, L.; Beitia, F.; Sabater-Muñoz, B.; Harbi, A.; Ferrara, F.; Polidori, C.; Asís, J.D.; Tormos, J. Parasitism of Aganaspis daci against Ceratitis capitata under Mediterranean climate conditions. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2017, 163, 287–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. De Pedro, L.; Tormos, J.; Asís, J.D.; Sabater-Muñoz, B.; Beitia, F. Biology of Aganaspis daci (Hymenoptera: Figitidae), parasitoid of Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae): Mode of reproduction, biological parameters and superparasitism. Crop Prot. 2018, 108, 54–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Rendon, P.; Sivinski, J.; Holler, T.; Bloem, K.; Lopez, M.; Martinez, A.; Aluja, M. The effects of sterile males and two braconid parasitoids, Fopius arisanus (Sonan) and Diachasmimorpha krausii (Fullaway) (Hymenoptera), on caged populations of Mediterranean fruit flies, Ceratitis capitata (Wied.) (Diptera: Tephritidae) at various sites. Biol. Control. 2006, 36, 224–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. García-Medel, D.; Sivinski, J.; Díaz-Fleischer, F.; Ramirez-Romero, R.; Aluja, M. Foraging behavior by six fruit fly parasitoids (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) released as single- or multiple-species cohorts in field cages: Influence of fruit location and host density. Biol. Control. 2007, 43, 12–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Miranda, M.; Sivinski, J.; Rull, J.; Cicero, L.; Aluja, M. Niche breadth and interspecific competition between Doryctobracon crawfordi and Diachasmimorpha longicaudata (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), native and introduced parasitoids of Anastrepha spp. fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae). Biol. Control. 2015, 82, 86–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Tormos, J.; Beitia, F.; Asís, J.D.; Pedro, L. de Intraguild interactions between two biological control agents in citrus fruit: Implications for biological control of medfly. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2018, 172, 321–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Pérez-Hinarejos, M.; Beitia, F. Parasitism of Spalangia cameroni (Hymenoptera, Pteromalidae), an idiobiont parasitoid on pupae of Ceratitis capitata (Diptera, Tephritidae). IOBC-WPRS Bull. 2008, 38, 130–133. [Google Scholar]
  41. De Pedro, L. Bases Para Implementar la Lucha Biológica Contra Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) Mediante el Empleo de Aganaspis daci (Hymenoptera: Figitidae). Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad de Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  42. Solomon, M.E. The natural control of animal populations. J. Anim. Ecol. 1949, 18, 1–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Juliano, S.A. Nonlinear curve fitting. Predation and functional response curves. In Design and Analysis of Ecological Experiments; Scheiner, S.M., Gurevitch, J., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2001; pp. 178–196. [Google Scholar]
  44. Fernández-Arhex, V.; Corley, J.C. The functional response of parasitoids and its implications for biological control. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2003, 13, 403–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Vanaclocha, P.; Papacek, D.; Monzó, C.; Verdú, M.J.; Urbaneja, A. Intra-guild interactions between the parasitoid Aphytis lingnanensis and the predator Chilocorus circumdatus: Implications for the biological control of armoured scales. Biol. Control. 2013, 65, 169–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hassell, M.P. Functional responses. In The Dynamics of Arthropod Predator-Prey Systems; Hassell, M.P., Ed.; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1978; pp. 28–49. [Google Scholar]
  47. Monzó, C. Artrópodos Depredadores Potenciales de Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) Presentes en el Suelo de Cítricos. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Valencia, Spain, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  48. Colfer, R.G.; Rosenheim, J.A. Predation on immature parasitoids and its impact on aphid suppression. Oecologia 2001, 126, 292–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Brodeur, J.; Boivin, G. Functional ecology of immature parasitoids. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2004, 49, 27–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lucas, È.; Coderre, D.; Brodeur, J. Intraguild predation among aphid predators: Characterization and influence of extraguild prey density. Ecology 1998, 79, 1084–1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Muratori, F.B.; Borlee, S.; Messing, R.H. Induced niche shift as an anti-predator response for an endoparasitoid. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2010, 277, 1475–1480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Meyhöfer, R.; Klug, T. Intraguild predation on the aphid parasitoid Lysiphlebus fabarum (Marshall) (Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae): Mortality risks and behavioral decisions made under the threats of predation. Biol. Control. 2002, 25, 239–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Müller, C.B.; Brodeur, J. Intraguild predation in biological control and conservation biology. Biol. Control. 2002, 25, 216–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Taylor, A.J.; Müller, C.B.; Godfray, H.C.J. Effect of aphid predators on oviposition behavior of aphid parasitoids. J. Insect Behav. 1998, 11, 297–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Martinou, A.F.; Raymond, B.; Milonas, P.G.; Wright, D.J. Impact of intraguild predation on parasitoid foraging behaviour. Ecol. Entomol. 2010, 35, 183–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Snyder, W.E.; Ives, A.R. Generalist predators disrupt biological control by a specialist parasitoid. Ecology 2001, 82, 705–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Snyder, W.E.; Ives, A.R. Interactions between specialist and generalist natural enemies: Parasitoids, predators, and pea aphid biocontrol. Ecology 2003, 84, 91–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Traugott, M.; Bell, J.R.; Raso, L.; Sint, D.; Symondson, W.O.C. Generalist predators disrupt parasitoid aphid control by direct and coincidental intraguild predation. Bull. Entomol. Res. 2012, 102, 239–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Durán, J.; Trotta, V.; Di Nardo, E.; Forlano, P.; Fanti, P.; Battaglia, D. Intraguild predation between Macrolophus pygmaeus and Aphidius ervi. Bull. Insectol. 2018, 71, 113–120. [Google Scholar]
  60. Fernández-Arhex, V.; Corley, J.C. La respuesta funcional: Una revisión y guía experimental. Ecol. Austral 2004, 14, 83–93. [Google Scholar]
  61. Hassell, M.P.; Lawton, J.H.; Beddington, J.R. Sigmoid Functional Responses by Invertebrate Predators and Parasitoids. J. Anim. Ecol. 1977, 46, 249–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Montoya, P.; Liedo, P.; Benrey, B.; Barrera, J.F.; Cancino, J.; Aluja, M. Functional response and superparasitism by Diachasmimorpha longicaudata (Hymenoptera: Braconidadae), a parasitoid of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 2000, 93, 47–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Collins, M.D.; Ward, S.A.; Dixon, A.F.G. Handling time and the functional response of Aphelinus thomsoni, a predator and parasite of the aphid Drepanosiphum platanoidis. J. Anim. Ecol. 1981, 50, 479–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. De Pedro, L.; Beitia, F.; Ferrara, F.; Sabater-Muñoz, B.; Asís, J.D.; Tormos, J. Effect of host density and location on the percentage parasitism, fertility and induced mortality of Aganaspis daci (Hymenoptera: Figitidae), a parasitoid of Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae). Crop Prot. 2017, 92, 160–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. De Pedro, L.; Tormos, J.; Harbi, A.; Ferrara, F.; Sabater-Muñoz, B.; Asís, J.D.; Beitia, F. Combined use of the larvo-pupal parasitoids Diachasmimorpha longicaudata and Aganaspis daci for biological control of the medfly. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2018, 174, 40–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Ovruski, S.; Van Nieuwenhove, G.; Bezdjian, L.; Albornoz-Medina, P.; Schliserman, P. Evaluation of Diachasmimorpha longicaudata (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) as a mortality factor of Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) infesting Citrus species under laboratory and field-cage conditions. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2012, 22, 187–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Sánchez, G.; Murúa, F.; Suárez, L.; Van Nieuwenhove, G.; Taret, G.; Pantano, V.; Bilbao, M.; Schliserman, P.; Ovruski, S.M. Augmentative releases of Diachasmimorpha longicaudata (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) for Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) control in a fruit-growing region of Argentina. Biol. Control. 2016, 103, 101–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Tormos, J.; Asís, J.; Sabater-Muñoz, B.; Baños, L.; Gayubo, S.F.; Beitia, F. Superparasitism in laboratory rearing of Spalangia cameroni (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae), a parasitoid of medfly (Diptera: Tephritidae). Bull. Entomol. Res. 2012, 102, 51–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. King, B.H. Offspring sex ratios in parasitoid wasps. Q. Rev. Biol. 1987, 62, 367–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. He, L.F.; Feng, D.D.; Li, P.; Zhou, Z.S.; Xu, Z.F. Reproductive modes and daily fecundity of Aenasius bambawalei (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae), a parasitoid of Phenacoccus solenopsis (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). Florida Entomol. 2015, 98, 358–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Brower, J.H.; Press, J.W. Interactions between the egg parasite Trichogramma pretiosum (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae) and a predator, Xylocoris flavipes (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae) of the almond moth, Cadra cautella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). J. Entomol. Sci. 1988, 23, 342–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Van Driesche, R.; Hoddle, M.; Center, T. Control of Pests and Weeds by Natural Enemies: An Introduction to Biological Control; Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008; ISBN 978-1-405-14571-8. [Google Scholar]
  73. Cabello, T.; Bonfil, F.; Gallego, J.R.; Fernandez, F.J.; Gamez, M.; Garay, J. Can interactions between an omnivorous hemipteran and an egg parasitoid limit the level of biological control for the tomato pinworm? Environ. Entomol. 2015, 44, 12–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Ferguson, K.I.; Stiling, P. Non-additive effects of multiple natural enemies on aphid populations. Oecologia 1996, 108, 375–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Martínez-Ferrer, M.T.; Campos-Rivela, J.M.; Fibla, J.M. Detection of Aganaspis daci (Weld) (Hymenoptera: Eucoilidae) parasitizing Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Tephritidae) in different hosts in northeastern Spain. IOBC/WPRS Bull. 2018, 132, 150–153. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Functional response curve fit by non-linear least squares regression of Aganaspis daci mated females parasitizing Ceratitis capitata larvae exposed in the laboratory, acting alone (type III). Host density: 5, 20 or 40 larvae per mated female (three) and day.
Figure 1. Functional response curve fit by non-linear least squares regression of Aganaspis daci mated females parasitizing Ceratitis capitata larvae exposed in the laboratory, acting alone (type III). Host density: 5, 20 or 40 larvae per mated female (three) and day.
Agronomy 13 00087 g001
Figure 2. Functional response curve fit by non-linear least-squares regression of Pseudoophonus rufipes adults attacking Ceratitis capitata pupae exposed in the laboratory, acting alone (type II). Host density: 5, 20 or 40 larvae per adult (three) and day.
Figure 2. Functional response curve fit by non-linear least-squares regression of Pseudoophonus rufipes adults attacking Ceratitis capitata pupae exposed in the laboratory, acting alone (type II). Host density: 5, 20 or 40 larvae per adult (three) and day.
Agronomy 13 00087 g002
Figure 3. Functional response curve fit by non-linear least-squares regression of Aganaspis daci mated females parasitizing Ceratitis capitata larvae and sharing the experimental unit with Pseudoophonus rufipes adults attacking C. capitata larvae (type II). Host density: 5, 20 or 40 larvae per A. daci mated female and P. rufipes adult (both species sharing the same experimental unit).
Figure 3. Functional response curve fit by non-linear least-squares regression of Aganaspis daci mated females parasitizing Ceratitis capitata larvae and sharing the experimental unit with Pseudoophonus rufipes adults attacking C. capitata larvae (type II). Host density: 5, 20 or 40 larvae per A. daci mated female and P. rufipes adult (both species sharing the same experimental unit).
Agronomy 13 00087 g003
Figure 4. Functional response curve fit by non-linear least-squares regression of Pseudoophonus rufipes adults attacking Ceratitis capitata larvae and sharing the experimental unit with Aganaspis daci mated females parasitizing C. capitata larvae (type III). Host density: 5, 20 or 40 larvae per P. rufipes adult and A. daci mated female (both species sharing the same experimental unit).
Figure 4. Functional response curve fit by non-linear least-squares regression of Pseudoophonus rufipes adults attacking Ceratitis capitata larvae and sharing the experimental unit with Aganaspis daci mated females parasitizing C. capitata larvae (type III). Host density: 5, 20 or 40 larvae per P. rufipes adult and A. daci mated female (both species sharing the same experimental unit).
Agronomy 13 00087 g004
Table 1. Maximum likelihood estimate parameters from the generalized linear model of the proportion of host/prey parasitized/hunted as a function of initial host/prey densities by Aganaspis daci mated females and Pseudoophonus rufipes adults acting alone (Experiments 1 and 2, respectively) and together (Experiment 3) (in all cases, assessed under laboratory conditions).
Table 1. Maximum likelihood estimate parameters from the generalized linear model of the proportion of host/prey parasitized/hunted as a function of initial host/prey densities by Aganaspis daci mated females and Pseudoophonus rufipes adults acting alone (Experiments 1 and 2, respectively) and together (Experiment 3) (in all cases, assessed under laboratory conditions).
ParameterEstimateSEχ2dfp
A. daciLinear0.0350.0025194.8281<0.0001
Quadratic0.000011.5552 × 10−5159.5181<0.0001
P. rufipesLinear−0.0700.0037361.3451<0.0001
Quadratic0.000012.1748 × 10−5180.2641<0.0001
A. daci (with P. rufipes)Linear−0.0120.002524.2031<0.0001
Quadratic6.109 × 10−51.5428 × 10−515.5821<0.0001
P. rufipes (with A. daci)Linear−0.0160.002636.7141<0.0001
Quadratic−8.926 × 10−51.618 × 10−530.4291<0.0001
Table 2. Functional response type (FR), attack rate (a) (days−1) and estimated handling time (Th) (days) estimated from non-linear regression of the number of host/prey by Aganaspis daci mated females and Pseudoophonus rufipes adults acting alone (Experiments 1 and 2, respectively); and by A. daci mated females sharing the experimental unit with P. rufipes adults and vice versa (Experiment 3) (in all cases, assessed under laboratory conditions).
Table 2. Functional response type (FR), attack rate (a) (days−1) and estimated handling time (Th) (days) estimated from non-linear regression of the number of host/prey by Aganaspis daci mated females and Pseudoophonus rufipes adults acting alone (Experiments 1 and 2, respectively); and by A. daci mated females sharing the experimental unit with P. rufipes adults and vice versa (Experiment 3) (in all cases, assessed under laboratory conditions).
FRa±SE95% CITh±SE95% CIR2
A. daciIIIb = 0.0410.031−0.020–0.1010.0040.003−0.002–0.0100.744
c = 0.0440.053−0.061–0.149
P. rufipesII1.5490.2331.090–2.0080.0240.0020.021–0.0270.584
A. daci/P. rufipesII0.5720.0550.464–0.6810.0020.002−0.002–0.0050.659
P. rufipes/A. daciIIIb = 0.0500.042−0.032–0.1320.0030.003−0.003–0.0100.791
c = 0.1040.111−0.115–0.322
R2 = are the coefficients of determination from R2 of each regression.
Table 3. Two-way ANOVAs comparing percentage parasitoidism, fertility, induced mortality and population reduction of A. daci and predation of P. rufipe, between the two situations considered (acting alone vs. acting jointly) at the three Medfly densities established (15, 60 and 120 larvae/pupae) and globally (15–120 larvae/pupae). df = degrees of freedom; RV = residual variance; BV = block variance. Asterisks (*) indicate significant differences in each comparison.
Table 3. Two-way ANOVAs comparing percentage parasitoidism, fertility, induced mortality and population reduction of A. daci and predation of P. rufipe, between the two situations considered (acting alone vs. acting jointly) at the three Medfly densities established (15, 60 and 120 larvae/pupae) and globally (15–120 larvae/pupae). df = degrees of freedom; RV = residual variance; BV = block variance. Asterisks (*) indicate significant differences in each comparison.
Parameter15 Larvae60 Larvae120 LarvaeGlobal (15–120 Larvae)
Percentage parasitoidismF36.4810.84353.1830.220
df1188118811881572
p0.003 *0.5270.0870.721
σ2 (RV)7.44527.55512.33327.120
σ2 (BV)1 × 10−61 × 10−71 × 10−81 × 10−7
FertilityF146.6890.87553.1270.007
df1188118811881572
p0.002 *0.5480.0890.948
σ2 (RV)5.67827.32212.48020.120
A. daciσ2 (BV)1 × 10−61 × 10−71 × 10−81 × 10−7
Induced mortalityF0.2120.0161.5910.156
df1188118811881572
p0.7250.9210.4270.761
σ2 (RV)12.71732.44428.11114.101
σ2 (BV)1 × 10−61 × 10−71 × 10−71 × 10−7
Population reductionF220.0612.2502.3170.414
df1188118811881572
p0.043 *0.3740.3700.636
σ2 (RV)17.04025.11127.12329.037
σ2 (BV)1 × 10−61 × 10−71 × 10−61 × 10−7
F1019.434177.929224,240.74356.006
df1188118811881572
P. rufipesPredationp0.020 *0.048 *0.001 *0.085
σ2(RV)11.32117.88810.55516.112
σ2(BV)1 × 10−71 × 10−81 × 10−71 × 10−8
Table 4. Demographic parameters of A. daci (percentage parasitoidism, fertility, induced mortality, population reduction and offspring sex ratio) and P. rufipes (predation) acting alone and together under laboratory conditions on different host densities of C. capitata larvae. In each column, asterisk indicates significant differences for a same parameter.
Table 4. Demographic parameters of A. daci (percentage parasitoidism, fertility, induced mortality, population reduction and offspring sex ratio) and P. rufipes (predation) acting alone and together under laboratory conditions on different host densities of C. capitata larvae. In each column, asterisk indicates significant differences for a same parameter.
Host Density
Parameter15 Larvae60 Larvae120 Larvae
A. daci (alone)Parasitoidism (%) (Range; Mean ± SE)0–80; 35.90 ± 2.41 *0–83.3; 58.00 ± 1.920–88.3; 57.17 ± 2.00
Fertility (Range; Mean ± SE)0–12; 5.38 ± 0.36 *0–50; 34.80 ± 1.150–106; 68.60 ± 2.40
Induced mortality (%) (Range; Mean ± SE)0–20; 9.44 ± 0.700–18.3; 8.07 ± 0.620–16.67; 6.63 ± 0.59
Population reduction (%) (Mean ± SE)45.34 ± 1.86 *66.07 ± 1.8466.61 ± 2.01
Sex ratio (♂♂, ♀♀; ♀♀/♀♀ + ♂♂)196, 321; 0.62 *1352, 1654; 0.55 *2053, 4083; 0.62 *
A. daci (with P. rufipes)Parasitoidism (%) (Range; Mean ± SE)26.67–100; 62.43 ± 2.38 *23.33–93.33; 53.73 ± 2.0820.83–90.83, 51.97 ± 2.03
Fertility (Range; Mean ± SE)4–15; 9.37 ± 0.36 *14–56; 32.23 ± 1.2525–109; 62.37 ± 2.44
Induced mortality (%) (Range; Mean ± SE)0–33.3; 8.61 ± 1.270–31.67; 7.86 ± 1.520–40; 9.98 ± 1.44
Population reduction (%) (Mean ± SE)71.11 ± 1.45 *61.59 ± 1.2661.96 ± 1.10
Sex ratio (♂♂, ♀♀; ♀♀/♀♀ + ♂♂)243, 657; 0.73 *990, 2105; 0.68 *1715, 4004; 0.70 *
P. rufipes (alone)Predation (Range; Mean ± SE) [Percentage: Mean ± SE]9–15; 13.56 ± 0.23 * [90.41 ± 1.56]9–48; 31.18 ± 1.56 * [51.97 ± 2.61]9–51; 32.62 ± 1.59 * [27.18 ± 1.32]
P. rufipes (with A. daci)Predation (Range; Mean ± SE) [Percentage: Mean ± SE]0–11; 4.31 ± 0.22 * [28.85 ± 1.44]4–46; 23.04 ± 0.76 * [38.40 ± 1.26]11–93; 45.64 ± 1.32 * [38.04 ± 1.11]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

de Pedro, L.; Beitia, F.; Tormos, J. Two Better Than One? Potential Effects of Intraguild Predation on the Biological Control of Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) by the Parasitoid Aganaspis daci (Hymenoptera: Figitidae) and the Predator Pseudoophonus rufipes (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Agronomy 2023, 13, 87. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13010087

AMA Style

de Pedro L, Beitia F, Tormos J. Two Better Than One? Potential Effects of Intraguild Predation on the Biological Control of Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) by the Parasitoid Aganaspis daci (Hymenoptera: Figitidae) and the Predator Pseudoophonus rufipes (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Agronomy. 2023; 13(1):87. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13010087

Chicago/Turabian Style

de Pedro, Luis, Francisco Beitia, and José Tormos. 2023. "Two Better Than One? Potential Effects of Intraguild Predation on the Biological Control of Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) by the Parasitoid Aganaspis daci (Hymenoptera: Figitidae) and the Predator Pseudoophonus rufipes (Coleoptera: Carabidae)" Agronomy 13, no. 1: 87. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13010087

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop