Whiteflies and white lies: Dan Gerling's speculation on deceptive communication in parasitoid-host interactions

Abstract

We used game theory to assess speculation from the late Dan Gerling that whitefly hosts might evolve to exploit the chemosensory system of their parasitoid natural enemies via fake (pseudo) marking pheromones. We considered three scenarios. Scenario 1 assumed parasitoid response to hosts was non-evolvable and hardwired. Here, we found that pseudo-marking was a viable strategy; values at fixation depended upon costs and benefits of marking. Scenario 2 assumed parasitoid host acceptance was non-evolvable and plastic. Here, we found that strong fake marking was common when parasitism was moderate, that is when the risk was high but parasitoids would tend to reject because good hosts were available. Scenario 3 assumed plastic parasitoids that could co-evolve with the host. Here, we found parasitoid sensitivity to host marks, at the population level, never stabilized. By contrast, fake host marking did stabilize but only at high signal strength when levels of parasitism were intermediate (i.e. 30–40%); when parasitism was more common, marks were ignored and hiding from enemies became more effective. We discuss the potential for evolution of pseudo-oviposition marks in the general sense with reference to sensory deception in non parasitoid-host systems.

Cite as: Roitberg, B.D. & Tyerman, J. 2018. Whiteflies and white lies: Dan Gerling's speculation on deceptive communication in parasitoid-host interactions. Israel Journal of Entomology 48 (2): 177–196. <published 14 September 2018>

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1418744

urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:84ABB648-496D-480E-8C53-1DD074EE9C8F