, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 75–88 | Cite as

First-instar monarch larval growth and survival on milkweeds in southern California: effects of latex, leaf hairs and cardenolides

  • Myron P. Zalucki
  • Stephen B. Malcolm
  • Christopher C. Hanlon
  • Timothy D. Paine
Research Paper


Growth rate and survival of first-instar larvae of Danaus plexippus, a milkweed specialist, depended on milkweed species, and was related to the amount of latex produced from wounds, leaf cardenolide concentrations and the presence of leaf hairs. Larval growth was more rapid and survival was higher on leaves of Asclepias californica with experimentally reduced latex, and this species has characteristically high latex, low- to mid-range cardenolide concentrations, and very hirsute leaves. Similarly, growth was higher on reduced latex leaves of both A. eriocarpa (a high latex/high cardenolide, hirsute species) and A. erosa (glabrous fleshy leaves, high latex/high cardenolides). There were no differences in either survival or growth rate between larvae on reduced latex or control leaves of the low latex/low cardenolide A. fascicularis with soft glabrous leaves and both survival and growth rate were higher on this species than the other species tested. Larval growth rates on leaves with reduced latex were similar among ten milkweed species tested to date but differed from growth rates on intact leaves suggesting that latex and possibly included cardenolides are both important in first-instar monarch larval growth, development and survival. We show for a range of ecologically important milkweeds that experiments on cut plant material (no latex outflow) lead to higher growth rates compared to intact plants. Such laboratory assays based on detached leaves will be misleading if the objective is to determine the impact of treatments such as Bt-maize pollen on monarchs on field plants.


Asclepias Cardenolide Danaus plexippus Growth rate Latex Milkweed Neonate larvae Plant defense Survival 



We wish to thank Barbara Cockrell for help with field experiments and valuable comments on the manuscript. Tammi Hoevenaar and Jim Fordyce helped extensively with laboratory analyses of cardenolides and Allister Malcolm collected and tabulated all HPLC data. This research was supported by the Western Michigan University Faculty Research and Creative Activities Research Fund and a special study leave grant to MPZ from the University of Queensland, and support from the Department of Entomology, University of California, Riverside.


  1. Ackery PR, Vane-Wright RI (1984) Milkweed butterflies: their cladistics and biology. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  2. Agrawal AA (2000) Specificity of induced resistance in wild radish: causes and consequences for two specialist and two generalist caterpillars. Oikos 89:493–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Agrawal AA, Fishbein M (2006) Plant defense syndromes. Ecology 87(Suppl):S132–S149Google Scholar
  4. Agrawal AA, Fishbein M (2008) Phylogenetic escalation and decline of plant defense strategies. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol 105, pp 10057–10060Google Scholar
  5. Agrawal AA, Konno K (2009) Latex: a model for understanding mechanisms, ecology and evolution of plant defense against herbivory. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 40:311–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anderson PL, Hellmich RL, Sears MK, Sumerford DV, Lewis LC (2004) Effects of Cry1Ab-expressing corn anthers on monarch butterfly larvae. Environ Entomol 33:1109–1115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baldwin IT (1991) Damage-induced alkaloids in wild tobacco. In: Tallamy DW, Raupp MJ (eds) Phytochemical induction by herbivores. Wiley, New York, pp 47–69Google Scholar
  8. Bernays EA, Chapman RF (1994) Host-plant selection of phytophagous insects. Chapman and Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Brower LP (1996) Monarch butterfly orientation: missing pieces of a magnificent puzzle. J Exp Biol 199:93–103PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Brower LP, Nelson CJ, Seiber JN, Fink LS, Bond C (1988) Exaptation as an alternative to co-evolution in the cardenolide-based chemical defense of monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus L.) against avian predators. In: Spencer KC (ed) Chemical mediation of coevolution. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 447–475Google Scholar
  11. Cohen JA, Brower LP (1982) Oviposition and larval success of wild monarch butterflies (Lepidoptera: Danaidae) in relation to host size and cardenolide concentration. J Kans Entomol Soc 55:343–348Google Scholar
  12. Demarco D, Castro MM (2008) Laticíferos articulados anastomosados em espécies de Asclepiadae (Asclepiadoidea, Apocynaceae) e suas implicações ecológicas. Revista Brasileira de Botânica 31:701–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dussourd DE (1993) Foraging with finesse: caterpillar adaptations for circumventing plant defences. In: Stamp NE, Casey TM (eds) Caterpillars: ecological and evolutionary constraints on foraging. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 93–131Google Scholar
  14. Dussourd DE (2009) Do canal-cutting behaviours facilitate host-range expansion by insect herbivores? Biol J Linn Soc 96:715–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Feeny PP (1976) Plant apparency and chemical defense. Recent Adv Phytochem 10:1–40Google Scholar
  16. Gould F (1988) Genetics of pairwise and multispecies plant-herbivore coevolution. In: Spencer KC (ed) Chemical mediation of coevolution. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 13–55Google Scholar
  17. Haribal M, Renwick JAA (1996) Oviposition stimulants for the monarch butterfly: flavonol glycosides from Asclepias curassavica. Phytochemistry 41:137–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hellmich RL, Siegfried B, Sears MK, Stanley-Horn DE, Mattila HR, Spencer T, Bidne KG, Lewis LC (2001) Monarch larvae sensitivity to Bacillus thuringiensis—purified proteins and pollen. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:11925–11930Google Scholar
  19. Herms DA, Mattson WJ (1992) The dilemma of plants: to grow or defend. Q Rev Biol 67:283–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Horisberger J-D (1994) The NaK-ATPase: structure–function relationship. R.G. Landes Company, AustinGoogle Scholar
  21. Karban R, Baldwin IT (1997) Induced responses to herbivory. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  22. Kogan M, Cope D (1974) Feeding and nutrition of insects associated with soybeans. 3. Food intake, utilization, and growth in the soybean looper, Pseudoplusia includens. Ann Entomol Soc Am 67:66–72Google Scholar
  23. Lang A, Otto M (2010) A synthesis of laboratory and field studies on the effects of transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) maize on non-target Lepidopetra. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 135:121–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lucansky TW, Clough KT (1986) Comparative anatomy and morphology of Asclepias perennis and A. tuberosa subspecies rolfsii. Bot Gaz 147:290–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Malcolm SB (1991) Cardenolide-mediated interactions between plants and herbivores. In: Rosenthal GA, Berenbaum MR (eds) Herbivores: their interactions with secondary plant metabolites. The chemical participants, vol I, 2nd edn. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 251–296Google Scholar
  26. Malcolm SB (1995) Milkweeds, monarch butterflies and the ecological significance of cardenolides. Chemoecology 5(6):101–117Google Scholar
  27. Malcolm SB, Brower LP (1986) Selective oviposition by monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus L.) in a mixed stand of Asclepias curassavica L. and A. incarnata L. in south Florida. J Lepidopterists’ Soc 40:255–263Google Scholar
  28. Malcolm SB, Brower LP (1989) Evolutionary and ecological implications of cardenolide sequestration in the monarch butterfly. Experientia 45:284–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Malcolm SB, Zalucki MP (1996) Milkweed latex and cardenolide induction may resolve the lethal plant defence paradox. Entomologia Expimentalis et Applicata 80:193–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Martel JW, Malcolm SB (2004) Aphid population dynamics and density-dependent reduction and induction of milkweed cardenolides. J Chem Ecol 30:545–561Google Scholar
  31. Nelson CJ (1993) Sequestration and storage of cardenolides and cardenolide glycosides by Danaus plexippus L. and D. chrysippus petelia (Stoll) when reared on Asclepias fruticosa L.; a review of some factors influencing sequestration process. In: Malcolm SB, Zalucki MP (eds) Biology and conservation of the monarch butterfly. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Science, series no. 38, Los Angeles, pp 91–105Google Scholar
  32. Oyeyele S, Zalucki MP (1990) Cardiac glycosides and oviposition by Danaus plexippus on Asclepias fruticosa in south-east Queensland Australia, with notes on the effects of plant nitrogen. Ecol Entomol 15:177–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pereira DA, Ramos MV, Souza DP, Portela TCL, Guimarães Madeira SVF, Freitas CDT (2010) Digestibility of defense proteins in latex of milkweeds by digestive proteases of monarch butterflies, Danaus plexippus L.: a potential determinant of plant-herbivore interactions. Plant Sci 179:348–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rasmann S, Johnson MD, Agrawal AA (2009) Induced responses to herbivory and jasmonate in three milkweed species. J Chem Ecol 35:1326–1334PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rhoades DF, Cates RG (1976) A general theory of plant herbivore chemistry. Recent Adv Phytochem 10:168–213Google Scholar
  36. Robertson GF, Zalucki MP, Paine TD (2012) Oviposition preference and larval host choice of the Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus L.) on four native California desert milkweed species. J Environ Entomol (in review)Google Scholar
  37. Rodrigues D, Maia PHS, Trigo JR (2010) Sabotaging behaviour and minimal latex of Asclepias curassavica incur no cost for larvae of the southern monarch butterfly Danaus erippus. Ecol Entomol 35:504–513Google Scholar
  38. Seiber JN, Nelson CJ, Lee SM (1982) Cardenolides in the latex and leaves of seven Asclepias species and Calotropis procera. Phytochemistry 21:2343–2348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stamp N (2003) Out of the quagmire of plant defense hypotheses. Q Rev Biol 78:23–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Textor S, Gershenzon J (2009) Herbivore induction of the glucosinolate-myrosinase defense system: major trends, biochemical bases and ecological significance. Phytochem Rev 8:149–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Van Emon J, Seiber J (1985) Chemical constituents and energy content of two milkweeds, Asclepias speciosa and A. curassavica. Econ Bot 39(1):47–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Van Hook T, Zalucki MP (1991) Oviposition by Danaus plexippus on Asclepias viridis in northern Florida. J Lepidopterist Soc 45:215–221Google Scholar
  43. Wiegrebe H, Wichtl M (1993) High-performance liquid chromatographic determination of cardenolides in Digitalis leaves after solid-phase extraction. J Chromatogr 630:402–407Google Scholar
  44. Wilson KJ, Mahlberg PG (1980) Ultrastructure of developing and mature nonarticulated laticifers in the milkweed, Asclepias syriaca L. (Asclepiadaceae). Am J Bot 67:1160–1170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wittstock U, Gershenzon J (2002) Constitutive plant toxins and their role in defense against herbivores and pathogens. Curr Opin Plant Biol 5:300–307PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Woodson RE Jr (1954) The North American species of Asclepias L. Ann Mo Bot Gard 41:1–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zalucki MP (1982) Temperature and rate of development in Danaus plexippus L. and D. chrysippus L. (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). J Aust Entomol Soc 21:241–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zalucki MP, Brower LP (1992) Survival of first instar larvae of Danaus plexippus (Lepidoptera: Danainae) in relation to cardiac glycoside and latex content of Asclepias humistrata (Asclepiadaceae). Chemoecology 3:81–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zalucki MP, Kitching RL (1982a) Temporal and spatial variation of mortality in field populations of Danaus plexippus L. and D. chrysippus L. larvae. Oecologia 53:201–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zalucki MP, Kitching RL (1982b) Dynamics of oviposition in Danaus plexippus (Insecta: Lepidoptera) on milkweed, Asclepias spp. J Zool Lond 198:103–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zalucki MP, Malcolm SB (1999) Plant latex and first instar monarch larval growth and survival on three North American milkweed species. J Chem Ecol 25:1827–1842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zalucki MP, Oyeyele S, Vowles P (1989) Selective oviposition by Danaus plexippus L. (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) in a mixed stand of Asclepias fruticosa and A. curassavica in southeast Queensland. J Aust Entomol Soc 28:141–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zalucki MP, Brower LP, Malcolm SB (1990) Oviposition by Danaus plexippus in relation to cardenolide content of three Asclepias species in the southeastern USA. Ecol Entomol 15:231–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zalucki MP, Brower LP, Alfonso A-M (2001a) Detrimental effects of latex and cardiac glycosides on survival and growth of first instar Danaus plexippus feeding on the sandhill milkweed Asclepias humistrata. Ecol Entomol 26:212–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zalucki MP, Malcolm SB, Paine TD, Hanlon CC, Brower LP, Clarke AR (2001b) It’s the first bites that count: survival of first-instar monarchs on milkweeds. Austral Ecol 26:547–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zalucki MP, Clarke AR, Malcolm SB (2002) Ecology and behavior of first instar larval Lepidoptera. Annu Rev Entomol 47:361–393PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Basel AG 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Myron P. Zalucki
    • 1
  • Stephen B. Malcolm
    • 2
  • Christopher C. Hanlon
    • 3
  • Timothy D. Paine
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Biological SciencesThe University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesWestern Michigan UniversityKalamazooUSA
  3. 3.Department of EntomologyUniversity of California RiversideRiversideUSA

Personalised recommendations