Oecologia

, Volume 172, Issue 1, pp 177–188 | Cite as

Specificity, rank preference, and the colonization of a non-native host plant by the Melissa blue butterfly

  • M. L. Forister
  • C. F. Scholl
  • J. P. Jahner
  • J. S. Wilson
  • J. A. Fordyce
  • Z. Gompert
  • D. R. Narala
  • C. Alex Buerkle
  • C. C. Nice
Plant-animal interactions - Original research

Abstract

Animals often express behavioral preferences for different types of food or other resources, and these preferences can evolve or shift following association with novel food types. Shifts in preference can involve at least two phenomena: a change in rank preference or a change in specificity. The former corresponds to a change in the order in which hosts are preferred, while a shift in specificity can be an increase in the tendency to utilize multiple hosts. These possibilities have been examined in relatively few systems that include extensive population-level replication. The Melissa blue butterfly, Lycaeides melissa, has colonized exotic alfalfa, Medicago sativa, throughout western North America. We assayed the host preferences of 229 females from ten populations associated with novel and native hosts. In four out of five native-associated populations, a native host was preferred over the exotic host, while preference for a native host characterized only two out of five of the alfalfa-associated populations. Across all individuals from alfalfa-associated populations, there appears to have been a decrease in specificity: females from these populations lay fewer eggs on the native host and more eggs on the exotic relative to females from native-host populations. However, females from alfalfa-associated populations did not lay more eggs on a third plant species, which suggests that preferences for specific hosts in this system can potentially be gained and lost independently. Geographic variation in oviposition preference in L. melissa highlights the value of surveying a large number of populations when studying the evolution of a complex behavioral trait.

Keywords

Exotic species Hierarchical Bayesian model Host range Lycaeides Oviposition Specialization 

References

  1. Barron AB (2001) The life and death of Hopkins’ host-selection principle. J Insect Behav 14:725–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  3. Carroll SP, Dingle H (1996) The biology of post-invasion events. Biol Conserv 78:207–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Conover WJ (1999) Practical nonparametric statistics. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Courtney SP, Chen GK, Gardner A (1989) A general model for individual host selection. Oikos: 55:55–65Google Scholar
  6. Davis JM (2008) Patterns of variation in the influence of natal experience on habitat choice. Q Rev Biol 83:363–380PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Egan SP, Funk DJ (2006) Individual advantages to ecological specialization: insights on cognitive constraints from three conspecific taxa. Proc R Soc B 273:843–848Google Scholar
  8. Fordyce JA (2010) Host shifts and evolutionary radiations of butterflies. Proc R Soc B 277:3735–3743Google Scholar
  9. Fordyce JA, Nice CC (2003) Variation in butterfly egg adhesion: adaptation to local host plant senescence characteristics? Ecol Lett 6:23–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fordyce JA, Gompert Z, Forister ML, Nice CC (2011) A hierarchical approach to ecological count data: a flexible tool for ecologists. PLoS ONE 6:e26785PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Forister ML (2008) Experimental design and the outcome of preference-performance assays, with examples from Mitoura butterflies (lycaenidae). J Lepid Soc 62:99–105Google Scholar
  12. Forister ML, Ehmer AG, Futuyma DJ (2007) The genetic architecture of a niche: variation and covariation in host use traits in the Colorado potato beetle. J Evol Biol 20:985–996PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Forister ML, Nice CC, Fordyce JA, Gompert Z (2009) Host range evolution is not driven by the optimization of larval performance: the case of Lycaeides melissa (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) and the colonization of alfalfa. Oecologia 160:551–561PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Forister ML, Gompert A, Nice CC, Forister ML, Fordyce JA (2011) Ant association facilitates the evolution of diet breadth in a lycaenid butterfly. Proc R Soc B 278:1539–1547Google Scholar
  15. Gompert Z, Fordyce JA, Forister ML, Shapiro AM, Nice CC (2006) Homoploid hybrid speciation in an extreme habitat. Science 314:1923–1925PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gompert Z, Lucas LK, Fordyce JA, Forister ML, Nice CC (2010) Secondary contact between Lycaeides idas and L. melissa in the Rocky Mountains: extensive admixture and a patchy hybrid zone. Mol Ecol 19:3171–3192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gripenberg S, Mayhew PJ, Parnell M, Roslin T (2010) A meta-analysis of preference-performance relationships in phytophagous insects. Ecol Lett 13:383–393PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hawthorne DJ, Via S (2001) Genetic linkage of ecological specialization and reproductive isolation in pea aphids. Nature 412:904–907PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jaenike J (1990) Host specialization in phytophagous insects. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 21:243–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jahner JP, Bonilla MM, Badik KJ, Shapiro AM, Forister ML (2011) Use of exotic hosts by Lepidoptera: widespread species colonize more novel hosts. Evolution 65:2719–2724PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Janz N (2011) Ehrlich and Raven revisited: mechanisms underlying codiversification of plants and enemies. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 42:71–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Janz N, Nylin S (2008) The oscillation hypothesis of host-plant range and speciation. In: Tilmon KJ (ed) Specialization, speciation and radiation: the evolutionary biology of herbivorous insects. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 203–215Google Scholar
  23. Janz N, Soderlind L, Nylin S (2009) No effect of larval experience on adult host preferences in Polygonia c-album (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae): on the persistence of Hopkins’ host selection principle. Ecol Entomol 34:50–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Keeler MS, Chew FS (2008) Escaping an evolutionary trap: preference and performance of a native insect on an exotic invasive host. Oecologia 156:559–568PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Linn C, Feder JL, Nojima S, Dambroski HR, Berlocher SH, Roelofs W (2003) Fruit odor discrimination and sympatric host race formation in Rhagoletis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:11490–11493PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lucas LK, Fordyce JA, Nice CC (2008) Patterns of genitalic morphology around suture zones in North American Lycaeides (Lepidoptera : Lycaenidae): Implications for taxonomy and historical biogeography. Ann Entomol Soc Am 101:172–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McBride CS (2007) Rapid evolution of smell and taste receptor genes during host specialization in Drosophila sechellia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:4996–5001PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mercader R, Scriber J (2007) Diversification of host use in two polyphagous butterflies: differences in oviposition specificity or host rank hierarchy? Entomol Exp Appl 125:89–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mercader RJ, Aardema ML, Scriber JM (2009) Hybridization leads to host-use divergence in a polyphagous butterfly sibling species pair. Oecologia 158:651–662PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Michaud R, Lehman WF, Rumbaugh MD (1988) World distribution and historical developments. In: Hanson AA, Barnes DK, Hill RR (eds) Alfalfa and alfalfa improvement, vol 29. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, pp 25–56Google Scholar
  31. Nice CC, Fordyce JA, Shapiro AM, Ffrench-Constant R (2002) Lack of evidence for reproductive isolation among ecologically specialised lycaenid butterflies. Ecol Entomol 27:702–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nylin S, Bergstrom A, Janz N (2000) Butterfly host plant choice in the face of possible confusion. J Insect Behav 13:469–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Scholl CF, Nice CC, Fordyce JA, Gompert Z, Forister ML (2012) Larval performance in the context of ecological diversification and speciation in Lycaeides butterflies. Int J Ecol. doi:10.1155/2012/242154 Google Scholar
  34. Singer MC (1982) Quantification of host preference by manipulation of oviposition behavior in the butterfly Euphydryas editha. Oecologia 52:224–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Singer MC, Vasco D, Parmesan C, Thomas CD, Ng D (1992a) Distinguishing between preference and motivation in food choice: an example from insect oviposition. Anim Behav 44:463–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Singer MC, Ng D, Vasco D, Thomas CD (1992b) Rapidly evolving associations among oviposition preferences fail to constrain evolution of insect diet. Am Nat 139:9–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Singer MC, Thomas CD, Parmesan C (1993) Rapid human-induced evolution of insect diet. Nature 366:681–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Singer MC, Thomas CD, Billington HL, Parmesan C (1994) Correlates of speed of evolution of host preference in a set of twelve populations of the butterfly Euphydryas editha. Ecoscience 1:107–114Google Scholar
  39. Singer MC, Stefanescu C, Pen I (2002) When random sampling does not work: standard design falsely indicates maladaptive host preferences in a butterfly. Ecol Lett 5:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Singer MC, Wee B, Hawkins S, Butcher M (2008) Rapid natural and anthropogenic diet evolution: three examples from checkerspot butterflies. In: Tilmon KJ (ed) Specialization, speciation, and radiation: the evolutionary biology of herbivorous insects. The University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 311–324Google Scholar
  41. Spiegelhalter DJ, Best NG, Carlin BP, Van Der Linde A (2002) Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. J R Stat Soc Ser B (Stat Method) 64:583–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tabashnik BE (1983) Host range evolution: the shift from native legume hosts to alfalfa by the butterfly, Colias philodice eriphyle. Evolution 37:150–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Thompson JN (1998) The evolution of diet breadth: monophagy and polyphagy in swallowtail butterflies. J Evol Biol 11:563–578Google Scholar
  44. Thompson JN, Pellmyr O (1991) Evolution of oviposition behavior and host preference in Lepidoptera. Annu Rev Entomol 36:65–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tosh CR, Krause J, Ruxton GD (2009) Theoretical predictions strongly support decision accuracy as a major driver of ecological specialization. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:5698–5702PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zhang PJ, Liu SS, Wang H, Zalucki MP (2007) The influence of early adult experience and larval food restriction on responses toward nonhost plants in moths. J Chem Ecol 33:1528–1541PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. L. Forister
    • 1
  • C. F. Scholl
    • 1
  • J. P. Jahner
    • 1
  • J. S. Wilson
    • 1
  • J. A. Fordyce
    • 2
  • Z. Gompert
    • 3
  • D. R. Narala
    • 1
  • C. Alex Buerkle
    • 4
  • C. C. Nice
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of NevadaRenoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA
  3. 3.Department of BiologyTexas State UniversitySan MarcosUSA
  4. 4.Department of BotanyUniversity of WyomingLaramieUSA

Personalised recommendations