Folivory versus florivory—adaptiveness of flower feeding
- 384 Downloads
The distribution of resources and defence is heterogeneous within plants. Specialist insects may prefer tissue with high concentrations of the plant’s characteristic defence compounds. Most herbivorous butterfly or sawfly larvae are considered to be folivores, so also the turnip sawfly Athalia rosae (Hymenoptera: Tenthredinidae), a specialist herbivore on Brassicaceae. We investigated which tissue larvae choose to feed upon and how they perform on flowers, young or old leaves of Sinapis alba. Furthermore, constitutive and inducible levels of glucosinolates and myrosinases were investigated and nutrients analysed. Larvae moved from leaves to flowers for feeding from the third larval instar on. Flowers were not actively chosen, but larvae moved upwards on the plant, regardless of how plants were orientated (upright or inverted). Flower-feeding larvae were heavier and developed faster than larvae feeding on young leaves, and adults laid more eggs. Old leaves as food source resulted in the lowest growth rates. Flowers contained three and ten times higher myrosinase activities than young and old leaves, respectively, whereas glucosinolate concentrations and nitrogen levels of flowers and young leaves were comparable. Glucosinolate concentrations of old leaves were very low. Changes in tissue chemistry caused by larval feeding were tissue specific. Defence levels did not change in flowers and old leaves after A. rosae feeding in contrast to young leaves. The high insect performance on flowers cannot be explained by differences in chemical defence. Instead, the lack of mechanical defence (trichomes) is probably responsible. Movement to the flowers and folivory is overall highly adaptive for this sawfly species.
KeywordsBrassicaceae Florivory Glucosinolate Myrosinase Performance Specialist
We thank Karin Djendouci for her help with planting and chemical analyses. This work was supported by the grant MU1829/1-1 of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.
- Hoy CW, Shelton AM (1987) Feeding response of Artogeia rapae (Lepidoptera, Pieridae) and Trichoplusia ni (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae) to cabbage leaf age. Environ Entomol 16:680–682Google Scholar
- Lorenz H, Kraus M (1957) Larvalsystematik der Blattwespen (Tenthredinoidea und Megalodontoidea). Abh Larv Syst Ins 1:1–339Google Scholar
- McKey D (1979) The distribution of secondary plant compounds within plants. In: Rosenthal GA, Berenbaum MR (eds) Herbivores their interactions with secondary plant metabolisms. Academic, New York, pp 55–133Google Scholar
- Ohnesorge B (1979) Beobachtungen zur Biologie der Rübsenblattwespe Athalia rosae L. (Hym., Tenthredinidae). Anzeiger Schädlingskund 52:70–73Google Scholar
- Reich R (1961) Beiträge zur Biologie der Rübsenblattwespe (Athalia rosae L.). Nachrbl Dtsch Pflanzenschutzd (Berlin) 15:161–175Google Scholar
- Riggert E (1939) Untersuchungen über die Rübenblattwespe Athalia colobri Christ (A. spinarum F.). Z ang Entomol 26:462–516Google Scholar
- Schoonhoven LM, van Loon JJA, Dicke M (2006) Insect–plant biology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Takeuchi H, Zalucki M, Furlong M (2009) Crocidolomia pavonana (F.) (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) larval foraging: behaviour and feeding site preferences on cabbage (Brassica oleracea). Entomol Exp Appl (in press)Google Scholar
- Wittstock U, Kliebenstein DJ, Lambrix V, Reichelt M, Gershenzon J (2003) Glucosinolate hydrolysis and its impact on generalist and specialist insect herbivores. In: Romeo JT (ed) Recent advances in phytochemistry. Pergamon, Amsterdam, pp 101–125Google Scholar