, Volume 92, Issue 4, pp 556–562 | Cite as

Guns and butter: a no cost defense against predation for Chrysomela confluens

  • Michael J. C. Kearsley
  • Thomas G. Whitham
Original Papers


Chrysomela confluens produces a salicylaldehyde-based defensive secretion which is very effective against generalist predators and apparently produced at no cost. If no cost defenses are common, then one of the basic assumptions in the plant-herbivore literature, i.e. tradeoffs among defense, reproduction, and growth, must be reconsidered. We examined the effectiveness of this defense by exposing defended larvae and larvae whose secretion had been removed to a generalist predator. Larvae which had their secretions intact were attacked by only 7% of the ants which encountered them, and none of these larvae suffered serious damage. In contrast, those which had been “milked” of their secretions immediately prior to exposure were attacked in 48% of such encounters, and two-thirds of the larvae were killed. Larvae which had been milked 24 or 72 h before exposure, then allowed to regenerate their defenses, were attacked at rates indistinguishable from larvae that had not been milked. Thus regenerated defenses are just as effective as original defenses. We also tested the hypothesis that the cost of defense production and maintainence would be reflected in reductions in developmental rates and final adult mass and increases in leaf consumption rate. We found that larvae which were milked daily of their secretions manifested no measurable cost of recharging reservoirs. Milked larvae grew and fed at the same rates as their control sibs, and became adults of equal or slightly larger size. The liberation of glucose from salicin, a precursor present in leaves of salicaceous hosts, during the production of salicylaldehyde apparently provides enough of an energetic benefit to offset the cost of maintaining an effective defense. Consistent with this hypothesis, we did not find that milked larvae compensated for increased nutritional or salicin demands by increasing their feeding rates. Although this patterns is familiar to chemical ecologists it is generally unappreciated in the plant-herbivore literature. It is likely that many arthropod herbivore defensive systems come at little or no cost, given the intimacy of association between herbivores and their food plants. Sequestration of host plant defensive chemicals which eliminates the cost of synthesis is common in arthropods. The de novo synthesis of chemical defenses may be less costly than expected if it is integrated into other parts of an insects metabolism. Calculations based on the bond energies or molecular constitution of the compounds will not yield a complete perception of cost. Tests over the life of the herbivore, coupled with an understanding of the herbivore's metabolism, are necessary.

Key words

Herbivory Chemical defense Sequestration Coleoptera Chrysomelidae 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adams RP, Hagerman A (1976) A comparison of the volatile oils of mature versus young leaves of Juniperus scopulorum: Chemosystematic significance. Biochem Syst Ecol 4: 75–79Google Scholar
  2. Aldrich TR (1988) Chemical ecology of Heteroptera. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 33: 211–238Google Scholar
  3. Baldwin IT, Dusenbery DB, Eisner T (1990) Squirting and refilling: dynamics of p-benzoquinone production in defensive glands of Diploptera punctata. J Chem Ecol 16: 2823–2834Google Scholar
  4. Bengtsson G (1982) Energetic costs of amino acids exudation in the interaction between the predator Gammarus pulex L. and the prey Asellus aquaticus L. J Chem Ecol 8: 1271–1281Google Scholar
  5. Blum MS (1978) Biochemical defenses of insects. In: Rockstein M (ed) Biochemistry of insects. Academic Press, New York, p. xiv + 649Google Scholar
  6. Blum MS (1981) Chemical defenses of arthropods. Academic press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Blum MS (1987) Biosynthesis of arthropod exocrine compounds. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 32: 381–413Google Scholar
  8. Bowers MD, Puttick GM (1989) Iridoid glucosides and insect feeding preferences: Gypsy moths (Lymantria dispar, Lymantridae) and buckeyes (Junonia coenia, Nymphalidae). Ecol Ent 14: 247–256Google Scholar
  9. Brattsten LB (1979) Biochemical defense mechanisms in herbivores against plant allelochemicals. In: Rosenthal GA, Janzen DH (eds) Herbivores: their interactions with secondary plant metabolities. Academic Press, Orlando, FL, pp 199–270Google Scholar
  10. Brower LP, Brower JVZ (1964) Birds, butterflies and plant poisons: a study in ecological chemistry. Zoologica 49: 137–159Google Scholar
  11. Brower LP, Glazier SC (1975) Localization of heart poisons in the monarch butterfly. Science 188: 19–25Google Scholar
  12. Brower LP, McEvoy PB, Williamson KL, Flannery MA (1972) Variation in cardiac glycoside content of monarch butterflies from natural populations in eastern North America. Science 177: 426–429Google Scholar
  13. Brown WJ (1956) The new world species of Chrysomela L. (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Can Ent 88 [Suppl III]: 5–54Google Scholar
  14. Bryant JP (1987) Feltleaf willow — snowshoe hare interactions: Plant carbon/nutrient balance and floodplain succession. Ecology 68: 1319–1327Google Scholar
  15. Bryant JP, Chapin S, Klein DR (1983) Carbon/nutrient balance in boreal plants in relation to vertebrate herbivory. Oikos 40: 357–368Google Scholar
  16. Coley PD, Bryant JP, Chapin FS (1985) Resource availability and plant antiherbivore defense. Science 230: 895–899Google Scholar
  17. Dettner K (1987) Chemosystematics and evolution of beetle chemical defenses. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 32: 17–48Google Scholar
  18. Dettner K, Schwinger G (1987) Chemical defense in the larvae of the leaf beetle Gonioctena viminalis (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Experentia 43: 458–462Google Scholar
  19. Duffey SS, Blum MS, Isman MB, Scudder GGE (1978) Cardiac glycosides: a physical system for their sequestration by the milkweed bug. J Insect Physiol 24: 639–645Google Scholar
  20. Eisner T, Meinwald J (1966) Defensive secretions of arthropods. Science 153: 1341–1348Google Scholar
  21. Eisner T, Johnessee JS, Carrel J, Hendry LB, Meinwald J (1974) Defensive use by an insect of a plant resin. Science 184: 996–999Google Scholar
  22. Erickson JM (1973) The utilization of various Aesclepias species by larvae of the monarch butterfly, Danaus plexippus. Psyche 80: 230–244Google Scholar
  23. Ferguson JE, Metcalf RL (1985) Cucurbitacins. Plant derived defense compounds for Diabroticites (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). J Chem Ecol 11: 311–318Google Scholar
  24. Fescemyer HW, Mumma RO (1983) Regeneration and biosynthesis of Dytiscid defensive scents (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). J Chem Ecol 9: 1449–1464Google Scholar
  25. Franke A, Rimpler H, Schneider D (1987) Iridoid glycosides in the butterfly Euphydrias cynthia (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Phytochemistry 26: 103–106Google Scholar
  26. Harborne JB (1979) Flavanoid pigments. In: Rosenthal GA, Janzen DB (eds) Herbivores: their interactions with secondary plant metabolites. Academic Press, Orlando, FL, pp 619–655Google Scholar
  27. Hay ME, Fenical W (1988) Marine plant-herbivore interactions: the ecology of chemical defense. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 19: 111–145Google Scholar
  28. Hetz M (1988) Costs and benefits of mimicry. Ph.D. Dissertation. Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona. vii + 66 pagesGoogle Scholar
  29. Hill CS, Tschinkel WR (1985) Defensive secretion production in the tenebrionid beetle Zophobas attratus: effects of age, sex, and milking frequency. J Chem Ecol 11: 1083–1092Google Scholar
  30. Jensen KR (1984) Defensive behavior and toxicity of Ascoglossan opisthobranch Mourgona germaineae. J Chem Ecol 10: 475–486Google Scholar
  31. Jones CG, Hess TA, Whitman DW, Silk PJ, Blum MS (1987) Effects of diet breadth on autogenous chemical defense of a generalist grasshopper. J Chem Ecol 13: 283–297Google Scholar
  32. Jonsson S, Bergstrom G, Lanne BS, Stensdotter U (1988) Defensive odor emission from larvae of two sawfly species, Pristiphora erichsoni and P. wesmaeli. J Chem Ecol 14: 713–721Google Scholar
  33. Kearsley MJC, Whitham TG (1989) Developmental changes in resistance to herbivory: implications for individuals and populations. Ecology 70: 422–434Google Scholar
  34. Kingsbury JM (1964) Poisonous plants of the United States and Canada. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  35. Larsson S, Wiren A, Lundgren L, Ericsson T (1986) Effects of light and nutrient stress on leaf phenolic chemistry in Salix dasyclados and susceptibility, to Balerucella lineola (Coleoptera). Oikos 47: 205–210Google Scholar
  36. Lindroth RL, Scriber JM, Hsia MTS (1988) Chemical ecology of the tiger swallowtail: mediation of host use by phenolic glucosides. Ecology 69: 814–822Google Scholar
  37. Luckner M (1984) Secondary metabolism in microorganisms, plants, and animals. Second ed. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Matsuda K, Matsuo H (1985) A flavonoid, Luteolin-7-glucoside, as well as salicin and populin, stimulating the feeding of leaf beetles attacking salicaceous plants. Appl Ent Zool 20: 305–313Google Scholar
  39. Meinwald J, Jones TH, Eisner T, Hicks K (1977) New methylcyclopentanoid terpenes from the larval defensive secretion of a chrysomelid beetle (Plugiodera versicolora). Proc Nat Acad Sci, USA 74: 2189–2193Google Scholar
  40. Morrow PA, Bellas TE, Eisner T (1976) Eucalyptus oils in the defensive oral discharge of Australian sawfly larvae (Hymenoptera: Pergidae). Oceologia 24: 193–206Google Scholar
  41. Nahrstedt A, Davis RH (1983) Occurrence, variation, and biosynthesis of the cyanogenic glucosides Linamarin and lotaustralin in species of the Heliconiini (Insecta: Lepidoptera). Comp Biochem Physiol 75B: 65–73Google Scholar
  42. Nishida R, Fukami H (1989) Host plant iridoid-based chemical defense of an aphid, Acrythosiphon nipponicus, against ladybird beetles. J Chem Ecol 15: 1837–1845Google Scholar
  43. Palo RT (1984) Distribution of birch (Betula spp.), willow (Salix spp.), and poplar (Populus spp.) secondary metabolites and their potential role as chemical defense against herbivores. J Chem Ecol 10: 499–520Google Scholar
  44. Pasteels JM, Daloze D (1977) Cardiac glycosides in the defensive secretion of Chrysomelid beetles: evidence for their production by the insects. Science 197: 70–72Google Scholar
  45. Pasteels JM, Gregoire JC (1983) The chemical ecology of defense in arthropods. Annu Rev Entomol 28: 263–289Google Scholar
  46. Pasteels JM, Daloze D, Dorsser W van, Roba J (1979) Cardiac glycosides in the defensive secretion of Chrysolina herbacea (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Identification, biological role and pharmacological activity. Comp Biochem Physiol 63C: 117–121Google Scholar
  47. Pasteels JM, Braekman JC, Daloze D, Ottinger R (1982) Chemical defense in Chrysomelid larvae and adults. Tetrahedron 38: 1891–1897Google Scholar
  48. Pasteels JM, Rowell-Rahier M, Braekman JC, Dupont A (1983) Salicin from host plant as precursor of salicylaldehyde in defensive secretion of Chrysomeline larvae. Physiol Ent 8: 307–314Google Scholar
  49. Pasteels JM, Rowell-Rahier M, Brakeman J-C, Daloze D (1984) Chemical defenses in leaf beetles and their larvae: the ecological, evolutionary and taxonomic significance. Biochem Syst Ecol 12: 395–406Google Scholar
  50. Pasteels JM, Rowell-Rahier M, Braekman JC, Daloze D, Duffey S (1989) Evolution of exocrine chemical defense in leaf beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Experentia 45: 295–300Google Scholar
  51. Pasteels JM, Duffey S, Rowell-Rahier M (1990) Toxins in Chrysomelid beetles. Possible evolutionary sequence from de novo synthesis to derivation from food-plant chemicals. J Chem Ecol 16: 211–222Google Scholar
  52. Prestwich GD (1983) The chemical defenses of termites. Sci Amer 249: 78–87Google Scholar
  53. Price PW (1987) The role of natural enemies is insect populations. In: Barbosa P, Schultz JC (eds) Insect Outbreaks. Academic Press, New York, pp 287–312Google Scholar
  54. Price PW, Westoby M, Rice B (1988) Parasite-mediated competition: some predictions and tests. Am Nat 131: 544–555Google Scholar
  55. Reichstein T, Euw J von, Parsons JA, Rothschild M (1968) Heart poisons in the monarch butterfly. Science 161: 861–866Google Scholar
  56. Robinson T (1974) Metabolism and function of alkaloids in plants. Science 184: 430–435Google Scholar
  57. Rosenthal GA, Janzen DH (1979) Herbivores: their interaction with secondary plant metabolites. Academic press, Orlando, FLGoogle Scholar
  58. Roth LM, Eisner T (1962) Chemical defenses in arthropods. Annu Rev Entomol 7: 107–136Google Scholar
  59. Rowell-Rahier M, Pasteels JM (1982) The significance of salicin for a Salix-feeder, Phratora (Phyllodecta) vitellinae. In: Visser JH, Minks AK (eds) Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Insect-Plant Relationships. Pudoc, Wageningen, pp. 73–79Google Scholar
  60. Rowell-Rahier M, Pasteels JM (1986) Economics of chemical defense in Chrysomelinae. J Chem Ecol 12: 1189–1203Google Scholar
  61. Schulte G, Scheuer PJ, McConnell OJ (1980) Two furanosesquiterpene marine metabolites with antifedant properties. Helv Chim Acta 63:2159–2167Google Scholar
  62. Seigler D, Price PW (1976) Secondary compounds in plants: primary functions. Am Nat 110:101–105Google Scholar
  63. Smiley JT, Horn JM, Rank NE (1985) Ecological effects of salicin at three trophic levels: new problems from old adaptations. Science 229:649–651Google Scholar
  64. Stermitz FR, Gardner DR, Odendaal FJ, Erlich PR (1986) Euphydryas anicia (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) utilization of iridoid glycosides from Castilleja and Besseya (Scrophulariaceae) host plants. J Chem Ecol 12:1459–1468Google Scholar
  65. Stermitz FR, Gardner DR, McFarland N (1988) Iridoid glycoside sequestration by two aposematic Penstemmon-feeding Geometrid larvae. J Chem Ecol 14:435–441Google Scholar
  66. Thompson JE, Walker RP, Wratten SJ, Faulkner DJ (1982) A chemical defense mechanism for the nudibranch Cadlina luteomarginata. Tetrahedron 38:1865–1873Google Scholar
  67. Vaughan GL, Jungreis AM (1977) Insensitivity of Lepidopteran tissues to Ouabain: physiological mechanisms for protection from cardiac glycosides. J Insect Physiol 23:585–593Google Scholar
  68. Whitham TG (1989) Plant hybrid zones as sinks for pests. Science 244:1490–1493Google Scholar
  69. Witz BW, Mushinsky HR (1989) Pygidial secretions of Pasimachis subsculatus (Coleoptera: Carabidae) deter predation by Eumeces inexpectatus (Squamata; Sinaidae). J Chem Ecol 15:1033–1044Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael J. C. Kearsley
    • 1
  • Thomas G. Whitham
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesNorthern Arizona UniversityFlagstaffUSA

Personalised recommendations