Moving Your Sons to Safety: Galls Containing Male Fig Wasps Expand into the Centre of Figs, Away From Enemies

Figs are the inflorescences of fig trees (Ficus spp., Moraceae). They are shaped like a hollow ball, lined on their inner surface by numerous tiny female flowers. Pollination is carried out by host-specific fig wasps (Agaonidae). Female pollinators enter the figs through a narrow entrance gate and once inside can walk around on a platform generated by the stigmas of the flowers. They lay their eggs into the ovules, via the stigmas and styles, and also gall the flowers, causing the ovules to expand and their pedicels to elongate. A single pollinator larva develops in each galled ovule. Numerous species of non-pollinating fig wasps (NPFW, belonging to other families of Chalcidoidea) also make use of galled ovules in the figs. Some initiate galls, others make use of pollinator-generated galls, killing pollinator larvae. Most NPFW oviposit from the outside of figs, making peripherally-located pollinator larvae more prone to attack. Style length variation is high among monoecious Ficus spp. and pollinators mainly oviposit into more centrally-located ovules, with shorter styles. Style length variation is lower in male (wasp-producing) figs of dioecious Ficus spp., making ovules equally vulnerable to attack by NPFW at the time that pollinators oviposit

Consequences for a host–parasitoid interaction of host-plant aggregation, isolation, and phenology

1. Spatial habitat structure can influence the likelihood of patch colonisation by dispersing individuals, and this likelihood may differ according to trophic position, potentially leading to a refuge from parasitism for hosts. 2. Whether habitat patch size, isolation, and host-plant heterogeneity differentially affected host and parasitoid abundance, and parasitism rates was tested using a tri-trophic thistle–herbivore–parasitoid system. 3. Cirsium palustre thistles (n = 240) were transplanted in 24 blocks replicated in two sites, creating a range of habitat patch sizes at increasing distance from a pre-existing source population. Plant architecture and phenological stage were measured for each plant and the numbers of the herbivore Tephritis conura and parasitoid Pteromalus elevatus recorded. 4. Mean herbivore numbers per plant increased with host-plant density per patch, but parasitoid numbers and parasitism rates were unaffected. Patch distance from the source population did not influence insect abundance or parasitism rates. Parasitoid abundance was positively correlated with host insect number, and parasitism rates were negatively density dependent. Host-plant phenological stage was positively correlated with herbivore and parasitoid abundance, and parasitism rates at both patch and host-plant scales. 5. The differential response between herbivore and parasitoid to host-plant density did not lead to a spatial refuge but may have contributed to the observed parasitism rates being negatively density dependent. Heterogeneity in patch quality, mediated by variation in host-plant phenology, was more important than spatial habitat structure for both the herbivore and parasitoid populations, and for parasitism rates