Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 78, Issue 2, pp 283–288 | Cite as

Influence of host-plant density and male harassment on the distribution of female Euphydryas anicia (Nymphalidae)

  • F. J. Odendaal
  • P. Turchin
  • F. R. Stermitz
Original Papers

Summary

We studied behavioral mechanisms underlying the spatial distribution of Euphydryas anicia (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) females searching for larval host plants on a flat plain in Colorado. The rate of female movement, as represented by an empirically estimated diffusion coefficient, is affected by two factors. First, when searching in areas of high host-plant density, females tend to make sharper turns and fly for shorter distances between landings, compared to areas of low plant density. As a result, the rate of female displacement is lowered when they search in areas of high host-plant density, and thus females tend to aggregate in such areas. The second factor affecting female movement is the presence of males. Harassment by males induces females to increase the rate of their movement, and females are often chased out of host patches by males. Our results explain the observed spatial and temporal patterns of female distribution in relation to the distribution of host plants and males. In years when host plants are plentiful, harrassement by males in one host patch induces females to move to another. This pattern of female movement tends to disrupt the relationship between the spatial distributions of host plants and females, as well as females and males. In the year when hosts were concentrated in a single large patch, females could not easily avoid male harassment, and consequently we observed strong corelations of female-host distributions and male-female distributions.

Key words

Butterfly movement Correlated random walk Diffusion coefficient Euphydryas anicia Insect-plant interaction Male harassment 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brussard PF, Ehrlich PR, Singer MC (1974) Adult movements and population structure in Euphydryas editha. Evolution 28:408–415Google Scholar
  2. Cappuccino N, Kareiva P (1985) Coping with capricious environment: a population study of the rare woodland butterfly Pieris virginiensis. Ecology 66:152–161Google Scholar
  3. Courtney SP, Duggan AE (1983) The biology of the orange tip butterfly Anthocaris cardamines in Britain. Ecol Entomol 8:271–281Google Scholar
  4. Cullenward MJ, Ehrlich PR, White RR, Holdren CE (1979) The ecology and population genetics of an alpine checkerspot butterfly, Euphydryas anicia. Oecologia 38:1–12Google Scholar
  5. Diaconis P, Efron B (1983) Computer-intensive methods in statistics. Sci Am 248:116–131Google Scholar
  6. Dobzhansky T, Wright S (1943) Genetics of natural populations. X. Dispersion rates in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Genetics 28:304–340Google Scholar
  7. Efron B (1982) The jacknife, the bootstrap and other resampling plans. SIAM Monograph No. 38Google Scholar
  8. Ehrlich PR, Murphy DD (1981) The population biology of the checkerspot butterflies (Euphydryas). Biol Zentralbl 100:613–629Google Scholar
  9. Ehrlich PR, White RR, Singer MC, McKechnie SW, Gilbert LE (1975) Checkerspot butterflies: a historical perspective. Science 176:221–298Google Scholar
  10. Ferris CD, Brown FM (1981) Butterflies of the Rocky Mountain States. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma, pp 331–332Google Scholar
  11. Hayes JL (1981) The population ecology of a natural population of the pierid butterfly Colias alexandria. Oecologia 49:188–200Google Scholar
  12. Iwasa Y, Odendaal FJ, Murphy DD, Ehrlich PR, Launer AL (1983) Emergence patterns in male butterflies: a hypothesis and a test. Theor Pop Biol 23:363–379Google Scholar
  13. Jones R (1977) Movement patterns and egg distribution in cabbage butterflies. J Anim Ecol 46:195–212Google Scholar
  14. Kareiva PM (1982) Experimental and mathematical analyses of herbivore movement: quantifying the influence of plant spacing and quality on foraging discrimination. Ecol Monogr 52:261–282Google Scholar
  15. Kareiva PM (1983) Local movement in herbivorous insects: applying a passive diffucion model to mark-recapture field experiments. Oecologia 57:322–327Google Scholar
  16. Kareiva PM, Shigesada N (1983) Analyzing insect movement as a correlated random walk. Oecologia 56:234–238Google Scholar
  17. Kingsolver JG (1983a) Thermoregulation and flight in Colias butterflies: elevational patterns and mechanistic limitations. Ecology 64:534–545Google Scholar
  18. Kingsolver JG (1983b) Ecological significance of flight activity in Colias butterflies: implications for reproductive strategy and population structure. Ecology 64:546–551Google Scholar
  19. Levin SA (1981) The role of theoreticalecology in the description and understanding of populations in heterogeneous environements. Am Zool 21:865–875Google Scholar
  20. Lovely PS, Dahlquist FW (1975) Statistical measures of bacterial motility and chemotaxis. J Theor Biol 50:477–496Google Scholar
  21. Marsh LM, Jones RE (1988) The form and consequences of random walk movement models. (in press)Google Scholar
  22. Murphy DD, Menninger MS, Ehrlich PR (1984) Nectar source distribution as a determinant of oviposition host species in Euphydryas chalcedona. Oecologia 62:269–271Google Scholar
  23. Odendaal FJ, Iwasa Y, Ehrlich PR (1985) Duration of female availability and its effect on butterfly mating systems. Am Nat 125:673–678Google Scholar
  24. Odendaal FJ, Turchin P, Stermitz FR (1988) An incidental-effect hypothesis explaining aggregation of males in a population of Euphydryas anicia. Am Nat 132:735–749Google Scholar
  25. Odendaal FJ, Jones KN, Stermitz FR (1989) Mating behavior and male investment in Euphydryas anicia (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). J Res Lep (in press)Google Scholar
  26. Okubo A (1980) Diffusion and Ecological Problems: Mathematical Problems. Springer, Heidelberg Berlin New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Rausher MD (1985) Variability for host preference in insect populations: mechanistic and evolutionary models. J Insect Physiol 31(11):873–889Google Scholar
  28. Reed WJ (1983) Confidence estimation of ecological aggregation indices based on counts—a robust procedure. Biometrics 39:987–998Google Scholar
  29. Rutowski RL (1978) The form and function of ascending flights in Colias butterflies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 3:163–172Google Scholar
  30. Shields O (1967) Hilltopping. J Res Lep 6:69–178Google Scholar
  31. Singer MC (1972) Complex components of habitat suitability within a butterfly colony. Science 173:75–77Google Scholar
  32. Singer MC (1982) Quantification of host preference by manipulation of oviposition behavior in the butterfly Euphydryas editha. Oecologia 52:224–229Google Scholar
  33. Singer MC, Ehrlich PR (1979) Population dynamics of the checkerspot butterfly Euphydryas editha. Fortschr Zool 25:53–60Google Scholar
  34. Skellam JG (1973) The formulation and interpretation of mathematical models of diffusionary processes in population biology. In: Bartlett MS, Hiorns RW (eds) The mathematical theory of the dynamics of biological population. Academic Press, New York, pp 63–85Google Scholar
  35. White RR (1979) Foodplant of alpine Euphydryas anicia (Nymphalidae). J Lep Soc 33:170–173Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. J. Odendaal
    • 1
  • P. Turchin
    • 2
  • F. R. Stermitz
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Department of Zoology, NJ-15University of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  3. 3.Department of ChemistryColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA

Personalised recommendations