Pollinators for a syconium: How do wasps choose among syconia?

Female agonid wasps, pollinators of monoecious figs, on entering a syconium (foundresses) are trapped in it and are committed to share the limited resources (flowers) with other foundresses. Hence, foundresses need to ensure that they choose the most suitable syconium. In three fig–wasp associations, we analysed if foundresses could indeed discriminate among syconia of different resource levels. In Ficus benghalensis, F. microcarpa and F. racemosa, the foundress wasps could easily discriminate between the empty and wasp-laden syconia and preferred to enter the former than the latter. Further, in two of these species (F. benghalensis and F. microcarpa), the speciesspecific foundresses were also capable of quantitatively assessing loads of the foundresses in the syconia on the basis of wings left behind at and around the ostiole. The wings load on the ostiole was strongly correlated to the foundresses loads. Foundresses preferred entering those syconia from which the wings were removed to those on which the wings were retained. The extent to which the foundresses preferred to enter the syconia was found to be influenced by the density of wings at and around the ostiole. Adding wings artificially to the empty syconia also deterred the foundresses from entering them, suggesting that these residual wings serve as negative feedback regulators for the preference and entry of foundresses. Thus, we show that pollinator wasps of fig–wasp associations choose the most suitable syconia to enter as long as they have opportunity.

[1]  D. Eisikowitch,et al.  On the Pollination Ecology of Ficus Sycomorus in East Africa , 1968 .

[2]  Daniel H. Janzen,et al.  How to be a Fig , 1979 .

[3]  Marie-Charlotte Anstett,et al.  Critical population size for fig/wasp mutualism in a seasonal environment: effect and evolution of the duration of female receptivity , 1995, Oecologia.

[4]  J. Bronstein,et al.  Do fig wasps interfere with each other during oviposition? , 1998 .

[5]  S. Compton,et al.  Regulation of seed and pollinator production in the fig-fig wasp mutualism , 1996 .

[6]  J. Bronstein Limits to fruit production in a monoecious fig: Consequences of an obligate mutualism. , 1988 .

[7]  M. Anstett,et al.  When figs wait for pollinators: the length of fig receptivity , 1995 .

[8]  D. Eisikowitch,et al.  FLOWERING CYCLES AND FRUIT TYPES OF FICUS SYCOMORUS IN ISRAEL , 1968 .

[9]  J. Bronstein,et al.  Waiting for wasps: consequences for the pollination dynamics of Ficus pertusa L. , 1996 .

[10]  M. Hossaert-McKey,et al.  Can chemical signals, responsible for mutualistic partner encounter, promote the specific exploitation of nursery pollination mutualisms? – The case of figs and fig wasps , 2009 .

[11]  P. Gouyon,et al.  The stability of the symbiosis between dioecious figs , 1987 .

[12]  D. Eisikowitch,et al.  On the pollination ecology of Ficus religiosa in Israel. , 1968 .

[13]  R. Harrison Fig wasp dispersal and the stability of a keystone plant resource in Borneo , 2003, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[14]  M. Hossaert-McKey,et al.  Chemosensory attraction of fig wasps to substances produced by receptive figs , 1994 .

[15]  J. Bronstein Conditional outcomes in mutualistic interactions. , 1994, Trends in ecology & evolution.