Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 152, Issue 2, pp 275–285 | Cite as

Butterfly seed predation: effects of landscape characteristics, plant ploidy level and population structure

  • Leena ArvanitisEmail author
  • Christer Wiklund
  • Johan Ehrlén
Plant Animal Interactions

Abstract

Polyploidization has been suggested as one of the most common mechanisms for plant diversification. It is often associated with changes in several morphological, phenological and ecological plant traits, and therefore has the potential to alter insect–plant interactions. Nevertheless, studies evaluating the effect of plant polyploidy on interspecific interactions are still few. We investigated pre-dispersal seed predation by the butterfly Anthocharis cardamines in 195 populations of two ploidy levels of the herb Cardamine pratensis (tetraploid ssp. pratensis, 2n = 30 vs. octoploid ssp. paludosa, 2n = 56–64). We asked if differences in incidence and intensity of predation among populations were related to landscape characteristics, plant ploidy level and population structure. The incidence of the seed predator increased with increasing plant population size and decreasing distance to nearest population occupied by A. cardamines. The intensity of predation decreased with increasing plant population size and was not affected by isolation. Probability of attack decreased with increasing shading, and intensity of predation was higher in grazed than in non-grazed habitats. The attack intensity increased with increasing mean flower number of plant population, but was not affected by flowering phenology. Individuals in tetraploid populations suffered on average from higher levels of seed predation, had higher mean flower number, were less shaded and occurred more often in grazed habitats than octoploid populations. When accounting for differences in habitat preferences between ploidy levels there was no longer a difference in intensity of predation, suggesting that the observed differences in attack rates among populations of the two ploidy levels are mediated by the habitat. Overall, our results suggest that polyploidization is associated with differentiation in habitat preferences and phenotypic traits leading to differences in interspecific interaction among plant populations. This, in turn, may facilitate further divergence of ploidy levels.

Keywords

Fragmentation Genotype–environment interaction Oligophagous species Oviposition behaviour Spatial variation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to H. Berglund for sharing the results of his extremely detailed inventory of the flora of Ludgo Parish with us, and to J. Karlsson, K. Hamza, H. Sirén and T. Luotola for field assistance. This study was financially supported by the Swedish Research Council (to J. E.). The study complies with the current laws of Sweden.

References

  1. Alonso C (1999) Variation in herbivory by Yponomeuta mahalebella on its only host plant Prunus mahaleb along an elevational gradient. Ecol Entomol 24:371–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennett JH (1976) Expectations for inbreeding depression on self-fertilization in tetraploids. Biometrics 32(2):449–452Google Scholar
  3. Bergman KO, Landin J (2001) Distribution of occupied and vacant sites and migration of Lopinga achine (Nymphalidae: Satyrinae) in a fragmented landscape. Biol Conserv 102:183–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bishop JG, Schemske DW (1998) Variation in flowering phenology and its consequences for lupines colonizing Mount St. Helens. Ecology 79:534–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brochmann C, Elven R (1992) Ecological and genetic consequences of polyploidy in arctic Draba (Brassicaceae). Evol Trend Plant 6:111–124Google Scholar
  6. Cappuccino N, Root RB (1992) The significance of host patch edges to the colonization and development of Corythucha marmorata (Hemiptera, Tingidae). Ecol Entomol 17:109–113Google Scholar
  7. Cariveau D, Irwin RE, Brody AK, Garcia-Mayeya LS, von der Ohe A (2004) Direct and indirect effects of pollinators and seed predators to selection on plant and floral traits. Oikos 104:15–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Colling G, Matthies D (2004) The effects of plant population size on the interactions between the endangered plant Scorzonera humilis, a specialised herbivore, and a phytopathogenic fungus. Oikos 105:71–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Courtney SP (1982) Coevolution of pierid butterflies and their cruciferous foodplants. IV. Crucifer apparency and Anthocharis cardamines (L.) oviposition. Oecologia 52:258–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Courtney SP, Courtney S (1982) The ‘edge-effect’ in butterfly oviposition: causality in Anthocharis cardamines and related species. Ecol Entomol 7:131–137Google Scholar
  11. Courtney SP, Duggan AE (1983) The population biology of the orange tip butterfly Anthocharis cardamines in Britain. Ecol Entomol 8:271–281Google Scholar
  12. Crawley MJ (1992) Seed predation and plant population dynamics. In: Fenner M (ed) Seeds: the ecology of regeneration in plant communities. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 167–182Google Scholar
  13. Dale A, Elkington TT (1974) Variation within Cardamine pratensis L. in England. Watsonia 10:1–17Google Scholar
  14. Dempster JP (1997) The role of larval food resources and adult movement in the population dynamics of the orange-tip butterfly (Anthocharis cardamines). Oecologia 111:549–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dennis RLH (1982) Observations on habitats and dispersion made from oviposition markers in North Cheshire Anthocharis cardamines (L.) (Lepidoptera: Pieridae). Entomol Gaz 33:151–159Google Scholar
  16. Dennis RLH, Shreeve TG, Van Dyck H (2003) Towards a functional resource-based concept for habitat: a butterfly biology viewpoint. Oikos 102:417–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ehrlén J (1996) Spatiotemporal variation in predispersal seed predation intensity. Oecologia 108:708–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ellis S (2003) Habitat quality and management for the northern brown argus butterfly Aricia artaxerxes (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) in North East England. Biol Conserv 113:285–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Elzinga JA, Turin H, van Damme JMM, Biere A (2005) Plant population size and isolation affect herbivory of Silene latifolia by the specialist herbivore Hadena bicruris and parasitism of the herbivore by parasitoids. Oecologia 144:416–426PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eriksson O, Ehrlén J (2001) Landscape fragmentation and the viability of plant populations. In: Silvertown JW, Antonovics J (eds) Integrating ecology and evolution in a spatial context. The 14th Special Symposium of the British Ecological Society held at Royal Holloway College, University of London, 29–31 August 2000. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp 157–175Google Scholar
  21. Evans EW (1983) The influence of neighbouring hosts on colonization of prairie milkweeds by a seed-feeding bug. Ecology 64:648–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Evans EW, Smith CC, Gendron RP (1989) Timing of reproduction in a prairie legume—seasonal impacts of insects consuming flowers and seeds. Oecologia 78:220–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fleishman E, Ray C, Sjogren-Gulve P, Boggs CL, Murphy DD (2002) Assessing the roles of patch quality, area, and isolation in predicting metapopulation dynamics. Conserv Biol 16:706–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Franzke A, Hurka H (2000) Molecular systematics and biogeography of the Cardamine pratensis complex (Brassicaceae). Plant Syst Evol 224:213–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grundel R, Pavlovic NB, Sulzman CL (1998) The effect of canopy cover and seasonal change on host plant quality for the endangered Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis). Oecologia 114:243–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gutiérrez D, Thomas CD, Leon-Cortes JL (1999) Dispersal, distribution, patch network and metapopulation dynamics of the dingy skipper butterfly (Erynnis tages). Oecologia 121:506–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hanski I (1994) A practical model of metapopulation dynamics. J Anim Ecol 63:151–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hanski I (1999) Metapopulation ecology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  29. Hanski I, Thomas CD (1994) Metapopulation dynamics and conservation—a spatially explicit model applied to butterflies. Biol Conserv 68:167–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S (2000) Applied logistic regression, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Jones RE (1977) Movement patterns and egg distribution in cabbage butterflies. J Anim Ecol 46:195–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Karban R (1997) Neighbourhood affects a plant’s risk of herbivory and subsequent success. Ecol Entomol 22:433–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kéry M, Matthies D, Fischer M (2001) The effect of plant population size on the interactions between the rare plant Gentiana cruciata and its specialized herbivore Maculinea rebeli. J Ecol 89:418–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lande R, Schemske DW (1985) The evolution of self-fertilization and inbreeding depression in plants. I. Genetic models. Evolution 39 (1):24–40Google Scholar
  35. Leimu R, Syrjänen K, Ehrlén J, Lehtilä K (2002) Pre-dispersal seed predation in Primula veris: among-population variation in damage intensity and selection on flower number. Oecologia 133:510–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Louda SM, Rodman JE (1996) Insect herbivory as a major factor in the shade distribution of a native crucifer (Cardamine cordifolia A. Gray, bittercress). J Ecol 84:229–237Google Scholar
  37. Lövkvist B (1956) The Cardamine pratensis complex. Outlines of its cytogenetics and taxonomy.PhD thesis, Faculty of Science, University of Uppsala, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  38. Lövkvist B (1958) Cardamine pratensis och Cardamine palustris på Gotland. Bot Not 111:179–194Google Scholar
  39. Maddox GD, Cappuccino N (1986) Genetic determination of plant-susceptibility to an herbivorous insect depends on environmental context. Evolution 40:863–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Marhold K (1994) Taxonomy of the genus Cardamine L (Cruciferae) in the Carpathians and Pannonia. 1. Cardamine pratensis Group. Folia Geobot Phytotax 29:335–374Google Scholar
  41. Masumoto T, Sunahara T, Suzuki N (2000) Effects of nonhost and host plants on insect herbivory covarying with plant size in the cruciferous plant Turritis glabra. Popul Ecol 42:145–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mayhew PJ (1997) Adaptive patterns of host-plant selection by phytophagous insects. Oikos 79:417–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Menendez R, Thomas CD (2000) Metapopulation structure depends on spatial scale in the host-specific moth Wheeleria spilodactylus (Lepidoptera: Pterophoridae). J Anim Ecol 69:935–951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Molau U, Eriksen B, Knudsen JT (1989) Predispersal seed predation in Bartsia alpina. Oecologia 81:181–185Google Scholar
  45. Murphy DD, Menninger MS, Ehrlich PR (1984) Nectar source distribution as a determinant of oviposition host species in Euphydryas chalcedona. Oecologia 62:269–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nuismer SL, Cunningham BM (2005) Selection for phenotypic divergence between diploid and autotetraploid Heuchera grossulariifolia. Evolution 59:1928–1935PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ollerton J, Lack A (1998) Relationships between flowering phenology, plant size and reproductive success in Lotus corniculatus (Fabaceae). Plant Ecol 139:35–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Östergård H, Ehrlén J (2005) Among population variation in specialist and generalist seed predation—the importance of host plant distribution, alternative hosts and environmental variation. Oikos 111:39–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ouborg NJ, Eriksson O (2004) Toward a metapopulation concept for plants. In: Hanski I, Gaggiotti OE (eds) Ecology, genetics, and evolution of metapopulations. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 447–469Google Scholar
  50. Petit C, Thompson JD (1999) Species diversity and ecological range in relation to ploidy level in the flora of the Pyrenees. Evol Ecol 13:45–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pilson D (2000) Herbivory and natural selection on flowering phenology in wild sunflower, Helianthus annuus. Oecologia 122:72–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ramsey J, Schemske DW (2002) Neopolyploidy in flowering plants. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 33:589–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rand TA (1999) Effects of environmental context on the susceptibility of Atriplex patula to attack by herbivorous beetles. Oecologia 121:39–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rausher MD (1979) Larval habitat suitability and oviposition preference in three related butterflies. Ecology 60:503–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stebbins GL (1971) Chromosomal evolution in higher plants. Arnold, LondonGoogle Scholar
  56. Thomas CD, Kunin WE (1999) The spatial structure of populations. J Anim Ecol 68:647–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Thompson JN (1994) The coevolutionary process. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill.Google Scholar
  58. Thompson JN (1999) Specific hypotheses on the geographic mosaic of coevolution. Am Nat 153:S1–S14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Thompson JN, Cunningham BM, Segraves KA, Althoff DM, Wagner D (1997) Plant polyploidy and insect/plant interactions. Am Nat 150:730–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Thompson JN, Nuismer SL, Merg K (2004) Plant polyploidy and the evolutionary ecology of plant/animal interactions. Biol J Linn Soc 82:511–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Thompson JN, Pellmyr O (1991) Evolution of oviposition behavior and host preference in Lepidoptera. Annu Rev Entomol 36:65–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Widén B (1991) Environmental and genetic influences on phenology and plant size in a perennial herb, Senecio integrifolius. Can J Bot 69:209–217Google Scholar
  63. Wiklund C (1982) Generalist versus specialist utilization of host plants among butterflies. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Insect–Plant Relationships, Wageningen, Pudoc, pp 181–191Google Scholar
  64. Wiklund C, Åhrberg C (1978) Host plant, nectar source plants, and habitat selection of males and females of Anthocharis cardamines (Lepidoptera). Oikos 31:169–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zimmerman M (1980) Reproduction in Polemonium: pre-dispersal seed predation. Ecology 61:502–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leena Arvanitis
    • 1
    Email author
  • Christer Wiklund
    • 2
  • Johan Ehrlén
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BotanyStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Department of ZoologyStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations