Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Strategies of chemical anti-predator defences in leaf beetles: is sequestration of plant toxins less costly than de novo synthesis?

  • Plant-microbe-animal interactions - original research
  • Published:
Oecologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The evolution of defensive traits is driven both by benefits gained from protection against enemies and by costs of defence production. We tested the hypothesis that specialisation of herbivores on toxic host plants, accompanied by the ability to acquire plant defensive compounds for herbivore defence, is favoured by the lower costs of sequestration compared to de novo synthesis of defensive compounds. We measured physiological costs of chemical defence as a reduction in larval performance in response to repeated removal of secretions (simulating predator attack) and compared these costs between five species synthesising defences de novo and three species sequestering salicylic glucosides (SGs) from their host plants. Experiments simulating low predator pressure revealed no physiological costs in terms of survival, weight and duration of development in any of study species. However, simulation of high predation caused reduction in relative growth rate in Chrysomela lapponica larvae producing autogenous defences more frequently, than in larvae sequestering SGs. Still meta-analysis of combined data showed no overall difference in costs of autogenous and sequestered defences. However, larvae synthesising their defences de novo demonstrated secretion-conserving behaviour, produced smaller amounts of secretions, replenished them at considerably lower rates and employed other types of defences (regurgitation, evasion) more frequently when compared to sequestering larvae. These latter results provide indirect evidence for biosynthetic constraints for amounts of defensive secretions produced de novo, resulting in low defence effectiveness. Lifting these constraints by sequestration may have driven some leaf beetle lineages toward sequestration of plant allelochemicals as the main defensive strategy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bernays E, Chapman R (1987) The evolution of deterrent responses in plant-feeding insects. In: Chapman RF, Bernays EA, Stoffolano JG Jr (eds) Perspectives in chemoreception and behavior. Springer, New York, pp 159–173

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bernays E, Graham M (1988) On the evolution of host specificity in phytophagous arthropods. Ecology 69:886–892

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Björkman C, Larsson S (1991) Pine sawfly defense and variation in host plant resin acids: a trade-off with growth. Ecol Entomol 16:283–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blum MS (1981) Chemical defenses of arthropods. Academic, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Boland W (2015) Sequestration of plant-derived glycosides by leaf beetles: a model system for evolution and adaptation. Perspect Sci 6:38–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowers MD (1992) The evolution of unpalatability and the cost of chemical defense in insects. In: Roitberg BD, Isman MB (eds) Insect chemical ecology: an evolutionary approach. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 216–244

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowers MD (1993) Aposematic caterpillars: life styles of the warningly colored and unpalatable. In: Stamp NE, Casey TM (eds) Caterpillars: Ecological and evolutionary constraints of foraging. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 331–371

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowers MD (2003) Host plant suitability and defensive chemistry of the catalpa sphinx, Ceratomia catalpae. J Chem Ecol 29:2359–2367

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Camara MD (1997) Physiological mechanisms underlying the costs of chemical defence in Junonia coenia Hübner (Nymphalidae): a gravimetric and quantitative genetic analysis. Evol Ecol 11:451–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Codella SG, Raffa KF (1995) Host plant influence on chemical defense in conifer sawflies (Hymenoptera: Diprionidae). Oecologia 104:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cogni R, Trigo JR, Futuyma DJ (2012) A free lunch? No cost for acquiring defensive plant pyrrolizidine alkaloids in a specialist arctiid moth (Utetheisa ornatrix). Mol Ecol 21:6152–6162

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eisner T, Eisner M, Siegler M (2007) Secret weapons: Defenses of insects, spiders, scorpions, and other many-legged creatures. Belknap, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Engler-Chaouat HS, Gilbert LE (2007) De novo synthesis vs. sequestration: negatively correlated metabolic traits and the evolution of host plant specialization in cyanogenic butterflies. J Chem Ecol 33:25–42

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fürstenberg-Hägg J, Zagrobelny MC, Olsen E, Jørgensen K, Møller BL, Bak S (2014) Transcriptional regulation of de novo biosynthesis of cyanogenic glucosides throughout the life-cycle of the burnet moth Zygaena filipendulae (Lepidoptera). Insect Biochem Mol Biol 49:80–89

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Futuyma DJ, Moreno G (1988) The evolution of ecological specialization. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 19:207–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geiselhardt S, Hilker M, Müller F, Kozlov MV, Zvereva EL (2015) Inter- and intrapopulation variability in the composition of larval defensive secretions of willow-feeding populations of the leaf beetle Chrysomela lapponica. J Chem Ecol 41:276–286

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grant JB (2006) Diversification of gut morphology in caterpillars is associated with defensive behavior. J Exp Biol 209:3018–3024

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gross P (1993) Insect behavioral and morphological defenses. Annu Rev Entomol 38:251–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gross J, Fatouros NE, Hilker M (2004) The significance of bottom-up effects for host plant specialization in Chrysomela leaf beetles. Oikos 105:368–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higginson AD, Ruxton GD (2009a) Dynamic models allowing for flexibility in complex life histories accurately predict timing of metamorphosis and antipredator strategies of prey. Funct Ecol 23:1103–1113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higginson AD, Ruxton GD (2009b) Dynamic state-dependent modelling predicts optimal usage patterns of responsive defences. Oecologia 160:399–410

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Higginson AD, Ruxton GD (2010) Adaptive changes in size and age at metamorphosis can qualitatively vary with predator type and available defences. Ecology 91:2756–2768

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Higginson AD, Delf J, Ruxton GD, Speed MP (2011) Growth and reproductive costs of larval defence in the aposematic lepidopteran Pieris brassicae. J Anim Ecol 80:384–392

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hilker M, Schulz S (1994) Composition of larval secretion of Chrysomela lapponica (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae) and its dependence on host plant. J Chem Ecol 20:1075–1093

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Holloway GJ, De Jong PW, Ottenheim M (1993) The genetics and cost of chemical defense in the two-spot ladybird (Adalia bipunctata). Evolution 47:1229–1339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howse PE (1987) Temporal effects of chemical communication of alarm in ants. In: Pasteels JM, Deneubourg J-L (eds) From individual to collective behavior in social insects. Birkhäusen, Basel and Boston, pp 271–275

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffries MJ, Lawton JH (1984) Enemy free space and the structure of ecological communities. Biol J Linn Soc 23:269–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kearsley MJC, Whitham TG (1992) Guns and butter: a no cost defense against predation for Chrysomela confluens. Oecologia 92:556–562

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koricheva J, Gurevitch J, Mengersen K (eds) (2013) Handbook of meta-analysis in ecology and evolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Lajeunesse MJ (2013) Power statistics for meta-analysis: test for mean effects and homogeneity. In: Koricheva J, Gurevitch J, Mengersen K (eds) Handbook of meta-analysis in ecology and evolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 348–363

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsson S, Björkman C, Gref R (1986) Responses of Neodiprion sertifer (Hym., Diprionidae) larvae to variation in needle resin acid concentration in Scots pine. Oecologia 70:77–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinger RD, Schabenberger O (2006) SAS for mixed models, 2nd edn. SAS Institute Inc, Cary

    Google Scholar 

  • Loxdale HD, Lushai G, Harvey JA (2011) The evolutionary improbability of ‘generalism’ in nature, with special reference to insects. Biol J Linn Soc 103:1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nishida R (2002) Sequestration of defensive substances from plants by Lepidoptera. Annu Rev Entomol 47:57–92

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Opitz SEW, Müller C (2009) Plant chemistry and insect sequestration. Chemoecology 19:117–154

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pasteels JM, Braekman J-C, Daloze D (1988) Chemical defense in the chrysomelidae. In: Solivet P, Petitpierre E, Hsiao TH (eds) Biology of chrysomelidae. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 233–252

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pintor AFV, Krockenberger AK, Seymour JE (2010) Costs of venom production in the common death adder (Acanthophis antarcticus). Toxicon 56:1035–1042

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Price PW, Bouton CE, Gross P, Mcpheron BA, Thompson JN, Weis AE (1980) Interactions among three trophic levels: influence of plants on interactions between insect herbivores and natural enemies. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 11:41–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg MS, Adams DC, Gurevitch J (2000) MetaWin: Statistical software for meta-analysis, Version 2.0. Sinauer, Sunderland

  • Rowell-Rahier M, Pasteels JM (1986) Economics of chemical defense in Chrysomelinae. J Chem Ecol 12:1189–1203

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rowell-Rahier M, Pasteels JM, Alonso-Mejia A, Brower LP (1995) Relative unpalatability of leaf beetles with either biosynthesized or sequestered chemical defense. Anim Behav 49:709–714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruxton GD, Sherratt TN, Speed MP (2004) Avoiding attack: the evolutionary ecology of crypsis, warning signals, and mimicry. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • SAS Institute (2009) SAS/Stat. User’s guide, Version 9.2. SAS Institute, Cary

  • Smith MT, Ortega J, Beaupre SJ (2014) Metabolic cost of venom replenishment by Prarie Rattlesnakes (Crotalus viridis viridis). Toxicon 86:1–7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stamp N (2001) Enemy-free space via host plant chemistry and dispersion: assessing the influence of tri-trophic interactions. Oecologia 128:153–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steiner UK, Pfeiffer T (2007) Optimizing time and resource allocation trade-offs for investment into morphological and behavioural defense. Am Nat 169:118–129

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Termonia A, Hsiao TH, Pasteels JM, Milinkovitch MC (2001) Feeding specialization and host-derived chemical defense in Chrysomeline leaf beetles did not lead to an evolutionary dead end. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:3909–3914

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Zvereva EL, Kozlov MV (2016) The costs and effectiveness of chemical defenses in herbivorous insects: a meta-analysis. Ecol Monogr 86:107–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Zvereva EL, Kruglova OY, Kozlov MV (2010a) Drivers of host plant shifts in the leaf beetle Chrysomela lapponica: natural enemies or competition? Ecol Entomol 35:611–622

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zvereva EL, Kozlov MV, Hilker M (2010b) Evolutionary variations on a theme: host plant specialization in five geographical populations of the leaf beetle Chrysomela lapponica. Popul Ecol 52:389–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zvereva EL, Kozlov MV, Rank N (2016) Does ant predation favour leaf beetle specialization on toxic host plants? Biol J Linn Soc 119:201–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to M. Pentinsaari for help in collecting beetles and to A. D. Higginson and two anonymous reviewers for inspiring comments to an earlier version of the manuscript. The study was supported by the Academy of Finland (Project 268124 and researcher exchange grants to E. Zvereva and V. Zverev).

Author contribution statement

ELZ and MVK conceived and designed the experiments, analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript. ELZ, MVK, VZ and OYK performed the experiments and provided editorial advice.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elena L. Zvereva.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Communicated by Roland A. Brandl.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 189 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zvereva, E.L., Zverev, V., Kruglova, O.Y. et al. Strategies of chemical anti-predator defences in leaf beetles: is sequestration of plant toxins less costly than de novo synthesis?. Oecologia 183, 93–106 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-016-3743-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-016-3743-x

Keywords

Navigation