, Volume 96, Issue 2, pp 276–281

Species-specific effects of tending ants on the development of lycaenid butterfly larvae

  • Diane Wagner
Original Papers


The transfer of nutrients between organisms is a common feature of mutualism. The production of these food rewards is often assumed to be costly. Estimation of the costs of producing food rewards is important for understanding the overall effects of the interaction on fitness. When food rewards are harvested by several species differing in foraging behavior, costs to the producer may differ. The larvae of many species in the butterfly family Lycaenidae produce secretions consumed by tending ants. Here I report that three North American ant species, Formica perpilosa, Dorymyrmex sp. (smithi complex), and Forelius foetida, had no negative effect on the duration of development and adult size of the lycaenid Hemiargus isola. Moreover, tending by the ant Formica perpilosa significantly enhanced larval growth, resulting in butterflies that were 20% heavier than their untended counterparts. Tending by the ants Dorymyrmex sp. (smithi complex) and Forelius foetida had no effect on butterfly weight. Tended, nonfeeding larvae lost 69% more weight than untended, nonfeeding larvae. Taken together, the results suggest that, although ant tending imposes a physiological cost, H. isola larvae use behavioral or physiological mechanisms to compensate or overcompensate for nutrients lost to ants.

Key words

Hemiargus isola Lycaenidae Formicidae Development Mutualism 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Addicott JF (1979) A multispecies aphid-ant association: density dependent and species-specific effects. Can J Zool 57:558–569Google Scholar
  2. Atsatt PR (1981) Lycaenid butterflies and ants: selection for enemyfree space. Am Nat 118:638–654Google Scholar
  3. Baylis M (1989) The role of nutrition in an ant-lycaenid-host interaction. Ph.D. dissertation, University of OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Baylis M, Pierce NE (1992) The effects of ant mutualism on the foraging and diet of lycaenid caterpillars. In: Stamp NE, Casey TM (eds) Caterpillars: ecological and evolutionary constraints on foraging. Chapman Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Bhatkar A, Whitcomb WH (1970) Artificial diet for rearing various species of ants. The F1 Entomol 53:230–232Google Scholar
  6. Bristow CM (1984) Differential benefits from ant attendance to two species of Homoptera on New York ironweed. J Anim Ecol 53:715–726Google Scholar
  7. Boggs CL (1986) Reproductive strategies of female butterflies: variation in and constraints on fecundity. Ecol Entomol 11:7–15Google Scholar
  8. Boucher DH, James S, Leeler KH (1982) The ecology of mutualism. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 13:315–347Google Scholar
  9. Cushman JH, Rashbrook VK, Beattie AJ (1993) Demonstration of benefits to both participants in a lycaenid-ant association. Ecology (in press)Google Scholar
  10. DeVries PJ (1988) The larval ant-organs of Thisbe irenea (Lepidoptera: Riodinidae) and their effects upon attending ants. Zool J Linn Soc 94:379–393Google Scholar
  11. DeVries PJ (1991) Mutualism between Thisbe irenea butterflies and ants, and the role of ant ecology in the evolution of larval-ant associations. Biol J Linn Soc 43:179–195Google Scholar
  12. DeVries PJ, Baker I (1989) Butterfly exploitation of an ant-plant mutualism: adding insult to herbivory. J New York Entomol Soc 97:332–340Google Scholar
  13. Elgar MA, Pierce NE (1988) Mating success and fecundity in an ant-tended butterfly. In: Clutton-Brock TH (ed) Reproductive success. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 59–75Google Scholar
  14. Eliot JN (1973) The higher classification of the Lycaenidae (Lepidoptera): a tenative arrangement. Bull Brit Mus (Nat Hist) Entomol 28:373–505Google Scholar
  15. Fiedler K (1991) European and North West African Lycaenidae and their associations with ants. J Res Lepid 28:239–257Google Scholar
  16. Fiedler K, Maschwitz U (1989) Functional analysis of the myrmecophilous relationships between ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and lycaenids (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). I. Release of food recruitment in ants by lycaenid larvae and pupae. Ethology 80:71–80Google Scholar
  17. Fiedler K, Hölldobler B (1992) Ants and Polyommatus icarus immatures (Lycaenidae) — sex-related developmental benefits and costs of ant attendance. Oecologia 91:468–473Google Scholar
  18. Herrera CM (1987) Components of pollinator “quality”: comparative analysis of a diverse insect assemblage. Oikos 50:79–90Google Scholar
  19. Hinton HE (1951) Myrmecophilous Lycaenidae and other Lepidoptera—a summary. Proc Trans S London Entomol Nat Hist Soc 1949–1951:111–175Google Scholar
  20. Honek A (1993) Intraspecific variation in body size and fecundity in insects: a general relationship. Oikos 66:483–492Google Scholar
  21. Malicky H (1970) New aspects on the association between lycaenid larvae (Lycaenidae) and ants (Formicidae, Hymenoptera). J Lep Soc 24:190–202Google Scholar
  22. Maschwitz U, Wust M, Schurian K (1975) Blaudlingsraupen als Zuckerlieferanten für Ameisen. Oecologia 18:17–21Google Scholar
  23. Peterson MA (1993) The nature of ant attendance and the survival of larval Icaricia acmon (Lycaenidae). J Lep Soc 47:6–16Google Scholar
  24. Pierce NE (1983) The ecology and evolution of symbioses between lycaenid butterflies and ants. PhD dissertation, Harvard Univ, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  25. Pierce NE (1987) The evolution and biogeography of associations between lycaenid butterflies and ants. In: Harvey PH, Partridge L (eds) Oxford surveys in evolutionary biology, vol 4Google Scholar
  26. Pierce NE, Easteal S (1986) The selective advantage of attendant ants for the larvae of a lycaenid butterfly, Glaucopsyche lygdamus. J Anim Ecol 55:451–462Google Scholar
  27. Pierce NE, Kitching RL, Buckley RC, Taylor MFJ, Benbow KF (1987) The costs and benefits of cooperation between the Australian lycaenid butterny, Jalmenus evagoras, and its attendant ants. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 21:237–248Google Scholar
  28. Price PW, Bouton CE, Gross P, McPheron BA, Thompson JN, Weis AE (1980) Interactions among three trophic levels: influence of plants on interactions between insect herbivores and natural enemies. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 11:41–65Google Scholar
  29. Robbins RK (1991) Cost and evolution of a facultative mutualism between ants and lycaenid larvae (Lepidoptera). Oikos, 62:363–369Google Scholar
  30. Savignano DA (1990) Field investigations of a facultative mutualism between Lycaeides melissa samuelis Nabokov (Lycaenidae), the Karner blue butterfly, and attendant ants. PhD dissertation, University of Texas, AustinGoogle Scholar
  31. Schemske DW, Horvitz CC (1984) Variation among floral visitors in pollination ability: a precondition for mutualism specialization. Science 225:519–521Google Scholar
  32. Scott JA (1986) The butterflies of North America. Stanford Univ Press, CAGoogle Scholar
  33. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1981) Biometry (Second Edition). WH Freeman & Co., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Thompson JN (1982) Interaction and coevolution. John Wiley Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Winer BJ, Brown DR, Michels KM (1991) Statistical principles in experimental design (Third edition). McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 169–172Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Diane Wagner
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyPrinceton UniversityPrincetonUSA

Personalised recommendations