Advertisement

Journal of Chemical Ecology

, Volume 10, Issue 11, pp 1567–1577 | Cite as

Iridoid glycosides and host-plant specificity in larvae of the buckeye butterfly,Junonia coenia (Nymphalidae)

  • M. Deane Bowers
Article

Abstract

Larvae of the buckeye,Junonia coenia (Nymphalidae) feed primarily on plants in four families: Scrophulariaceae, Plantaginaceae, Verbenaceae, and Acanthaceae. These plant families have in common the presence of a group of plant secondary compounds, the iridoid glycosides. Larvae were reared on three plant species and two artificial diets, one with and one without iridoid glycosides.Larvae grew poorly and had low survivorship on the artificial diet without iridoid glycosides, while growth and survival on the artificial diet with iridoid glycosides was comparable to that on plants. Choice tests using artificial diets with and without iridoid glycosides showed that larvae: (1) chose diets with iridoid glycosides (in the form of a crude extract or pure compound) over a diet without; (2) showed no preference between the diet with the crude extract and that with pure iridoid glycoside, and (3) preferred the artificial diet with ground leaves of the host plant,Plantago lanceolata, over the diet with pure iridoid glycosides. The artificial diet that larvae had been reared on prior to these tests had no effect on subsequent larval preferences in the choice tests.

Key words

Iridoid glycoside Junonia coenia Lepidoptera Nymphalidae host-plant specificity coevolution insect-plant interaction Plantago lanceolata buckeye chemical ecology 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Berenbaum, M. 1981. Effects of linear furanocoumarins on an adapted specialist insect (Papilio polyxenes)Ecol. Entomol. 6:345–351.Google Scholar
  2. Berenbaum, M. 1983. Coumarins and caterpillars: A case for coevolution.Evolution 37:163–179.Google Scholar
  3. Bernays, E., andDeLuca, C. 1981. Insect anti-feedant properties of an iridoid glycoside: Ipolamiide.Experientia 37:1289–1290.Google Scholar
  4. Blum, M.S. 1983. Detoxication, deactivation and utilization of plant compounds by insects, pp. 265–275.in P.A. Hedin (ed.). Plant Resistance to Insects. American Chemical Society Symposium Series 208. American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  5. Bordner, J., Danehower, D., Thacker, J.D., Kennedy, G.G., Stinner, R.E., andWilson, K.G. 1983. Chemical basis for host-plant selection, pp. 245–264,in P.A. Hedin (ed.). Plant Resistance to Insects. American Chemical Society Symposium Series 208. American Chemical Society, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  6. Bowers, M.D. 1981. Unpalatability as a defense strategy of western checkerspot butterflies (Euphydryas Scudder, Nymphalidae).Evolution 34:586–600.Google Scholar
  7. Bowers, M.D. 1983. The role of iridoid glycosides in host-plant specificity of checkerspot butterflies.J. Chem. Ecol. 9:475–493.Google Scholar
  8. Burnett, W.C., Jones, S.B., Mabry, T.J., andPadolina, W.G. 1974. Sesquiterpene lactonesinsect feeding deterrents inVernonia.Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 2:25–29.Google Scholar
  9. Duff, R.B., Bacon, J.S.D., Mundie, C.M., Farmer, V.C., Russell, J.D., andForrester, A.R. 1965. Catalpol and methylcatalpol: Naturally occurring glycosides inPlantago andBuddleia species.Biochem. J. 96:1–5.Google Scholar
  10. Emmel, T.C., andEmmel, J.F., 1973. The Butterflies of Southern California. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  11. Harris, L. 1972. The Butterflies of Georgia. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Oklahoma.Google Scholar
  12. Harvey, D.J. 1984. Observations on the biology and systematics of the species ofJunonia butterflies (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) in Florida and the Bahamas.J. Res. Lep., in press.Google Scholar
  13. Howe, W.H. 1975. The Butterflies of North America. Doubleday, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Jensen, S.R., Nielsen, B.J.; andDahlgren, R. 1975. Iridoid compounds, their occurrence and systematic importance in the angiosperms.Bot Not. 128:148–180.Google Scholar
  15. Jermy, T., Hanson, F.E., andDethier, V.G. 1968. Induction of specific foodplant preference in lepidoptrous larvae.Entomol. Exp. Appl. 11:211–230.Google Scholar
  16. Jirawongse, V. 1964. A chemotaxonomic study of the Scrophulariaceae. PhD. thesis. Purdue University, University Microfilms, Inc.Google Scholar
  17. Klots, A.B. 1958. A Field Guide to the Butterflies. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.Google Scholar
  18. Kooiman, P. 1970. The occurrence of iridoid glycosides in the Scrophulariaceae.Acta Bot Neerl. 19:329–340.Google Scholar
  19. Lenczweski, B. 1980. Butterflies of Everglades National Park. South Florida Research Center Report T-588. 110 pp.Google Scholar
  20. Lincoln, D.E., Newton, T.S., Ehrlich, P.R., andWilliams, K.S. 1982. Coevolution of the checkerspot butterflyEuphydryas chalcedona and its larval food plantDiplacus aurantiacus: Larval response to protein and leaf resin.Oecologia 52:216–223.Google Scholar
  21. Munroe, E.G. 1951. The genusJunonia in the West indies (Lepidoptera, Nymphaiidae).Am. Mus.Novit. 1498:1 16.Google Scholar
  22. Munz, P.A. 1968. A California Flora and Supplement. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  23. Neck, R.W. 1976. Lepidopteran foodplant records from Texas.J. Res. Lepid. 15:75–82.Google Scholar
  24. Rodman, J.E., andChew, F.S. 1980. Phytochemical correlates of herbivory in a community of native and naturalized Cruciferae.Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 8:43–50.Google Scholar
  25. Schoonhoven, L.M. 1972. Secondary plant substances and insects, pp. 197–224,in V.C. Runeckles and T.C. Tso (eds.). Recent Advances in Phytochemistry, Vol. 5. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  26. Scott, J.A. 1972. Comparative mating and dispersal systems in butterflies. PhD thesis. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  27. Scott, J.A. 1975. Movement ofPrecis coenia, a “pseudoterritorial” submigrant (Lepidoptera: Nymphaiidae).J. Anim. Ecol. 44:843–850.Google Scholar
  28. Scudder, S.H. 1879.Junonia coenia in New England.Psyche 2:276–277.Google Scholar
  29. Scudder, S.H. 1889. The Butterflies of the Eastern United States with Special Reference to New England, published by the author. Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  30. Shapiro, A.M. 1974a. The butterfly fauna of the Sacramento Valley, California.J. Res. Lepid. 13:115–122.Google Scholar
  31. Shapiro, A.M. 1974b. Butterflies of the Suisun Marsh, California.J. Res. Lepid. 13:191–206.Google Scholar
  32. Shields, O. 1966. Reference in North American Annual Summary for 1965, Zone I. News of the Lepidopterists' Society Vol. 3, p.4.Google Scholar
  33. Sokal, R.R., andRohlf, F.J. 1969. Biometry. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  34. Tietz, H.M. 1952. The Lepidoptera of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania State College, School of Agriculture, State College, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  35. Tietz, H.M. 1972. An Index to the Life Histories of the North American Macrolepidoptera. Allyn Museum of Entomology, Sarasota, Florida.Google Scholar
  36. Tilden, J.W. 1970. Comments on the nearctic members of the genusPrecis Huebner.J. Res. Lepid. 9:101–108.Google Scholar
  37. Trim, A.R., andHill, R. 1952. The preparation and properties of aucubin, asperuloside and some related glycosides.Biochem. J. 50:310–319.Google Scholar
  38. Turner, T.W., andParnell, J.R. 1983. The identification of two speciesof Junonia Hubner (Nymphaiidae),J. evarete andJ. genoveva, in Jamaica with the establishment of neotypes for both species. Abstract, 1983 meeting of Lepidopterists' Society, Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
  39. Weiffering, J.H. 1966. Aucubinartige Glucoside (Pseudoindikane) und verwandte Heteroside als systematicshe Merkmale.Phytochemistry 5:1053–1064.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Deane Bowers
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesStanford universityStanford

Personalised recommendations