Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 62–74

Diet divergence in two sympatric congeneric butterflies: Community or species level phenomenon?

  • C. D. Thomas
  • D. Vasco
  • M. C. Singer
  • D. Ng
  • R. R. White
  • D. Hinkley
Papers

Summary

Two species ofEuphydryas butterflies were studied in California, USA, and showed considerable diet overlap at the species level. They utilize many of the same plant genera for oviposition. However,E. editha is less likely to use woody perennials than isE. chalcedona.

Both butterfly species are known to specialize on different host plants in different populations, so species level divergence may not be a good predictor of community level divergence. Within five communities,E. editha andE. chalcedona showed no dietary overlap. A major component of the niche ofE. editha in one community was occupied byE. chalcedona in a second community, even though both butterfly species occupied both communities. These resource use patterns indicate that community level interactions may affect diet divergence. The degree to which divergence within communities is greater (or less) than expected from a species level comparison may be used to provide a measure of community organization. Equations are given in the Appendix for calculating overlap probabilities from presence/absence types of data; in this study, presence is oviposition on a particular plant species, absence is no oviposition on that plant species. Given the various assumptions of the model,E. editha andE. chalcedona show significant community level components of their dietary divergence in the areas studied. However, in some other communitiesE. editha andE. chalcedona do share host plant species. Therefore, we could not demonstrate community level divergence conclusively, nor has this been demonstrated for any other pair of insect herbivore species. We do not know whether this is because the phenomenon is truly rare or just very hard to demonstrate.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brown, I. L. and Ehrlich, P. R. (1980) Population biology of the checkerspot butterflyEuphydryas chalcedona. Structure of the Jasper Ridge colony.Oecologia 47, 239–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brues, C. T. (1924) The specificity of food-plants in the evolution of phytophagous insects.Amer. Natur. 58, 127–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Case, T. J. and Sidell, R. (1983) Pattern and chance in the structure of model and natural communities.Evolution 37, 832–49.Google Scholar
  4. Chew, F. S. (1981) Coexistence and local extinction in two pierid butterflies.Amer. Natur. 118, 655–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Colwell, R. K. and Winkler, D. W. (1984) A null model for null models in biogeography. InEcological Communities: Conceptual Issues and the Evidence (D. R. Strong, D. Simberloff, L. Abele and A. B. Thistle, eds). pp. 344–59. Princeton Univ. Press, N.J.Google Scholar
  6. Ehrlich, P. R. and Raven, P. (1965) Butterflies and plants: a study in coevolution.Evolution 18, 586–608.Google Scholar
  7. Fritz, R. S., Sacchi, C. F. and Price, P. W. (1986) Competition versus host plant phenotype in species composition: willow sawflies.Ecology 67, 1608–18.Google Scholar
  8. Gilbert, L. E. (1979) Development of theory in the analysis of insect-plant interactions. InAnalysis of Ecological Systems (D. J. Horn, G. R. Stairs and R. D. Mitchell, eds) pp. 117–54. Ohio State Univ. Press, Columbus.Google Scholar
  9. Harvey, P. H., Colwell, R. K., Silvertown, J. W. and May, R. M. (1983) Null models in ecology.Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 14, 189–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Holdren, C. E. and Ehrlich, P. R. (1982) Ecological determinants of food plant choice in the checkerspot butterflyEuphydryas editha in Colorado.Oecologia 52, 417–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Murphy, D. D. (1983) Nectar sources as constraints on the distribution of egg masses by the checkerspot butterflyEuphydryas chalcedona.Environ. Ent. 12, 463–66.Google Scholar
  12. Murphy, D. D. and Ehrlich, P. R. (1983) Biosystematics of theEuphydryas of the Central Great Basin with the description of a new subspecies.J. Res. Lepid. 22, 254–61.Google Scholar
  13. Rausher, M. D., Mackay, D. A. and Singer, M. C. (1981) Pre- and post-alighting host discrimination byEuphydryas editha butterflies: the behavioural mechanisms causing clumped distributions of egg clusters.Anim. Behav. 29, 1220–8.Google Scholar
  14. Schoener, T. W. (1988) Testing for non-randomness in sizes and habitats of West Indian lizards: choice of species pool affects conclusions from null models.Evol. Ecol. 2, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Singer, M. C. (1971) Evolution of food-plant preference in the butterflyEuphydryas editha.Evolution 25, 383–9.Google Scholar
  16. Singer, M. C. (1972) Complex components of habitat suitability within a butterfly colony.Science 176, 75–7.Google Scholar
  17. Singer, M. C. (1983) Determinants of multiple host use by a phytophagous insect population.Evolution 37, 389–403.Google Scholar
  18. Smiley, J. (1978) Plant chemistry and the evolution of host specificity: new evidence fromHeliconius andPassiflora.Science 201, 745–7.Google Scholar
  19. Strong, D. R., Szyska, L. A. and Simberloff, D. (1979) Tests of community-wide character displacement against null hypotheses.Evolution 33, 897–913.Google Scholar
  20. Strong, D. R., Lawton, J. H. and Southwood, T. R. E. (1984)Insects on plants: community patterns and mechanisms. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  21. Thomas, C. D., Ng, D., Singer, M. C., Mallet, J. L. B., Parmesan, C. and Billington, H. L. (1987) Incorporation of a European weed into the diet of a North American herbivore.Evolution 41, 892–901.Google Scholar
  22. White, R. R. and Singer, M. C. (1974) Geographical distribution of hostplant choice inEuphydryas editha.J. Lepid. Soc. 28, 103–7.Google Scholar
  23. Zwölfer, H. (1977) Der Informationswert faunistischer Daten fur populationokologische Untersuchungen: Das Verteilungsmuster der Wirtstrassen vonLarinus sturnus Schall undL. jaceae F. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae).Verh. des Sechen Int. Symp. uber Entomofaunistik in Mitteluropa.Junk, The Hague. pp. 209–19.Google Scholar
  24. Zwölfer, H. (1979) Strategies and counterstrategies in insect population systems competing for space and food in flower heads and plant galls.Fortschr. Zool. 25, 331–53.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chapman and Hall Ltd. 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. D. Thomas
    • 1
  • D. Vasco
    • 1
  • M. C. Singer
    • 1
  • D. Ng
    • 1
  • R. R. White
    • 2
  • D. Hinkley
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity of TexasAustinUSA
  2. 2.Biology S-56City College of San FranciscoUSA
  3. 3.Department of MathematicsUniversity of TexasAustinUSA
  4. 4.Centre for Population Biology, Department of Pure and Applied BiologyImperial College at Silwood ParkAscotUK

Personalised recommendations