In animals, male weapons such as antlers, horns, spurs, fangs, and tusks typically provide advantages in male contests and increase access to females, thereby enhancing reproductive success. However, such large and extravagant morphological structures are expected to come at a cost, potentially imposing trade-offs with life history traits, physiological functions, or certain behaviors (Emlen, 2001; Emlen, 2008). These costs should be manageable only by males in the best condition. The present study by Blackwell et al. (2024) examines this assumption through a comprehensive study on the European earwig, where males possess forceps-like cerci that vary widely in size within populations.

In the European earwig (Forficula auricularia), male forceps are used in male-male contests as weapons to deter competitors prior to mating (Styrsky & Rhein, 1999) or to interrupt mating pairs by non-copulating males (Forslund, 2000; Walker & Fell, 2001). Despite providing benefits in terms of mating success (Eberhard & Gutierrez, 1991; Tomkins & Brown, 2004), it remains unknown whether long or short forceps are associated with other important life-history traits.

In this laboratory study, Blackwell et al. (2024) investigated two European earwig populations, each divided into two subpopulations: one with the shortest forceps and one with the longest forceps. They examined the potential costs of long forceps on six different traits: one reproductive trait (sperm storage); three non-reproductive behavioral traits such as locomotor performance (involved in search for resources), fleeing reaction face to a risk (long forceps are supposed to be correlated with boldness), and aggregation behavior (European earwigs are facultative group-living organisms); and survival (when deprived of food and subsequently when exposed to an entomopathogenic fungus).

As males in the best condition are supposed to be those that can afford to develop large forceps, Blackwell et al. (2024) predicted that males with long forceps would perform better than those with short forceps across the investigated traits. However, their predictions were not validated, as no correlation between weapon size and male quality was detected in either population. Although the sample size is sometimes limited, the consistency of these results across different populations adds robustness to their conclusions.

By demonstrating that forceps length in the European earwig does not reliably indicate male quality, this paper challenges existing theories and highlights the complexity of evolutionary processes shaping morphological traits. Furthermore, the study raises important questions about the evolutionary mechanisms maintaining weapon size diversity, providing a fresh perspective that could stimulate further research and debate in the field, notably the search for other traits where costs might be incurred.

References

Blackwell, S.E.M., Pasquier, L., Dupont, S., Devers, S., Lécureuil, C. & Meunier, J. (2024). Relationship between weapon size and six key behavioural and physiological traits in males of the European earwig. bioRxiv, ver. 3 peer-reviewed and recommended by Peer Community in Zoology. https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.20.585871

Eberhard, W.G., & Gutierrez, E.E. (1991). Male dimorphisms in beetles and earwigs and the question of developmental constraints. Evolution, 45(1), 18–28. https://doi.org/10.2307/2409478

Emlen, D.J. (2001). Costs and the diversification of exaggerated animal structures. Science, 291(5508), 1534–1536. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1056607

Emlen, D.J. (2008). The evolution of animal weapons. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 39(1), 387–413. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.39.110707.173502

Forslund, P. (2000). Male-male competition and large size mating advantage in European earwigs, Forficula auricularia. Animal Behaviour, 59(4), 753–762. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1999.1359

Styrsky, J.D., & Rhein, S.V. (1999). Forceps size does not determine fighting success in European earwigs. Journal of Insect Behavior, 12(4), 475–482. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020962606724

Tomkins, J.L., & Brown, G.S. (2004). Population density drives the local evolution of a threshold dimorphism. Nature, 431, 1099–1103. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02936.1.

Walker, K.A., & Fell, R.D. (2001). Courtship roles of male and female European earwigs, Forficula auricularia L. (Dermaptera: Forficulidae), and sexual use of forceps. Journal of Insect Behavior, 14(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007843227591

Integrated pest management relies on the combined use of different practices in time and/or space. The main objectives are to better control pests, not to induce too much selective pressure on resistance mechanisms present in pest populations and to minimize non-targeted effects on the ecosystem [1]. The efficiency of such a strategy requires at least additional or synergistic effects of chosen tools against targeted pest population in a specific environment. Any antagonistic effect on targeted or non-targeted organisms might reduce control effort to nil even worst.

Van Oudenhove et al [2] raised the question of the interaction between botanical pesticides (BPs) and egg parasitoids. Each of these two strategies used for pest management present advantages and are described as eco-friendly. First, the use of parasitoids is a great example of biological control and is massively used in a broad range of crop production in different ecological settings. Second, BPs, especially essential oils (EOs) used for a wide range of activities on pests (repellent, antifeedant, antiovipositant, ovicidal, larvicidal and simply pesticidal) present low-toxicity to non-target vertebrates and do not last too long in the environment. Combining these two strategies might be considered as a great opportunity to better pest control with minimized impact on environment. However, EOs used to target a wide range of pest might directly or indirectly affect parasitoids.

Van Oudenhove et al [2] focused their study on non-target effects of 10 essentials oils with pesticide potential on larval development and egg-seeking behaviour of five strains of the biocontrol agent Trichogramma evanescens. Within two laboratory experiments mimicing EOs fumigation (i.e. contactless EOs exposure), the authors evaluated (1) the toxicity of EOs on parasitoid development and (2) the repellent effect of these EOs on adult wasps. They confirmed that contactless exposure of EOs can (1) induce mortality during pre-imaginal development (more acute at the pupal stage) and (2) induce behavioural avoidance of EOs odour plume. These experiments ran onto five strains of T. evanescens also highlighted the variation of the effects of EOs among parasitoid strains.

The complex and dynamic interaction between pest, plant, parasitoid (a natural enemy) and their environment is disturbed by EOs. EOs plumes are also dynamic and variable upon the environmental conditions. The results of van Oudenhove et al. experimentally illustrate such a complexity by describing opposite effects (repellent and attractive) of the same EO on the behaviour of two T. evanescens strains. These contrasting results led us to question more broadly the non-target effects of pest management programs based on EOs fumigation on natural enemies.

Finally, the limits of this experimental study as discussed in the paper draw research avenues taking into account biotic variables such as plant chemical cues, odour plume dynamics, individual behavioural experiences and abiotic variables such as temperature, light and gravity [3] in laboratory, semi-field and field experiments. Facing such a complexity, modelling studies at fine scale in time and space have the operational objective to help farmers to choose the best IPM strategy regarding their environment (as illustrated for aphid population management in the recent review by Stell et al. [4]). But before such research effort to be undertaken, Van Oudenhove et al study [2] sounds like an alert for a cautious use of EOs in pest control programs that integrate biological control with parasitoids.

References

[1] Fauvergue, X. Biocontrôle Elements Pour Une Protection Agroecologique des Cultures; Éditions Quae: Versailles, France, 2020.

[2] van Oudenhove L, Cazier A, Fillaud M, Lavoir AV, Fatnassi H, Pérez G, Calcagno V. Non-target effects of ten essential oils on the egg parasitoid Trichogramma evanescens. bioRxiv 2022.01.14.476310, ver. 4 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Zoology. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.01.14.476310

[3] Victor Burte, Guy Perez, Faten Ayed, Géraldine Groussier, Ludovic Mailleret, Louise van Oudenhove and Vincent Calcagno (2022) Up and to the light: intra- and interspecific variability of photo- and geo-tactic oviposition preferences in genus Trichogramma, Peer Community Journal, 2: e3. https://doi.org/10.24072/pcjournal.78

[4] Stell E, Meiss H, Lasserre-Joulin F, Therond O. Towards Predictions of Interaction Dynamics between Cereal Aphids and Their Natural Enemies: A Review. Insects 2022, 13, 479. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects13050479