Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 59, Issue 3, pp 403–411 | Cite as

Contest behaviour in the speckled wood butterfly (Pararge aegeria): seasonal phenotypic plasticity and the functional significance of flight performance

Original Article

Abstract

Although contemporary animal contest theory emphasises the importance of physical asymmetries in resolving disputes, such asymmetries do not obviously settle fights in all groups. Territorial male butterflies, for example, compete via elaborate non-contact aerial interactions in which success is determined by relative persistence. Prior research suggests that the resolution of these contests is not clearly related to physical variables such as body size or energy reserves. However, given that the contests involve elaborate aerial manoeuvres, one long-standing suggestion is that asymmetries in flight performance, and thus flight morphology, may be important. We addressed this hypothesis via a manipulative investigation into the biophysical correlates of contest success in the speckled wood butterfly, Pararge aegeria. This species possesses the ability for significant adaptive phenotypic plasticity in relevant flight morphological parameters. We took advantage of this plasticity to rear 90 individuals of markedly varying flight morphologies, which we then pitted against each other in a semi-controlled experimental fashion. Multiple logistic and lognormal analyses provided little evidence for the relevance of morphological parameters, including relative flight musculature, wing loading and wing aspect ratio (wing length relative to area), to the outcome and/or duration of experimental contests. Instead, we found a positive effect of age upon contest success. Given that ability for high acceleration is strongly linked to variation in these morphological parameters, our findings suggest that flight performance is not a strong determinant of resource-holding potential in this notably territorial butterfly.

Keywords

Fighting Flight morphology Lepidoptera Resource-holding potential Sexual selection 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank John Alcock, Mark Elgar and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and Maarten Jacobs for assistance with measuring the butterflies. The Swedish Research Council supported DJK and CW.

References

  1. Alcock J (1987) Male reproductive tactics in the Libellulid dragonfly Paltothemis lineatipes: temporal partitioning of territories. Behaviour 103:157–173Google Scholar
  2. Alcock J (1993) The effects of male body size on territorial and mating success in the landmark-defending fly Hermetia comstocki (Stratiomyidae). Ecol Entomol 18:1–6Google Scholar
  3. Alcock J, Bailey WJ (1997) Success in territorial defence by male tarantula hawk wasps Hemipepsis ustulata: the role of residency. Ecol Entomol 22:377–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alcock J, Schaefer JE (1983) Hilltop territoriality in a Sonoran Desert bot fly (Diptera: Cuterebridae). Anim Behav 31:518–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker RR (1972) Territorial behaviour of the nymphalid butterflies, Aglais urticae (L.) and Inachis io (L.). J Anim Ecol 41:453–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berwaerts K, Van Dyck H, Aerts P (2002) Does flight morphology relate to flight performance? An experimental test with the butterfly Pararge aegeria. Funct Ecol 26:484–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information–theoretic approach. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Convey P (1989) Influences on the choice between territorial and satellite behaviour in male Libellula quadrimaculata Linn. (Odonata: Libellulidae). Behaviour 109:125–141Google Scholar
  9. Davies NB (1978) Territorial defence in the speckled wood butterfly (Pararge aegeria): the resident always wins. Anim Behav 26:138–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dudley R (2000) The biomechanics of insect flight: form, function, evolution. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  11. Enquist M, Leimar O (1983) Evolution of fighting behaviour: decision rules and assessment of relative strength. J Theor Biol 102:387–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hernández MIM, Benson WW (1998) Small-male advantage in the territorial butterfly Heliconius sara (Nymphalidae): a paradoxical strategy? Anim Behav 56:533–540CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Karlsson B (1994) Feeding habits and change of body composition with age in three nymphalid butterfly species. Oikos 69:224–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kemp DJ (2000) Contest behaviour in territorial male butterflies: does size matter? Behav Ecol 11:591–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kemp DJ (2002a) Butterfly contests and flight physiology: why do older males fight harder? Behav Ecol 13:456–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kemp DJ (2002b) Sexual selection constrained by life history in a butterfly. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 269:1341–1345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kemp DJ, Alcock J (2003) Lifetime resource utilization, flight physiology and the evolution of contest competition in territorial insects. Am Nat 162:290–301CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Kemp DJ, Wiklund C (2001) Fighting without weaponry: a review of male–male contest competition in butterflies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 49:429–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kemp DJ, Wiklund C (2004) Residency effects in animal contests. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 271:1707–1711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marden JH (1987) Maximum lift production during takeoff in flying animals. J Exp Biol 130:235–258Google Scholar
  21. Marden JH (1989) Bodybuilding dragonflies: costs and benefits of maximising flight muscle. Physiol Zool 62:505–521Google Scholar
  22. Marden JH (2000) Variability in the size, composition, and function of insect flight muscles. Annu Rev Physiol 62:157–178CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Marden JH, Chai P (1991) Aerial predation and butterfly design: how palatability, mimicry, and the need for evasive flight constrain mass allocation. Am Nat 138:15–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Marden JH, Waage JK (1990) Escalated damselfly territorial contests are energetic wars of attrition. Anim Behav 39:954–959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Maynard Smith J (1982) Evolution and the theory of games. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Nylin S, Wickman P-O, Wiklund C (1995) Life-cycle regulation and life history plasticity in the speckled wood butterfly—are reaction norms predictable? Biol J Linn Soc 55:143–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Parker GA (1974) Assessment strategy and the evolution of fighting behaviour. J Theor Biol 47:223–243CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Payne RJH (1998) Gradually escalating fights and displays: the cumulative assessment model. Anim Behav 56:651–662CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Rosenberg RH, Enquist M (1991) Contest behaviour in Weidemeyer's admiral butterfly Limenitis weidemeyerii (Nymphalidae): the effect of size and residency. Anim Behav 42:805–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rutowski RL (1991) The evolution of male mate-locating behavior in butterflies. Am Nat 138:1121–1139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Scott JA (1983) Mate-locating behaviour of western North American butterflies. II. New observations and morphological adaptations. J Res Lepid 21:177–187Google Scholar
  32. Srygley RB (1994) Locomotor mimicry in butterflies? The associations of positions of centres of mass among groups of mimetic, unprofitable prey. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 343:145–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Srygley RB, Kingsolver JG (2000) Effects of weight loading on flight performance and survival of palatable Neotropical Anartia fatima butterflies. Biol J Linn Soc 70:707–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stjernholm F, Karlsson B (2000) Nuptial gifts and the use of body resources for reproduction in the green-veined white butterfly Pieris napi. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 267:807–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stutt AD, Willmer P (1998) Territorial defence in speckled wood butterflies: do the hottest males always win? Anim Behav 55:1341–1347CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Taylor PW, Elwood RW (2003) The mismeasure of animal contests. Anim Behav 65:1195–1202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Van Dyck H, Wiklund C (2002) Seasonal butterfly design: morphological plasticity among three developmental pathways relative to sex, flight and thermoregulation. J Evol Biol 15:216–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Van Dyck H, Matthysen E, Dhondt AA (1997) Mate-locating strategies are related to relative body length and wing colour in the speckled wood butterfly, Pararge aegeria (L). Ecol Entomol 22:116–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Waage JK (1988) Confusion over residency and the escalation of damselfly territorial disputes. Anim Behav 36:586–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wickman P-O (1992) Sexual selection and butterfly design—a comparative study. Evolution 46:1525–1536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wickman P-O, Wiklund C (1983) Territorial defence and its seasonal decline in the speckled wood butterfly (Pararge aegeria). Anim Behav 31:1206–1216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Windig JJ, Nylin S (1999) Adaptive wing asymmetry in males of the speckled wood butterfly (Pararge aegeria)? Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 266:1413–1418CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ZoologyStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden
  2. 2.School of Life SciencesArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  3. 3.Biodiversity Research Centre, Ecology and Biogeography unitCatholic University of LouvainLouvain-la-NeuveBelgium

Personalised recommendations