, Volume 98, Issue 2, pp 130–132 | Cite as

Polyphagy and adult body size in geometrid moths

  • J. Lindström
  • L. Kaila
  • P. Niemelä
Original Paper


We compared the average body size (wing span) of Finnish geometrid moth species in relation to their degree of polyphagy and quality of food. The first hypothesis, originally constructed for mammals and birds, states that smaller species should more often be specialists than large species, because of the different relationships between body size and home range size, and body size and daily energy requirements. According to the second hypothesis, smaller species should feed more often on herbs than do larger species, because of the different defence mechanisms of herbs and woody plants. The results support both of these hypotheses. Specialist species are smaller than oligophagous or polyphagous species, and small species concentrate on herbs. We conclude that quality and quantity of food resources may explain the pattern.

Key words

Polyphagy Body size Geometridae 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bermardo J (1993) Determinants of maturation in animals. Trends Ecol Evol 8: 166–173Google Scholar
  2. Blackburn TM, Harvey PH, Pagel MD (1990) Species number, population density and body size relationships in natural communities. J Anim Ecol 59: 335–345Google Scholar
  3. Blueweiss L, Fox H, Kudzma V, Nakashima D, Peters R, Sams S (1978) Relationships between body size and some life history parameters. Oecologia 37: 257–272Google Scholar
  4. Brattsten LB (1979) Biochemical defense mechanisms in herbivores against plant allelochemicals. In: Rosenthal GA, Janzen DH (eds) Herbivores. Their interaction with secondary plant metabolites. Academic Press, New York, pp 199–270Google Scholar
  5. Brown JH, Maurer BA (1986) Body size, ecological dominance and Cope's rule. Nature 324: 248–250Google Scholar
  6. Brown JH, Maurer BA (1989) Macroecology: the division of food and space among species on continents. Science 243: 1145–1150Google Scholar
  7. Currie DJ, Fritz JT (1993) Global patterns of animal abundance and species energy use. Oikos 67: 56–68Google Scholar
  8. Feeny PP (1976) Plant apparency and chemical defence. Recent Adv Phytochem 10: 1–40Google Scholar
  9. Hämet-Ahti L, Suominen J, Ulvinen T, Uotila P, Vuokko S. (1984) Retkeilykasvio (The field flora of Finland). Suomen Luonnonsuojelun Tuki Oy, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  10. Harvey PH, Bradbury JW (1991) Sexual selection. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology. An evolutionary approach. 3rd ed. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, pp 203–233Google Scholar
  11. Harvey PH, Pagel MD (1991) The comparative method in evolutionary biology, Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Honěk A (1993) Intraspecific variation in body size and fecundity in insects: a general relationship. Oikos 66: 483–492Google Scholar
  13. Hutchinson GE, MacArthur RH (1959) A theoretical model of size distributions among species of animals. Am Nat. 93: 117–125Google Scholar
  14. Lawton JH (1989) What is the relationship between population density and body size in animals? Oikos 55: 429–434Google Scholar
  15. Lindroth RL (1991) Differential toxicity of plant allelochemicals to insects: roles of enzymatic detoxication systems. In: Bernays E (ed) Insect-plant interactions, vol III. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 1–33Google Scholar
  16. Mikkola K, Jalas J, Peltonen O, (1985) Suomen perhoset, Mittarit I (Lepidoptera of Finland, Geometridae I). Suomen perhostutkijain seura, TampereGoogle Scholar
  17. Mikkola K, Jalas J, Peltonen O. (1989) Suomen perhoset, Mittarit II [Lepidoptera of Finland, Geometridae II]. Suomen perhostutkijain seura. Recallmed Oy, HankoGoogle Scholar
  18. Miller WE (1977) Wing measure as a size index in Lepidoptera: The family Olethreutidae. Ann Entomol Soc Am 70: 253–256Google Scholar
  19. Niemelä P, Hanhimäki S, Mannila R (1981) The relationship of adult size in noctuid moths (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae) to breadth of diet and growth form of host plants. Ann Entomol Fenn 47: 17–20Google Scholar
  20. Peters RH (1983) The ecological implications of body size. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Reiss MJ (1989) The allometry of growth and reproduction. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Rhoades DF (1985) Offensive-defensive interactions between herbivores and plants: their relevance in herbivore population dynamics and ecological theory. Am Nat 125: 205–238Google Scholar
  23. Rhoades DF, Cates RG (1976) Toward a general theory of plant herbivore chemistry. Recent Adv of Phytochemistry 10: 168–213Google Scholar
  24. Schmidt-Nielsen K (1984) Scaling. Why is animal size so important? Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Scriber JM, Feeny P (1979) Growth of herbivorous caterpillars in relation to feeding specialization and to the growth form of their food plants. Ecology 60: 829–850Google Scholar
  26. Varis V, Jalava J, Kyrki J (1987) Check-list of Finnish Lepidoptera. Not Entomol 67: 49–118Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Verlag 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Lindström
    • 1
  • L. Kaila
    • 2
  • P. Niemelä
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Zoology, Division of EcologyUniversity of HelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Zoological MuseumUniversity of HelsinkiFinland
  3. 3.Department of Forest EcologyFinnish Forest Research InstituteVantaaFinland

Personalised recommendations