<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

HAL
open science

# Communication in necrophagous Diptera larvae: interspecific effect of cues left behind by maggots and implications in their aggregation

Quentin Fouche, Valery Hedouin, Damien Charabidze

► To cite this version:

Quentin Fouche, Valery Hedouin, Damien Charabidze. Communication in necrophagous Diptera larvae: interspecific effect of cues left behind by maggots and implications in their aggregation. Scientific Reports, 2018, Scientific Reports, 8, 10.1038/s41598-018-21316-x. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-21316-x

HAL Id: hal-04262960

https://hal.univ-lille.fr/hal-04262960

Submitted on 27 Oct 2023

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
SCIENTIFIC REPORTS

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

OPEN

# Communication in necrophagous Diptera larvae: interspecific effect of cues left behind by maggots and implications in their aggregation

Quentin Fouche, Valery Hedouin & Damien Charabidze*

Received: 4 August 2017

Accepted: 2 February 2018

Published online: 12 February 2018

Necrophagous Calliphoridae breed in vertebrate carrion. Their larvae aggregate and form large masses of individuals. These aggregated larvae can reach adulthood faster than scattered larvae, increasing their chances of survival. Furthermore, the gathering of larvae of different species suggests possible interspecific aggregation vectors. In this context, the effect of larval ground-left cues on larvae of *Calliphora vomitoria* and *Lucilia sericata* was studied. We used video tracking to follow larvae placed in binary choice tests. We observed (1) a preference of both species for a side marked by conspecific or heterospecific larvae compared to an unmarked side, (2) a preference of *L. sericata* larvae for a conspecific-marked side compared to a heterospecific-marked side but only at high concentration of cues and (3) a preference of both species for the side marked by the greater number of larvae. These results demonstrate that larvae leave a mark locally which is retentive, has an interspecific range, has an effect proportional to its intensity and whose strength varies depending on the emitting species. According to the self-organization theory, this mark could enhance larval gathering and promote interspecific aggregations. While not yet demonstrated, an interspecific Allee effect could explain the interspecific association of necrophagous calliphorid larvae.

Many living organisms form aggregates. These groups of high density exist in various taxa but are especially common and well-known in arthropods such as woodlice¹ or social insects²,³. The benefits of such a group formation (i.e., aggregation) include reduced risk of predation⁴,⁵, protection against environmental conditions⁶ and better food assimilation⁷. Under natural conditions, aggregates are mostly composed of individuals of the same species (i.e., intraspecific aggregates) but can also gather two or more different species (i.e., interspecific aggregates)³.

Aggregation can result from two main processes. Non-social aggregation refers to the gathering of individuals under the influence of environmental heterogeneity⁸. On the other hand, social aggregation occurs as a result of attraction between individuals. This process requires aggregation vectors, i.e., visual, auditory, tactile or chemical stimuli efficient at a variable range⁸,⁹. In most cases, social aggregation includes a self-organizing process, defined as the emergence of complex collective behavior from simple and repeated interactions between individuals²,¹⁰. During aggregation, local individual behavior acts as a positive feedback for conspecifics and this feedback amplifies the aggregative behavior, ultimately leading to the emergence of the collective decision²,¹⁰⁻¹². While interspecific aggregation has already been the subject of numerous studies¹³, the formation of interspecific aggregates and corresponding aggregation vectors are still poorly understood³.

Among Diptera, necrophagous Calliphoridae larvae grow and feed on vertebrate carrion⁷,¹⁴. This rich and abundant resource allows fast and efficient larval development. During the feeding instars, larvae aggregate and form huge masses that can contain hundreds to thousands of individuals⁷. Furthermore, several species in this family are known to aggregate together and form mixed-species groups³,¹⁵⁻¹⁸. A striking consequence of larval aggregation, the so-called *maggot-mass effect*, is a local temperature increase which can reach 20°C above ambient. This heat production is proportional to the number of larvae in the aggregate¹⁸,¹⁹. As the developmental speed of larvae increases with temperature²⁰, aggregated larvae benefiting from the larval-mass effect can reach adulthood faster than isolated individuals²¹⁻²⁴. This reduced development time likely increases the chances of survival of larvae, while aggregation confers other benefits such as better nutrients absorption and protection against
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** Binary-choice setup used during the first and second steps of trials. During the first step, the arena was divided in two. In this example, one side was marked by five larvae for 10 minutes (grey, marked side) while the other side remained blank (white, unmarked side). In the second step, the partition and the marking larvae were removed and a naive larva was placed into the center of the arena. Its displacements were then video-tracked for 5 minutes.</figcaption></figure>

predators and parasites<sup>5,7</sup>. Deleterious effects linked to thermal stress, overcrowding and competition between individuals have also been reported<sup>7,24,25</sup>.

A recent study demonstrated larval social aggregation in two blowfly species, the common green bottle fly *Lucilia sericata* and the blue bottle fly *Calliphora vomitoria*<sup>12</sup>. This result suggests possible aggregation vectors shared between the two species<sup>12</sup>. The authors also demonstrated that *L. sericata* larvae leave on the ground a cuticular mark having a retentive effect on congeners<sup>26</sup>. According to the authors, this could promote aggregation of larvae and thus constitute an aggregation vector<sup>26</sup>.

The present study investigates the interspecific effect of the cuticular ground-left cues of *C. vomitoria* and *L. sericata* larvae. Three hypotheses were experimentally tested using *in vitro* binary choice tests: (1) the cues locally left by larvae affect the behavior of larvae of the other species; (2) these heterospecific cues have an effect similar to that of homospecific cues; and (3) the effect of the cues increases in proportion to their concentration.

**Material and Methods**

**Biological material.** Larvae were obtained from adult flies collected in the field and reared in the laboratory. Adults of *C. vomitoria* and *L. sericata* were reared separately in a 50 × 50 × 50 cm insectarium kept at room temperature (20 ± 2 °C) under a natural light cycle. Water and sugar were provided *ad libitum*. Twenty grams of fresh chopped beef liver were introduced each day to provide the protein required for vitellogenesis and to trigger egg laying. Eggs were collected daily and deposited in a plastic box (108 × 83 × 64 mm) containing 100 g of chopped beef liver. This box was placed in an incubator (Pol-Eko-Aparatura model ST BASIC) at a temperature of 20 ± 1 °C. Only young third instars (8 ± 1 mm) were used for experiments; this meant five-day old larvae for *L. sericata*<sup>27</sup> and seven-day old larvae for *C. vomitoria*<sup>28</sup>.

**Binary choice test.** The effect of cuticular cues on larval behavior was studied using binary choice tests based on the method of Boulay *et al.* (2013)<sup>26</sup>. Larvae were placed in a Petri dish (2 cm in height, 9 cm in diameter) divided into two halves. The bottom of the arena was covered with moistened filter paper (Fig. 1). The dish was placed in an incubator (Liebherr, model FKS 1800) at 25 ± 2 °C and illuminated from below with a red light (630 nm) not visible to the larvae<sup>29</sup>. As the locomotor activity of the larvae is not linked to a circadian cycle<sup>30</sup>, experiments were performed daily between 13 h and 19 h. Controls showed that this experimental setup did not produce spatial bias (see Supplementary Fig. S1).

Each test was conducted in two steps: 1/marking the arena and 2/tracking the displacement of a "naive" (i.e., never tested) larva. In the first step (marking), the arena was divided into two halves using a plastic strip, thus creating 2 semicircles of 4.5 cm radius (Fig. 1). Five or 40 "marking" larvae were placed on one side for 10 minutes and allowed to crawl on the paper to leave their cues. The larvae and the plastic strip were then removed. In the second step (tracking), a naive larva was placed in the center of the arena (Fig. 1) and video-recorded for 5 minutes (Veditec camera, model VED-037, Resolution: 976 × 582). The orientation of the arena in the incubator was reversed between each test so that the marked side was positioned half of the time on the left and half of the time on the right. At the end of each trial, the arena was disassembled and thoroughly cleaned with 95% ethanol.

Before performing each test, larvae were kept at 25 ± 1 °C in a pillbox containing moistened pine sawdust for 30 minutes to remove food remains potentially present on their cuticle. An additional 3 h and 30 minutes confinement under the same conditions was applied to marking larvae in order to starve them and to avoid having them defecate on the filter paper during marking<sup>26,31</sup>. Complementary tests showed that this cleaning (4 h confinement with pine sawdust) was sufficient to remove any traces of food from the larval cuticle (see Supplementary Fig. S2).
<table><caption>**Table 1.** Mean values of larval displacement in the two sides of the arena for heterogeneous marking conditions (different cues on the two sides of the arena). For each condition, “side 1” is reported first and “side 2” is underneath; statistical values are reported on the last line. Asterisks (in bold) indicate a significant difference between the two sides (*P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001; NS: non-significant difference). 30 replicates were performed for each condition.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Cues tested</th><th>side 1</th><th>control</th><th>control</th><th>5 L. sericata</th><th>40 L. sericata</th><th>5 L. sericata</th><th>5 C. vomitoria</th></tr><tr><th>side 2</th><th>5 L. sericata</th><th>5 C. vomitoria</th><th>5 C. vomitoria</th><th>40 C. vomitoria</th><th>40 L. sericata</th><th>40 C. vomitoria</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="4">Time spent (s)</td><td rowspan="2">L. sericata</td><td>90 ± 15</td><td>117 ± 14</td><td>168 ± 14</td><td>194 ± 10</td><td>107 ± 11</td><td>108 ± 12</td></tr><tr><td>210 ± 15</td><td>183 ± 14</td><td>132 ± 14</td><td>106 ± 10</td><td>193 ± 11</td><td>192 ± 12</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">V = 73**</td><td>t = -2.36*</td><td>t = 1.27; NS</td><td>t = 4.57***</td><td>V = 69***</td><td>t = -3.51**</td></tr><tr><td>C. vomitoria</td><td>88 ± 15</td><td>101 ± 15</td><td>141 ± 13</td><td>178 ± 17</td><td>93 ± 19</td><td>96 ± 11</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2"></td><td rowspan="2"></td><td>212 ± 15</td><td>199 ± 15</td><td>159 ± 13</td><td>122 ± 17</td><td>207 ± 19</td><td>204 ± 11</td></tr><tr><td>V = 64***</td><td>V = 94**</td><td>t = -0.66; NS</td><td>t = 1.70; NS</td><td>V = 120*</td><td>t = -5.22***</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Distance travelled (cm)</td><td rowspan="2">L. sericata</td><td>25 ± 4</td><td>36 ± 4</td><td>46 ± 4</td><td>54 ± 2</td><td>29 ± 3</td><td>31 ± 4</td></tr><tr><td>56 ± 4</td><td>58 ± 5</td><td>38 ± 4</td><td>32 ± 3</td><td>52 ± 3</td><td>52 ± 3</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">V = 73***</td><td>t = -2.68*</td><td>t = 1.18; NS</td><td>t = 4.44***</td><td>t = -3.81***</td><td>t = -3.29**</td></tr><tr><td>C. vomitoria</td><td>30 ± 5</td><td>29 ± 5</td><td>46 ± 5</td><td>49 ± 5</td><td>26 ± 5</td><td>36 ± 5</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2"></td><td rowspan="2"></td><td>67 ± 5</td><td>61 ± 5</td><td>53 ± 5</td><td>32 ± 4</td><td>60 ± 6</td><td>70 ± 4</td></tr><tr><td>V = 69***</td><td>V = 74***</td><td>t = -0.83; NS</td><td>t = 1.94; NS</td><td>V = 93**</td><td>t = -4.82***</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Average speed (cm/s)</td><td rowspan="2">L. sericata</td><td>0.27 ± 0.01</td><td>0.32 ± 0.02</td><td>0.28 ± 0.01</td><td>0.29 ± 0.01</td><td>0.27 ± 0.01</td><td>0.28 ± 0.01</td></tr><tr><td>0.27 ± 0.01</td><td>0.32 ± 0.01</td><td>0.29 ± 0.01</td><td>0.29 ± 0.01</td><td>0.27 ± 0.01</td><td>0.27 ± 0.01</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">t = -0.32; NS</td><td>t = -0.73; NS</td><td>t = -0.85; NS</td><td>t = -1.38; NS</td><td>t = -0.01; NS</td><td>V = 252; NS</td></tr><tr><td>C. vomitoria</td><td>0.32 ± 0.01</td><td>0.30 ± 0.02</td><td>0.34 ± 0.02</td><td>0.27 ± 0.01</td><td>0.31 ± 0.02</td><td>0.36 ± 0.02</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2"></td><td rowspan="2"></td><td>0.33 ± 0.01</td><td>0.31 ± 0.02</td><td>0.34 ± 0.01</td><td>0.28 ± 0.01</td><td>0.30 ± 0.02</td><td>0.36 ± 0.02</td></tr><tr><td>t = -1.58; NS</td><td>V = 135; NS</td><td>V = 291; NS</td><td>t = -0.80; NS</td><td>t = 1.10; NS</td><td>t = 0.17; NS</td></tr></tbody></table>

Six different marking combinations were tested with 30 replicates performed for each. The conditions “control vs. 5 L. sericata” and “control vs. 5 C. vomitoria” were designed to test the ability of larvae to perceive and react to a conspecific or heterospecific cue. The combinations “5 C. vomitoria vs. 5 L. sericata” and “40 C. vomitoria vs. 40 L. sericata” were designed to test the ability of larvae to distinguish and respond differently to cues from different species. The combinations “5 L. sericata vs. 40 L. sericata” and “5 C. vomitoria vs. 40 C. vomitoria” were designed to test the effect of changing cue concentration.

**Data analysis.** Video recordings were analyzed using Ethovision XT 8.5 software (Noldus Information Technology, Wageningen, The Netherlands). For each replication, the total duration, the total distance and the average speed in each side of the arena were calculated. The data between the two sides of the arena being paired, comparisons were performed using the Student's t test for paired data when normality and homoscedasticity were present (respectively evaluated by the Shapiro's test and the Fisher's exact test), or using the Wilcoxon test when these conditions were not fulfilled. All analyses were performed with the R studio software (Version 0.98.1103), with a significance level set at α = 0.05. Two other parameters (the number of experiments in which the larva started to move in a side and the curvature of the larval path) were also calculated and compared between sides but, as the results were not significant (see Supplementary Figs S3 and S4), they were not shown in the present manuscript. Colormaps were generated using Ethovision to represent visually the differences of time spent by the larva between the different locations in the arena. Colors of the map represent the time spent at each coordinate of the arena with low wavelengths (e.g. red) indicating long retention time and high wavelengths (e.g. blue) indicating short retention time.

**Data availability.** The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

## Results

**Larval detection of conspecific and heterospecific cues.** When only one side of the arena was previously occupied (i.e. marked) by five congeners, both *L. sericata* and *C. vomitoria* larvae spent significantly more time and travelled greater distances in the conspecific-marked side (Table 1, Figs 2 and 3). The same result was observed for the heterospecific cue: when one side of the arena was previously marked by five heterospecific larvae, both *L. sericata* and *C. vomitoria* larvae spent significantly more time and travelled greater distances in the heterospecific-marked side (Table 1, Fig. 3). In both conditions (conspecific and heterospecific marking), the average speed of the larvae did not differ significantly between marked and unmarked sides of the arena.

**Larval differentiation between cues.** Experiments comparing one side of the arena marked by five *L. sericata* larvae and the other side marked by five *C. vomitoria* larvae showed no difference in the time spent, the distance travelled or the average speed of the naive larvae between the two sides (Table 1, Fig. 4). This absence of choice was observed for larvae of the two tested species. However, when forty larvae were used for marking
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2.** (A) Two examples of tracks (red, left side) performed by two different larvae (a1 and a2) having spent most of their time in the marked side (dark gray) than in the control side (unmarked side; light gray). Crosses indicate the place where the larvae was located when recording started (i.e. 2 or 3 seconds after being deposited at the center of the arena). (B) Colormaps related to the two tracks above (right side, b1 with a1, b2 with a2). The color gradient reveals the differences in the time spent by the larva at the different locations (from blue to red: from the least to the most of time spent).</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.** Mean differences (mean ± s.e.m.) in time spent between marked and non-marked sides. The time difference was calculated by subtracting the time spent on the non-marked side from the time spent on the marked side. The results obtained with naive *L. sericata* larvae are reported in green, while those for *C. vomitoria* are in blue. 30 replicates were performed for each condition. Student's t test and Wilcoxon test, \*P < 0.05, \*\*P < 0.01, \*\*\*P < 0.001.</figcaption></figure>

each side, *L. sericata* larvae spent significantly more time and travelled greater distances in the side marked by conspecifics (Table 1, Fig. 4). For *C. vomitoria*, the time spent and the distance travelled were also greater in the side marked by *L. sericata* larvae but these tendencies were not significant (time spent: Student t test, mean in
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

**Figure 4.** Mean differences (mean ± s.e.m.) in time spent between the sides marked by different species. The time difference was obtained by subtracting the time spent on the side marked by *C. vomitoria* larvae from the time spent on the side marked by *L. sericata* larvae. The results obtained with naive *L. sericata* larvae are reported in green, while those for *C. vomitoria* are in blue. 30 replicates were performed for each condition. Student's t test and Wilcoxon test, ***P < 0.001.

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

**Figure 5.** Mean differences (mean ± s.e.m.) in time spent in the side marked by 40 larvae minus the time spent in the side marked by 5 larvae. The results obtained with naive *L. sericata* larvae are reported in green, while those for *C. vomitoria* are in blue. 30 replicates were performed for each condition. Student's t test and Wilcoxon test, \*P < 0.05, \*\*P < 0.01, \*\*\*P < 0.001.

the side marked by 40 *L. sericata* = 178 s, mean in the side marked by 40 *C. vomitoria* = 122 s, t = 1.70, P = 0.10; distance travelled: Student t test, mean in the side marked by 40 *L. sericata* = 49 cm, mean in the side marked by 40 *C. vomitoria* = 32 cm, t = 1.94, P = 0.06). For both species, the average speed did not differ significantly between the two sides of the arena.

**Effect of cue intensity.** Both *L. sericata* and *C. vomitoria* larvae spent significantly more time and travelled greater distance on the side marked by 40 larvae than on the side marked by 5 larvae. This was true for homo-specific as well as heterospecific tests (Table 1, Fig. 5). In both cases, the average speed of the larvae did not differ significantly between the two sides of the arena.

**Discussion**

This study demonstrates (1) a preference of *L. sericata* and *C. vomitoria* larvae for the side marked by larvae (con-specific or heterospecific), (2) a preference of *L. sericata* larvae for the side marked by conspecifics compared to the side marked by the other species and (3) a preference of both species for the side marked by a greater number of larvae (conspecific or heterospecific).

During tests comparing a larval-marked side to a non-marked side, the larvae consistently favored the marked side. This choice was observed for both conspecific and heterospecific marking. This result demonstrates that larvae can perceive the former presence of other larvae of both species. This detection induced a longer stay and greater distance travelled in the marked side, without change in the average speed. Accordingly, the cues left by larvae appear to have a retentive effect on other larvae. An attractive effect could also occur, but this cannot be evidenced by the present results. These results agree with the retentive effect of conspecific cues which have already been demonstrated in *L. sericata* by Boulay *et al.* (2013)²⁶ and, confirming the two first hypotheses, highlight for the first time the interspecific range of the effect of larval cues.

Since larval cues have a cross-specific retentive effect, these ground-left odors could play the role of an inter-specific aggregation vector. Indeed, the interspecific range of the effect could explain the ability of blowfly larvae of different species to socially aggregate together, as observed under field conditions and experimentally
demonstrated by Boulay *et al.* (2016)¹². Since the presence of a larval odor indicates the close presence of other larvae, the ability of a larva to preferentially stay in a marked area would increase the likelihood of interspecific aggregation. Such a mechanism has already been observed within two lepidopteran species, *Malacosoma disstria* and *M. americanum*³². Caterpillars of these species leave cues locally that affect not only their conspecifics but also the other species and lead to their gathering³².

When comparing sides marked by different species, larval preferences were different depending on the species and the cues concentration. At low concentrations (i.e. marking with five larvae), both *L. sericata* and *C. vomitoria* larvae showed no species-specific preference. But at high concentrations (i.e. marking with forty larvae), *L. sericata* larvae significantly preferred the side marked by conspecifics. The choice made by *L. sericata* larvae demonstrates that these larvae can discriminate cues depending on the emitting species. This ability seems to exist also in *C. vomitoria*, as the differences in both time spent and distance travelled between the two sides were very close to the significance level (respectively, P = 0.10 and P = 0.06). However, the fact that larval preferences were not observed at low concentration suggests the existence of a minimum perception threshold, below which larvae are not able to distinguish differences between cues. Such perception thresholds have already been evidenced in other Diptera larvae, for example in *Drosophila*³³. Furthermore, the superior retentive effect of *L. sericata* larval cues shows that the strength of the effect can vary according to the emitting species and that different species can respond differently to conspecific cues.

The chemical compounds involved in the larval cues were likely present on the larval cuticle. As evidenced by control experiments, the effect of cues could not be induced by compounds or microorganisms coming from the environment and remaining on the larval integument (see Supplementary Fig. S2). The ability of larvae to discriminate cues between emitting species reinforces this observation. Consequently, a likely explanation of the source of larval cues is that these cues were produced by larvae and left during crawling (probably in a passive way). In many insect species, cuticular extracts (mostly hydrocarbons) initiate aggregation of individuals. This has been shown in ladybirds³⁴ as well as in cockroaches³⁵. Moreover, coexistence between different populations, colonies or species is often linked to similarities in cuticular compounds of individuals (e.g., refs³⁶⁻³⁸). Thus, as both *L. sericata* and *C. vomitoria* larvae can perceive cues from both species, these cues could contain some similar compounds. But as larvae can also discriminate cues when a minimum concentration is reached, some compounds may also quantitatively or qualitatively differ between the species. Two former studies analyzed the cuticular hydrocarbons at all developmental stages in *L. sericata*³⁹ and *C. vomitoria*⁴⁰. The hydrocarbons described were only linear alkanes. In *C. vomitoria* third instar larvae, the most abundant alkanes were C21, C22 and C25⁴⁰, while in *L. sericata* they were C25, C27, C29 and C31³⁹. Therefore, among the most abundant alkanes, only C25 were common to both species. The other alkanes ranging from C21 to C31 were almost all detected in both species but in very low proportions. According to these data, one hypothesis explaining both the interspecific perception and the concentration-dependent discrimination of cues is that larvae are able to detect linear alkanes from a vast range of size and to distinguish them depending on their size only if their concentration exceeds the value of the minimum perception threshold. Experiments using extracts or single compounds could allow to determine precisely which compounds are involved in larval aggregations.

Lastly, we observed that larvae spent more time in the side marked by a greater number of larvae (conspecific or heterospecific), confirming our third hypothesis. This behavior indicates a proportional effect between the attractive/retentive larval cues and the number of larvae that left it. Ultimately, it implies that larvae could detect a *posteriori* which place was the more crowded. This proportionality of cue effect to its intensity is in accordance with the self-organization theory. By increasing the probability of retaining individuals, the larval cues could allow self-amplification, resulting in a reinforcement of aggregation and a constant increase in the larval number. Such a density-dependent enhancement has been demonstrated in ants², cockroaches⁴¹ and woodlice¹. Furthermore, the interspecific effect of this mechanism would promote large interspecific aggregation. Broly *et al.* (2016)⁴² showed that woodlice of the species *Porcellio scaber* and *Oniscus asellus* were more likely to gather together when the group was composed of a greater number of individuals. In blowflies, large interspecific aggregates are clearly visible under field conditions and have been reported by many authors (e.g., refs¹⁶,¹⁸,⁴³). Until now, the main explanatory factor for such a mixing of species was the clustering of eggs in places with a high nutritional value such as the face or wounds⁷,⁴⁴. Together with the study of Boulay *et al.* (2016)¹², our results add a new explanation to interspecific aggregations by providing a first experimental evidence of a mechanism producing a social aggregation of necrophagous larvae from different species.

Interspecific aggregation should provide benefits for each of the involved species, implying a low level of interspecific competition. Such benefits may be similar to those of intraspecific aggregation (e.g. more efficient feeding and development). Thus, collective behavior could allow the aggregated species to benefit from a rich and abundant but ephemeral and not easily digested food source⁷. Several authors have demonstrated that aggregation allows larvae to create a larval mass effect (local heat emission)¹⁷,¹⁸ that may speed up their rate of development and reduce the time spent in the cadaver²²⁻²⁴. By increasing their number, larvae may also improve food acquisition by extra-corporal digestion. Such an exodigestion process may be promoted by several factors involving numerous larvae such as elevated local temperatures, releasing of enzymes, changing of the local pH, control of bacterial activity and mechanically liquefying of flesh⁷,⁴⁵⁻⁴⁷. Such an interspecific Allee effect has never been formally demonstrated but is a likely reason for interspecific communication and aggregation of necrophagous calliphorid larvae. Larvae might also benefit from being aggregated due to the collective decisions made by the aggregated larvae, leading for example to find the best feeding sites¹²,⁴⁸. Moreover, the stronger effect of *L. sericata* cues compared to *C. vomitoria* cues suggests that larvae may receive more benefits in aggregating with *L. sericata* than with *C. vomitoria*. Accordingly, *L. sericata* could provide an advantage for larvae that *C. vomitoria* would not have, such as effective digestive enzymes or effective antimicrobial secretions. Indeed, the antibacterial properties of *L. sericata* excretions/secretions (ES) have already been shown to differ from those of another blowfly species, *Calliphora vicina*, with a greater efficiency of *L. sericata* ES compared to *C. vicina* ES against some species
of bacteria⁴⁹. Another hypothesis is that *C. vomitoria* larvae have greater competitive abilities than *L. sericata*, allowing them to outcompete *L. sericata* in interspecific aggregates. For now, competition studies between these two species are lacking to confirm or refute this hypothesis.

In conclusion, this study is the first demonstration that *L. sericata* and *C. vomitoria* larvae leave on the ground a cue inducing an effect that is retentive, has an interspecific range, is proportional to its intensity and whose the strength varies depending on the emitting species. According to the self-organization theory, this effect could enhance the aggregation of larvae and promote interspecific aggregation. However, this mark is currently known only through its behavioral effect and has not been chemically identified. While cuticular hydrocarbons are likely candidates, this still lacks direct evidence. In addition, other vectors such as thigmotactism⁷,²⁶, volatile odors⁵⁰, substrate modification⁴⁶,⁴⁷ or thermal orientation⁵¹ could also be involved in interspecific larval aggregations in natural environment.

## References

1. Devigne, C., Broly, P. & Deneubourg, J.-L. Individual preferences and social interactions determine the aggregation of woodlice. *Plos one* 6, e17389 (2011).

2. Deneubourg, J. L., Lioni, A. & Detrain, C. Dynamics of aggregation and emergence of cooperation. *Bio. Bull.* **202**, 262–267 (2002).

3. Boulay, J. *et al*. Mixed-species aggregations in arthropods. *Insect Sci.* in press (2017).

4. Hamilton, W. D. Geometry for the selfish herd. *J. Theor. Biol.* **31**, 295–311 (1971).

5. Parrish, J. K. & Edelstein-Keshet, L. Complexity, pattern and evolutionary trade-offs in animal aggregation. *Science* **284**, 99–101 (1999).

6. Broly, P., Deneubourg, J.-L. & Devigne, C. Benefits of aggregation in woodlice: a factor in the terrestrialization process? *Insectes Soc.* **60**, 419–435 (2013).

7. Rivers, D. B., Thompson, C. & Brogan, R. Physiological trade-offs of forming maggot masses by necrophagous flies on vertebrate carrion. *Bull. Entomol. Res.* **101**, 599–611 (2011).

8. Danchin, E. & Wagner, R. H. The evolution of coloniality: the emergence of new perspectives. *Trends Ecol. Evol.* **12**, 342–347 (1997).

9. Parrish, J. K. & Hamner, W. M. *Animal groups in three dimensions* (Cambridge University Press, 1997).

10. Sumpter, D. J. The principles of collective animal behaviour. *Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci.* **361**, 5–22 (2006).

11. Bonabeau, E., Theraulaz, G., Deneubourg, J.-L., Aron, S. & Camazine, S. Self-organization in social insects. *Trends Ecol. Evol.* **12**, 188–193 (1997).

12. Boulay, J., Deneubourg, J.-L., Hédouin, V. & Charabidze, D. Interspecific shared collective decision-making in two forensically important species. *Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci.* **283**, 20152676 (2016).

13. Jeanson, R., Dussutour, A. & Fourcassié, V. Key factors for the emergence of collective decision in invertebrates. *Front. Neurosci.* **6** (2012).

14. Campobasso, C. P., Di Vella, G. & Introna, F. Factors affecting decomposition and Diptera colonization. *Forensic Sci. Int.* **120**, 18–27 (2001).

15. Ives, A. R. Aggregation and coexistence in a carrion fly community. *Ecol. Monogr.* **61**, 75–94 (1991).

16. Woodcock, B. A., Watt, A. D. & Leather, S. R. Aggregation, habitat quality and coexistence: a case study on carrion fly communities in slug cadavers. *J. Anim. Ecol.* **71**, 131–140 (2002).

17. Joy, J. E., Liette, N. L. & Harrah, H. L. Carrion fly (Diptera: Calliphoridae) larval colonization of sunlit and shaded pig carcasses in West Virginia, USA. *Forensic Sci. Int.* **164**, 183–192 (2006).

18. Slone, D. H. & Gruner, S. V. Thermoregulation in larval aggregations of carrion-feeding blow flies (Diptera: Calliphoridae). *J. Med. Entomol.* **44**, 516–523 (2007).

19. Charabidze, D., Bourel, B. & Gosset, D. Larval-mass effect: Characterisation of heat emission by necrophageous blowflies (Diptera: Calliphoridae) larval aggregates. *Forensic Sci. Int.* **211**, 61–66 (2011).

20. Marchenko, M. I. Medicolegal relevance of cadaver entomofauna for the determination of the time of death. *Forensic Sci. Int.* **120**, 89–109 (2001).

21. Goodbrod, J. R. & Goff, M. L. Effects of larval population density on rates of development and interactions between two species of *Chrysomya* (Diptera: Calliphoridae) in laboratory culture. *J. Med. Entomol.* **27**, 338–343 (1990).

22. Saunders, D. S. & Bee, A. Effect of larval crowding on size and fecundity of the blow fly, *Calliphora vicina* (Diptera: Calliphoridae). *Eur. J. Entomol.* **92**, 615–622 (1995).

23. Ireland, S. & Turner, B. The effects of larval crowding and the food type on the size and development of the blowfly *Calliphora vomitoria*. *Forensic Sci. Int.* **159**, 175–181 (2006).

24. Rivers, D. B., Ciarlo, T., Spelman, M. & Brogan, R. Changes in development and heat shock protein expression in two species of flies (*Sarcophaga bullata* [Diptera: Sarcophagidae] and *Protophormia terraenovae* [Diptera: Calliphoridae]) reared in different sized maggot masses. *J. Med. Entomol.* **47**, 677–689 (2010).

25. Ullyett, G. C. Competition for food and allied phenomena in sheep-blowfly populations. *Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci.* **234**, 77–174 (1950).

26. Boulay, J., Devigne, C., Gosset, D. & Charabidze, D. Evidence of active aggregation behaviour in *Lucilia sericata* larvae and possible implication of a conspecific mark. *Anim. Behav.* **85**, 1191–1197 (2013).

27. Grassberger, M. & Reiter, C. Effect of temperature on *Lucilia sericata* (Diptera: Calliphoridae) development with special reference to the isomegalen and isomorphen diagram. *Forensic Sci. Int.* **120**, 32–36 (2001).

28. Ames, C. & Turner, B. Low temperature episodes in development of blowflies: implications for postmortem interval estimation. *Med. Vet. Entomol.* **17**, 178–186 (2003).

29. Strange, P. H. The spectral sensitivity of *Calliphora* maggots. *J. Exp. Biol.* **38**, 237–248 (1961).

30. Joplin, K. H. & Moore, D. Effects of environmental factors on circadian activity in the flesh fly *Sarcophaga crassipalpis*. *Physiol. Entomol.* **24**, 64–71 (1999).

31. Charabidze, D., Hedouin, V. & Gosset, D. Discontinuous foraging behavior of necrophagous *Lucilia sericata* (Meigen 1826) (Diptera: Calliphoridae) larvae. *J. Insect Physiol.* **59**, 325–331 (2013).

32. Fitzgerald, T. D. & Edgerly, J. S. Specificity of trail markers of forest and eastern tent caterpillars. *J. Chem. Ecol.* **5**, 565–574 (1979).

33. Kreher, S. A., Kwon, J. Y. & Carlson, J. R. The molecular basis of odor coding in the *Drosophila* larva. *Neuron* **46**, 445–456 (2005).

34. Wheeler, C. A. & Cardé, R. T. Following in their footprints: cuticular hydrocarbons as overwintering aggregation site markers in *Hippodamia convergens*. *J. Chem. Ecol.* **40**, 418–428 (2014).

35. Rivault, C., Cloarec, A. & Sreng, L. Cuticular extracts inducing aggregation in the German cockroach, *Blattella germanica* (L.). *J. Insect Physiol.* **44**, 909–918 (1998).

36. Bonavita-Cougourdan, A. *et al*. Selective adaptation of the cuticular hydrocarbon profiles of the slave-making ants *Polyergus rufescens Latr.* and their *Formica rufibarbis Fab.* and *F. cunicularia Latr.* slaves. *Comp. Biochem. Physiol. B Biochem. Mol. Biol.* **113**, 313–329 (1996).
37. Saïd, I., Costagliola, G., Leoncini, I. & Rivault, C. Cuticular hydrocarbon profiles and aggregation in four *Periplaneta* species (Insecta: Dictyoptera). *J. Insect Physiol.* **51**, 995–1003 (2005).

38. Vauchot, B. et al. Differential adsorption of allospecific hydrocarbons by the cuticles of two termite species, *Reticulitermes santonensis* and *R. lucifugus grassei*, living in a mixed colony: Passive transfer by contact. *J. Insect Physiol.* **44**, 59–66 (1997).

39. Gołębiowski, M. et al. Cuticular and internal n-alkane composition of *Lucilia sericata* larvae, pupae, male and female imagines: application of HPLC-LLSD and GC/MS-SIM. *Bull. Entomol. Res.* **102**, 453–460 (2012).

40. Roux, O., Gers, C. & Legal, L. Ontogenetic study of three Calliphoridae of forensic importance through cuticular hydrocarbon analysis. *Med. Vet. Entomol.* **22**, 309–317 (2008).

41. Jeanson, R. et al. Self-organized aggregation in cockroaches. *Anim. Behav.* **69**, 169–180 (2005).

42. Broly, P., Ectors, Q., Decuyper, G., Nicolis, S. C. & Deneubourg, J. L. Sensitivity of density-dependent threshold to species composition in arthropod aggregates. *Sci. Rep.* **6**, 32576 (2016).

43. Kouki, J. & Hanski, I. Population aggregation facilitates coexistence of many competing carrion fly species. *Oikos* **72**, 223–227 (1995).

44. Charabidze, D., Depeme, A., Devigne, C. & Hedouin, V. Do necrophagous blowflies (Diptera: Calliphoridae) lay their eggs in wounds?: Experimental data and implications for forensic entomology. *Forensic Sci. Int.* **253**, 71–75 (2015).

45. Hobson, R. P. Studies on the nutrition of blow-fly larvae. III. The Liquefaction of Muscle. *J. Exp. Biol.* **9**, 359–365 (1932).

46. Pendola, S. & Greenberg, B. Substrate-specific analysis of proteolytic enzymes in the larval midgut of *Calliphora vicina*. *Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am.* **68**, 341–345 (1975).

47. Sandeman, R. M., Feehan, J. P., Chandler, R. A. & Bowles, V. M. Tryptic and chymotryptic proteases released by larvae of the blowfly *Lucilia cuprina*. *Int. J. Parasitol.* **20**, 1019–1023 (1990).

48. Lihoreau, M., Clarke, I. M., Buhl, J., Sumpter, D. J. & Simpson, S. J. Collective selection of food patches in *Drosophila*. *J. Exp. Biol.* **219**, 668–675 (2016).

49. Barnes, K. M., Gennard, D. E. & Dixon, R. A. An assessment of the antibacterial activity in larval excretion/secretion of four species of insects recorded in association with corpses, using *Lucilia sericata* Meigen as the marker species. *Bull. Entomol. Res.* **100**, 635–640 (2010).

50. Cobb, M. What and how do maggots smell? *Biol. Rev* **74**, 425–459 (1999).

51. Aubernon, C., Boulay, J., Hédouin, V. & Charabidze, D. Thermoregulation in gregarious dipteran larvae: evidence of species-specific temperature selection. *Entomol. Exp. Appl.* **160**, 101–108 (2016).

## Acknowledgements

Thanks to J. Boulay and C. Devigne for helpful suggestions and comments about the conduction of experiments and analysis of results.

## Author Contributions

Q.F. and D.C. conceived and designed the experiments, Q.F. conducted the experiments, Q.F. and D.C. analysed the results, Q.F. and D.C. wrote the paper. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

## Additional Information

Supplementary information accompanies this paper at https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-21316-x.

**Competing Interests:** The authors declare no competing interests.

**Publisher's note:** Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

**Open Access** This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

© The Author(s) 2018