Marine Biology

, Volume 149, Issue 6, pp 1403–1410 | Cite as

Sources of variation in herbivore preference: among-individual and past diet effects on amphipod host choice

  • Alistair G. B. PooreEmail author
  • Nicole A. Hill
Research Article


Understanding which factors affect the feeding preferences of herbivores is essential for predicting the effects of herbivores on plant assemblages and the evolution of plant–herbivore interactions. Most studies of marine herbivory have focussed on the plant traits that determine preferences (especially secondary metabolites), while few studies have considered how preferences may vary among individual herbivores due to genetic or environmental sources of variation. Such intraspecific variation is essential for evolutionary change in preference behaviour and may alter the outcome of plant–herbivore interactions. In an abundant marine herbivore, we determined the relative importance of among-individual and environmental effects on preferences for three host algae of varying quality. Repeated preference assays were conducted with the amphipod Peramphithoe parmerong and three of its brown algal hosts: Sargassum linearifolium, S. vestitum and Padina crassa. We found no evidence that preference varied among individuals, thus constraining the ability of natural selection to promote increased specialisation on high-quality S. linearifolium. Most of the variation in preference occurred within individuals, with amphipod preferences strongly influenced by past diet. The increased tendency for amphipods to select alternate hosts to that on which they had been recently feeding indicates that amphipods are actively seeking mixed diets. Such a feeding strategy provides an explanation for the persistence of this herbivore on hosts in the field that support poor growth and survival if consumed alone. The effects of past diet indicate that herbivore preferences are a function of herbivore history in addition to plant traits and are likely to vary with the availability of algae in space and time.


Mixed Diet Heritable Variation Diet Breadth Brooding Female Host Choice 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



We thank three anonymous reviewers for advice on analyses and highly constructive comments that have improved this manuscript. This research was supported by the Australian Research Council Discovery Project DP0208481. All collections were made with the permission of New South Wales Fisheries (Scientific Research Permit # P01/0047) and comply with the current laws in Australia.


  1. Agnew K, Singer MC (2000) Does fecundity drive the evolution of insect diet? Oikos 88:533–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agresti A (1996) An introduction to categorical data analysis. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Behmer ST, Simpson SJ, Raubenheimer D (2002) Herbivore foraging in chemically heterogeneous environments: nutrients and secondary metabolites. Ecology 83:2489–2501Google Scholar
  4. Bernays EA, Chapman RF (1994) Host-plant selection by phytophagous insects. Chapman & Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernays EA, Raubenheimer D (1991) Dietary mixing in grasshoppers: changes in acceptability of different plant secondary compounds associated with low levels of dietary protein (Orthoptera: Acrididae). J Insect Behav 4:545–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bolnik DI, Yang LH, Fordyce JA, Davis JM, Svanbäck R (2002) Measuring individual-level resource specialization. Ecology 83:2936–2941Google Scholar
  7. Bolnik DI, Svanbäck R, Fordyce JA, Yang LH, Davis JM, Hulsey CD, Forister ML (2003) The ecology of individuals: incidence and implications of individual specialization. Am Nat 161:1–28CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Brooks R (1996) Copying and the repeatability of mate choice. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 39:323–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cronin G, Hay ME (1996) Susceptibility to herbivores depends on recent history of both the plant and animal. Ecology 77:1531–1543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cruz-Rivera E, Hay ME (2000a) Can quantity replace quality? Food choice, compensatory feeding, and fitness of marine mesograzers. Ecology 81:201–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cruz-Rivera E, Hay ME (2000b) The effects of diet mixing on consumer fitness: macroalgae, epiphytes, and animal matter as food for marine amphipods. Oecologia 123:252–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis JM, Stamps JA (2004) The effect of natal experience on habitat preferences. Trends Ecol Evol 19:411–416CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Dearing MD, Mangione AM, Karasov WH (2000) Diet breadth of mammalian herbivores: nutrient versus detoxification constraints. Oecologia 123:397–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Duffy JE, Hay ME (1991) Food and shelter as determinants of food choice by an herbivorous marine amphipod. Ecology 72:1286–1298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Falconer DS, Mackay TFC (1996) Introduction to quantitative genetics. Longman Group Ltd, HarlowGoogle Scholar
  16. Fox LR, Morrow PA (1981) Specialization: species property or local phenomenon? Science 211:887–893PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Freeland WJ, Janzen DH (1974) Strategies in herbivory by mammals: the role of plant secondary compounds. Am Nat 108:269–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Futuyma DJ, Moreno G (1988) The evolution of ecological specialization. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 19:207–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Futuyma DJ, Peterson SC (1985) Genetic variation in use of resources by insects. Annu Rev Entomol 30:217–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Guarna MM, Borowsky RL (1993) Genetically controlled food preference: biochemical mechanisms. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 90:5257–5261PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hall SJ, Todd CD, Gordon AD (1982) The influence of ingestive conditioning on the prey species selection in Aeolidia papillosa (Mollusca, Nudibranchia). J Anim Ecol 51:907–921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hay ME, Steinberg PD (1992) The chemical ecology of plant–herbivore interactions in marine versus terrestrial communities. In: Rosenthal GA, Berenbaum M (eds) Herbivores: their interaction with secondary plant metabolites. Ecological and evolutionary processes, vol 2. Academic, San Diego, pp 371–413Google Scholar
  23. Hemmi A, Jormalainen V (2004) Genetic and environmental variation in performance of a marine isopod: effects of specialisation. Oecologia 140:302–311CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Howard RD, Young JR (1998) Individual variation in male vocal traits and female mating preferences in Bufo americanus. Anim Behav 55:1165–1179CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Imrie DW, McCrohan CR, Hawkins SJ (1990) Feeding behaviour in Littorina littorea: a study of the effects of ingestive conditioning and previous dietary history on food preference and rates of consumption. Hydrobiologia 193:191–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jaenike J (1990) Host specialization in phytophagous insects. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 21:243–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jormalainen V, Honkanen T, Makinen A, Hemmi A, Vesakoski O (2001) Why does herbivore sex matter? Sexual differences in utilization of Fucus vesiculosus by the isopod Idotea baltica. Oikos 93:77–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kitting CL (1980) Herbivore–plant interactions of individual limpets maintaining a mixed diet of intertidal marine algae. Ecol Monogr 50:527–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Morán JAG, Arrontes J (1994) Factors affecting food preference in a widespread intertidal isopod. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 182:111–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Paul VJ, Cruz-Rivera E, Thacker RW (2001) Chemical mediation of macroalgal-herbivore interactions: ecological and evolutionary perspectives. In: McClintock JB, Baker BJ (eds) Marine chemical ecology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 227–265Google Scholar
  31. Pennings SC (1990a) Multiple factors promoting narrow host range in the sea hare, Aplysia californica. Oecologia 82:192–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pennings SC (1990b) Size-related shifts in herbivory: specialization in the sea hare Aplysia californica Cooper. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 142:43–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pennings SC, Paul VJ (1992) Effect of plant toughness, calcification, and chemistry on herbivory by Dolabella auricularia. Ecology 73:1606–1619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pennings SC, Nadeau MT, Paul VJ (1993) Selectivity and growth of the generalist herbivore Dolabella auricularia feeding upon complementary resources. Ecology 74:879–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pennings SC, Carefoot TH, Zimmer M, Danko JP, Ziegler A (2000) Feeding preferences of supralittoral isopods and amphipods. Can J Zool 78:1918–1929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Poore AGB (2004) Spatial associations among algae affect host use in a herbivorous marine amphipod. Oecologia 140:104–112CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Poore AGB (2005) Scales of dispersal in a herbivorous marine amphipod. Aust Ecol 30:219–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Poore AGB, Lowry JK (1997) New ampithoid amphipods from Port Jackson, New South Wales, Australia (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Ampithoidae). Invertebr Taxon 11:897–941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Poore AGB, Steinberg PD (1999) Preference–performance relationships and effects of host plant choice in an herbivorous marine amphipod. Ecol Monogr 69:443–464Google Scholar
  40. Poore AGB, Steinberg PD (2001) Host plant adaptation in a herbivorous marine amphipod: genetic potential not realized in field populations. Evolution 55:68–80PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Roughgarden J (1979) Theory of population genetics and evolutionary ecology: an introduction. Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. Sotka EE (2003) Genetic control of feeding preference in the herbivorous amphipod Ampithoe longimana. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 256:305–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sotka EE, Hay ME (2002) Geographic variation among herbivore populations in tolerance for a chemically rich seaweed. Ecology 83:2721–2735Google Scholar
  44. Steinberg PD (1991) Lack of avoidance of phenolic-rich brown algae by tropical herbivorous fishes. Mar Biol 109:335–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Steinberg PD, van Altena I (1992) Tolerance of marine invertebrate herbivores to brown algal phlorotannins in temperate Australasia. Ecol Monogr 62:189–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Szentesi A, Jermy T (1990) The role of experience in host plant choice by phytophagous insects. In: Bernays EA (ed) Insect–plant interactions, vol II. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 39–75Google Scholar
  47. Thacker RW, Nagle DG, Paul VJ (1997) Effects of repeated exposures to marine cyanobacterial secondary metabolites on feeding by juvenile rabbitfish and parrotfish. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 147:21–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Thompson JN (1988) Evolutionary ecology of the relationship between oviposition preference and performance of offspring in phytophagous insects. Entomol Exp Appl 47:3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Trowbridge CD (1991) Diet specialization limits herbivorous sea slug’s capacity to switch among food species. Ecology 72:1880–1888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Via S (1986) Genetic covariance between oviposition preference and larval performance. Evolution 40:778–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Via S (1990) Ecological genetics and host adaptation in herbivorous insects: the experimental study of evolution in natural and agricultural systems. Annu Rev Entomol 35:421–446CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. West L (1986) Interindividual variation in prey selection by the snail Nucella (=Thais) emarginata. Ecology 67:798–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Williamson JE, Carson DG, de Nys R, Steinberg PD (2004) Demographic consequences of an ontogenetic shift by a sea urchin in response to host plant chemistry. Ecology 85:1355–1371CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Biological, Earth and Environmental SciencesUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations