Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 209–222

The influence of ants on host plant selection by Jalmenus evagoras, a myrmecophilous lycaenid butterfly

  • Naomi E. Pierce
  • Mark A. Elgar
Article

Summary

(1) Females of the myrmecophilous lycaenid butterfly, Jalmenus evagoras are far more likely to lay eggs on plants that contain their attendant ants, Iridomyrmex sp. 25 than on plants without ants, although the clutch sizes of individual egg masses laid in either situation is the same. (2) Ovipositing females respond to the presence or absence of ants before they alight on a potential food plant. Once they have landed, they are equally likely to ley eggs whether or not they encounter ants. (3) Ovipositing females prefer to lay eggs on plants that contain ant tended homopterans than on plants that contain only a few foraging ants. The presence of ant tended homopterans can act as a strong stimulus to induce females to lay eggs on plant species that differ from their original host species. (4) Ant dependent oviposition behavior has been described or suggested in 46 species of lycaenid and one riodinid. In general, the more dependent a species is upon ants for either food or protection, the more likely it is to use ants as cues in oviposition. Prominent characteristics of lycaenids that have ant dependent oviposition are described and discussed. (5) Myrmecophilous lycaenids that may use ants as cues in oviposition feed on a significantly wider range of plants than non-myrmecophilous lycaenids. Possible reasons for this pattern and its ecological significance are discussed.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abe H, Teramoto Y, Ichinose T (1981) Relationship between host plant ranges of the three papilionid butterflies and oviposition-inducing contact chemicals in their host plants. Appl Entomol Ecol 16:493–496Google Scholar
  2. Atsatt PR (1981a) Ant-dependent food plant selection by the mistletoe butterfly Ogyris amaryllis (Lycaenidae). Oecologia (Berl) 48:60–63Google Scholar
  3. Atsatt PR (1981b) Lycaenid butterflies and ants: selection for enemy-free space. Am Nat 118:638–654Google Scholar
  4. Bell TR (1915–1920) The common butterflies of the plains of India. J Bombay Nat Hist Soc 1915–1920Google Scholar
  5. Benson WW (1978) Resource partitioning in passion flower butterflies. Evolution 29:659–680Google Scholar
  6. Borch C (1928) Life histories of some Victorian lycaenids. Victorian Nat 45:188–193Google Scholar
  7. Brower LP, Brower JVZ (1964) Birds, butterflies and plant poisons: a study in ecological chemistry. Zoologica (NY) 49:137–159Google Scholar
  8. Burns AN (1931) Habits and life histories of some Victorian lycaenid butterflies. Victorian Nat 48:129–136Google Scholar
  9. Burns AN, Rotherham ER (1980) Australian butterflies in colour. Reed, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  10. Callaghan CJ (1981–1982) Notes on the immature biology of two myrmecophilous Lycaenidae: Juditha molpe (Riodininae) and Panthiades bitias (Lycaeninae). J Res Lepid 20:36–42Google Scholar
  11. Chew FS, Robbins RK (1984) Egg-laying in butterflies. In: Vane Wright RI, Ackery PR (eds) Biology of butterflies. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Claassens AJM, Dickson CGC (1980) Butterflies of the Table Mountain range. Struik, Cape TownGoogle Scholar
  13. Clark GC, Dickson CGC (1971) Life histories of the South African lycaenid butterflies. Purnell, Cape TownGoogle Scholar
  14. Common IFB, Waterhouse DF (1981) Butterflies of Australia, 2nd edn. Angus and Robertson, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  15. Cottrell CB (1984) Aphytophagy in butterflies: its relationship to myrmecophily. Zool J Linn Soc 79:1–57Google Scholar
  16. Cripps C, Jackson THE (1940) The life history of Lachnocnema bibulus (Fab) in Kenya (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae). Trans R Entomol Soc (Lond) 90:449–453Google Scholar
  17. Daniels G (1976) The life history of Hypochrysops theon medocus (Fruhstorfer) (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). J Aust Entomol Soc 15:197–199Google Scholar
  18. Das GM (1960) Observations on the association of ants with coccids of tea. Bull Entomol Res 50:437–448Google Scholar
  19. David WA, Gardiner BOC (1962) Oviposition and the hatching of the eggs of Pieris brassicae L in a laboratory culture. Bull Entomol Res 53:91–109Google Scholar
  20. Dethier VG (1947) Chemical insect attractants and repellants. Blakiston, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  21. Dethier VG (1970) Chemical interactions between plants and insects. In: Sondheimer E, Simeone JB (eds) Chemical ecology. Academic Press, London, pp 83–102Google Scholar
  22. Dickson CGC (1954) Note on ovipositing of Thestor basutus (Willg) (Lep.: Lycaenidae). J Entomol Soc South Afr 17:140Google Scholar
  23. Dodd AP (1902) Contribution to the life history of Liphyra brassolis Westw. Entomologist 35:153–156Google Scholar
  24. Downey JC (1962a) Host-plant relations as data for butterfly classification. Syst Zool 11:150–159Google Scholar
  25. Downey JC (1962b) Myrmecophily in Plebejus (Icaricia) icarroides (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Entomol News 73:57–66Google Scholar
  26. Eliot JN (1973) The higher classification of the Lycaenidae (Lepidoptera): a tentative arrangement. Bull Br Mus (Nat Hist) Entomol 28:373–505Google Scholar
  27. Emmel TC, Emmel JF (1973) The butterflies of southern California. Nat Hist Mus Los Angeles Contrib Sci 26:1–148Google Scholar
  28. Farquharson CO (1921) Five years' observations (1914–1918) on the bionomics of southern Nigerian insects, chiefly directed to the investigation of lycaenid life-histories and to the relation of Lycaenidae, Diptera and other insects to ants. Trans Entomol Soc (Lond) 1921:319–448Google Scholar
  29. Feeny P, Rosenberry L, Carter M (1983) Chemical aspects of oviposition behavior in butterflies. In: Ahmad S (ed) Herbivorous insects: host-seeking behavior and mechanisms. Academic Press, New York, pp 27–76Google Scholar
  30. Ferris CD, Brown FM (1981) Butterflies of the Rocky Mountain states. University Oklahoma Press, NormanGoogle Scholar
  31. Fisher RH (1978) Butterflies of South Australia. Goverment Printer, AdelaideGoogle Scholar
  32. Frohawk FW (1903) The earlier stages of Lycaena arion. Entomologist 36:57–60Google Scholar
  33. Fukuda H, Kubo K, Takeshi K, Takahashi A, Takahashi M, Tanaka B, Wakabayashi M, Shirozu T (1978) Insects' life in Japan. III. Butterflies. Hoikusha, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  34. Funk RS (1975) Association of ants with ovipositing Lycaena rubidus (Lycaenidae). J Lepid Soc 29:261–262Google Scholar
  35. Gilbert LE (1975) Ecological consequences of a coevolved mutualism between butterflies and plants. In: Gilbert LE, Raven PH (eds) Coevolution of animals and plants. Texas Press, Austin, pp 210–240Google Scholar
  36. gilbert LE, Singer MC (1975) Butterfly ecology. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 6:365–397Google Scholar
  37. Hawkeswood TJ (1981) The food plants of Jalmenus evagoras (Donovan) (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Aust Entomol Mag 8:1–2Google Scholar
  38. Henning SF (1983) Biological groups within the Lycaenidae (Lepidoptera). J Entomol Soc South Afr 46:65–85Google Scholar
  39. Hinton HE (1951) Myrmecophilous Lycaenidae and other lepidoptera — a summary. Proc Soc Land Entomol Nat Hist Soc 1951:111–175Google Scholar
  40. Howe WH (1975) The butterflies of North America. Doubleday, Garden City, NYGoogle Scholar
  41. Iwase T (1952) Remarkable observations by young Japanese lepidopterists. 3. Discovery of true ant-guest larva Nyphanda (sic) fusca. Lepid News 6:43Google Scholar
  42. Iwase T (1955) The sixth aberrant feeder in Japan: Spindasis takanonis (Lycaenidae). Lepid News 9:13–14Google Scholar
  43. Kershaw JCW (1905) The life history of Gerydus chinensis Felder. Trans Entomol Soc (Lond) 1905:1–4Google Scholar
  44. Kitching RL (1981) Egg clustering and the southern hemisphere lycaenids: comments on a paper by NE Stamp. Am Nat 118:423–425Google Scholar
  45. Kitehing RL (1983) Myrmecophilous organs of the larvae and pupae of the lycaenid butterfly Jalmenus evagoras (Donovan). J Nat Hist 17:471–481Google Scholar
  46. Klots AR (1951) A field guide to the butterflies of North America, east of the great plains. Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  47. Lamborn WA (1913) On the relationship between certain West African insects, especially ants, Lycaenidac and Homoptera. Trans Entomol Soc (Lond) 1913:436–498Google Scholar
  48. Larsen TB, Pittaway AR (1982) Notes on the ecology, biology and taxonomy of Aphartis acamas (Klug) (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Entomol Gaz 33:163–168Google Scholar
  49. Lenz F (1917) Der Erhaltungsgrund der Myrmekophilie. Z Indakt Abstamm Vererbungsl 18:44–46Google Scholar
  50. Malicky H (1970) New aspects on the association between lycaenid larvae (Lycaenidae) and ants (Formicidae, Hymenoptera). J Lepid Soc 24:190–202Google Scholar
  51. Maschwitz U, Wüst M, Schurian K (1975) Bläulingsraupen als Zuckerlieferanten für Ameisen. Oecologia (Berl) 18:17–21Google Scholar
  52. McCubbin C (1971) Australian butterflies. Nelson, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  53. Nagayama H (1950) Life history of Niphanda fusca Bremer et Grey. Life Hist Insects 3:9–18Google Scholar
  54. Papaj DR, Rausher MD (1983) Individual variation in host location by phytophagous insects. In Ahmad S (ed) Herbivorous insects: host-seeking behavior and mechanisms. Academic Press, New York, pp 77–124Google Scholar
  55. Pierce NE (1983) The ecology and evolution of symbioses between lycaenid butterflies and ants. PhD thesis, Harvard University, Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  56. Pierce NE (1984) Amplified species diversity: a case study of an Australian lycaenid butterfly and its attendant ants. In: Vane Wright RI, Ackery PR (eds) Biology of butterflies. XI Symp R Entomol Soc (Lond). Academic Press, London, pp 197–200Google Scholar
  57. Pierce NE (1985) Lycaenid butterflies and ants: selection for nitrogen fixing and other protein rich food plants. Am Nat (in press)Google Scholar
  58. Pierce NE, Mead PS (1981) Parasitoids as selective agents in the symbiosis between lycaenid butterfly caterpillars and ants. Science 211:1185–1187Google Scholar
  59. Rausher MD (1978) Search image for leaf shape in a butterfly. Science 200:1071–1073Google Scholar
  60. Rausher MD (1979a) Larval habitat suitability and oviposition preference in three related butterflies. Ecology 60:503–511Google Scholar
  61. Rausher MD (1979b) Egg recognition: its advantages to a butterfly. Anim Behav 27:1034–1040Google Scholar
  62. Rausher MD (1980) Host abundance, juvenile survival, and oviposition preference in Battus philenor. Evolution 34:342–355Google Scholar
  63. Ross GN (1966) Life history studies on Mexican butterflies. IV. The ecology and ethology of Anatole rossi, a myrmecophilous metalmark (Lepidoptera: Riodinidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 59:985–1004Google Scholar
  64. Saxena KN, Goyal S (1978) Host plant relations of the citrus butterfly Papilio demoleus L.: orientational and ovipositional responses. Entomol Exp Appl 24:1–10Google Scholar
  65. Shoonhoven LM (1972) Secondary plant substances and insects. Recent Adv Phytochem 5:197–224Google Scholar
  66. Shirozu T, Hara A (1962) Early stages of Japanese butterflies in colour. Hoikusha, OsakaGoogle Scholar
  67. Stanton ML (1980) The dynamics of search: foodplant selection by Colias butterflies. PhD thesis, Harvard University, Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  68. Stanton ML (1982) Searching in a patchy environment: food-plant selection of Colias philodice eriphyle butterflies. Ecology 63:839–853Google Scholar
  69. Symon DE (1980) The food plants of Australian butterfly larvae. J Adelaide Bot Gard 2:277–292Google Scholar
  70. Thorsteinson AJ (1960) Host selection in phytophagous insects. Annu Rev Entomol 5:193–218Google Scholar
  71. Vane Wright RI (1978) Ecological and behavioural origins of diversity inbutterflies. In: Mound LA, Waloff N (eds) Diversity of insect faunas. IX Symp R Entomol Soc (Lond). Blackwell, London, pp 56–59Google Scholar
  72. Williams EH (1981) Thermal influences on oviposition in the montane butterfly Euphydras gillettii. Oecologia (Berl) 50:342–346Google Scholar
  73. Wilson EO (1971) The insect societies. Belknap, Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Naomi E. Pierce
    • 1
  • Mark A. Elgar
    • 2
  1. 1.Museum of Comparative ZoologyHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.Department of ZoologyUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeEngland
  3. 3.Department of ZoologyUniversity of OxfordOxfordEngland

Personalised recommendations