, Volume 47, Issue 2, pp 175–183 | Cite as

Population structure of pierid butterflies

III. Pest populations of Colias philodice eriphyle
  • Bruce E. Tabashnik


Mark-release-recapture techniques were used to study alfalfa pest populations of Colias philodice eriphyle. Two new methods for estimating relative catchability and residence rates were used to compare males to females. The results show that: (1) both sexes had limited dispersal, with mean individual ranges less than 100 m; (2) males were more abundant than females; (3) males and females had similar residence times; (4) males were more catchable than females in uncut fields, but not in cut fields. Explanations for the differences between the sexes are considered. Females may be less catchable in uncut fields because they spend less time in flight than males. Males may be more abundant than females because they develop faster, and may have lower pre-adult mortality. The differences between the sexes are discussed with respect to reproductive strategy. Comparisons with non-pest C.p. eriphyle show differences between pest and non-pest populations. Pest C.p. eriphyle were more sedentary. The residence times were similar for pest and non-pest populations, but pest C.p. eriphyle probably have longer “reproductive life-spans”. Mid-summer broods of the pest population were partially overlapping; the non-pest population has discrete broods. Pest population density varied less between years than non-pest population density. The differences between pest and non-pest C.p. eriphyle support the idea of ecological diversity among conspecific populations.


Population Density Population Structure Reproductive Strategy Ecological Diversity Pest Population 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Begon M (1979) Investigating animal abundance: capture-recapture for biologists. University Park Press BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  2. Berube DE (1972) Behavioral and physiological adaptations in the evolution of foodplant specificity in a species complex of Colias butterflies. Yale University PhD thesisGoogle Scholar
  3. Brussard PF, Ehrlich PR (1970) The population structure of Erebia epipsodea (Lepidoptera: Satyrinae). Ecology 51:119–129Google Scholar
  4. California Department of Food and Agriculture. (1978) Estimated damage and crop loss caused by insect and mite pests 1976Google Scholar
  5. California Department of Food and Agriculture. (1979) Estimated damage and crop loss caused by insect and mite pests 1977Google Scholar
  6. Chew FS (1975) Coevolution of pierid butterflies and their cruciferous foodplants. I. The relative quality of available resources. Oecologia (Berl) 20:117–127Google Scholar
  7. Cook LM, Brower LP, Croze HJ (1967) The accuracy of a population estimation from multiple recapture data. J Animal Ecology 36:57–60Google Scholar
  8. Cormack RM (1966) A test for equal catchability. Biometrics 22:330–342Google Scholar
  9. Cullenward MJ, Ehrlich PR, White RR, Holdren CE (1979) The ecology and population genetics of an alpine checkerspot butterfly, Euphydryas anicia. Oecologia (Berl) 38:1–12Google Scholar
  10. Ehrlich PR (1965) The population biology of Euphydryas editha. II. The structure of the Jasper Ridge colony. Evolution 19:327–336Google Scholar
  11. Ehrlich PR, Davidson SE (1960) Techniques for capture-recapture studies of lepidoptera populations. Jour Lep Soc 14:227–229Google Scholar
  12. Ehrlich PR, Gilbert LE (1973) Population structure and dynamics of the tropical butterfly Heliconius ethilla. Biotropica 5:69–82Google Scholar
  13. Ehrlich PR, Murphy DD, Singer MC, Sherwood CB, White RR, Brown IL (1980) Extinction, reduction, stability and increase: the responses of Checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas) populations to the California drought. Oecologia (Berl), 46:101–105Google Scholar
  14. Ehrlich PR, White RR, Singer MC, McKechnie SW, Gilbert LE (1975) Checkerspot butterflies: a historical perspective. Science 188:221–228Google Scholar
  15. Fisher RA (1958) The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, 2nd rev ed Dover Publications Inc New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Gray PHH (1967a) Correlations between characters in species of Colias (Lepidoptera: Pieridae). Entomologist 1967:62–63Google Scholar
  17. Gray PHH (1967b) Some biometrics in Pieris and Colias (Lepidoptera: Pieridae) in Quebec and Nova Scotia. NY Entomol Soc 75:12–17Google Scholar
  18. Hovanitz W (1944) Physiological behavior and geography in control of the alfalfa butterfly. Jour Econ Ent 37:740–745Google Scholar
  19. Jeffords MR, Sternburg JG, Waldbauer GP (1979) Batesian mimicry: field demonstration of the survival value of pipevine swallowtail and monarch color patterns. Evolution 33:275–286Google Scholar
  20. Jolly GM (1965) Explicit estimates from capture-recapture data with both death and immigration-stochastic model. Biometrika 52:225–247Google Scholar
  21. Kettlewell HBD, Berry RJ, Cadbury CJ, Phillips GC (1969) Differences in behavior, dominance and survival within a cline. Heredity 24:15–25Google Scholar
  22. Manly BFJ (1973) A note on the estimation of selective values from recaptures of marked animals when selection pressures remain constant over time. Res Popul Ecol 14:151–158Google Scholar
  23. Maynard Smith J (1978) The Evolution of Sex. Cambridge London University PressGoogle Scholar
  24. Michelbacher AE, Smith RF (1943) Some natural factors limiting the abundance of the alfalfa butterfly. Hilgardia 15:369–397Google Scholar
  25. Roff DA (1973) An examination of some statistical tests used in the analysis of mark-recapture data. Oecologia (Berl) 12:15–34Google Scholar
  26. Schrier RD, Cullenward MJ, Ehrlich PR, White RR (1976) The structure and genetics of a montane population of the Checkerspot butterfly, Chlosyne palla. Oecologia (Berl) 25:279–289Google Scholar
  27. Scott JA (1973) Convergence of population biology and adult behavior in two sympatric butterflies, Neominois ridingsii (Papilionoidea: Nymphalidae) and Amblyscintes simius (Hesperioidea: Hesperiidae). J Animal Ecology 42:663–672Google Scholar
  28. Scott JA (1975) Flight patterns among eleven species of diurnal lepidoptera. Ecology 56:1367–1377Google Scholar
  29. Seber GAE (1973) The estimation of animal abundance and related parameters. Griffin Co LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Smith RF, Bryan DE, Allen WW (1949) The relation of flights of Colias to larval population density. Ecology 30:288–297Google Scholar
  31. Stern VM, Bowen WR (1963) Ecological studies of Trichogramma semifumatum with notes on Apanteles medicaginis and their suppression of Colias eurytheme in southern California. Ann Entomol Soc Amer 56:358–372Google Scholar
  32. Stern VM, Smith RF (1960) Factors affecting egg production and oviposition in populations of Colias philodice eurytheme Boisduval (Lepidoptera: Pieridae). Hilgardia 29:411–454Google Scholar
  33. Summers CG, Cothran WR (1972) Timing of insecticide applications against the Egyptian alfalfa weevil: control and effects on non-target insects. Proc Calif Alfalfa Symp, Dec 5–6, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  34. Summers CG, Coviello RL, Cothran WR (1975) The effect on selected entomophagous insects of insecticides applied for pea aphid control in alfalfa. Environ Entomol 4:612–614Google Scholar
  35. US. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (1978) Climatological Data. Colorado 83Google Scholar
  36. US. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (1979) Climatological Data. Colorado 84Google Scholar
  37. van den Bosch R, Reynolds HT, Dietrick EJ (1956) Toxicity of widely used insecticides to beneficial insects in California cotton and alfalfa fields. J Econ Entomol 49:359–363Google Scholar
  38. Watt WB (1968) Adaptive significance of pigment polymorphisms in Colias butterflies. I. Variation of melanin pigment in relation to thermoregulation. Evolution 22:437–458Google Scholar
  39. Watt WB, Chew FS, Snyder LG, Watt AG, Rothschild DE (1977) Population structure of pierid butterflies. I. Numbers and movements of some montane Colias species. Oecologia (Berl) 27:1–22Google Scholar
  40. Watt WB, Han D, Tabashnik B (1979) Population structure of pierid butterflies. II. A “native” population of Colias philodice eriphyle in Colorado. Oecologia (Berl) 44:44–52Google Scholar
  41. Wiklund C, Fagerström T (1977) Why do males emerge before females? A hypothesis to explain the incidence of protandry in butterflies Oecologia (Berl) 31:153–158Google Scholar
  42. Wright S (1951) The genetical structure of populations. Ann Eugenics 15:323–354Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruce E. Tabashnik
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  2. 2.The Rocky Mountain Biological LaboratoryCrested ButteUSA

Personalised recommendations