Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 307–323 | Cite as

A trade-off between female lifespan and larval diet breadth at the interspecific level in Lepidoptera

  • Mark A. Jervis
  • Peter N. Ferns
  • Carol L. Boggs
Original Paper

Abstract

A prediction arising from several evolutionary diet breadth models is that, in insect herbivores whose adults practise adaptive host plant selection based on larval performance, female adult lifespan should be negatively correlated with larval diet breadth. In one category of models, female adult lifespan drives evolutionary changes in larval diet breadth; in the other category, larval diet breadth drives evolutionary changes in female adult lifespan. Applying the method of independent contrasts to a biologically and phylogenetically diverse array of Lepidoptera, we ask whether larval diet breadth—as measured by the number of larval food plant species reported in the literature—is negatively correlated with female adult lifespan at the interspecific level. We show that these two life history variables are indeed inversely related. Next, we relax the assumption, common to all of the models, that the female adult is the life stage responsible for the distribution of progeny among different host plants. By introducing into our data set three species whose females are incapable of flight (due to either aptery or brachyptery), and whose larvae are the dispersive stage, the negative correlation between female adult lifespan and larval diet breadth is lost, when using the independent contrasts method. We interpret this effect as supporting the models’ common prediction. Ours is the first reported evidence of a lifespan/diet breadth trade-off at the interspecific level among insects, and it confirms the findings of a previous study in which the degree of habitat specialisation among arthropods was inversely related to proxy measures of the degree of search time constraint. In one of our “diet breadth drives changes in lifespan” models, the females’ type of egg maturation strategy (as measured by the ovigeny index) is predicted to be positively correlated with larval diet breadth, and it mediates a female adult lifespan/larval diet breadth trade-off; however, we found no convincing support for such a role.

Keywords

Herbivory Foraging Host plant selection Time-limitation Egg-limitation Host range evolution Life history Lifespan Reproductive strategy Insects Lepidoptera 

References

  1. Ballabeni P, Wlodarczyk M, Rahier M (2001) Does enemy-free space for eggs contribute to a leaf beetle’s oviposition preference for a nutritionally inferior host plant? Funct Ecol 15:318–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beccaloni GW, Symons FB (2000) Variation of butterfly diet breadth in relation to host-plant predictability: results from two faunas. Oikos 90:50–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berdegue M, Reitz SR, Trumble JT (1998) Host plant selection and development in Spodoptera exigua: do mother and offspring know best? Entomol Exp Appl 89:57–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernays EA (2001) Neural limitations in phytophagous insects: implications for diet breadth and evolution of host affiliation. Annu Rev Entomol 46:703–727PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Björkman C, Larsson S, Bommarco R (1997) Oviposition preference in pine sawflies: a trade-off between larval growth and defence against natural enemies. Oikos 79:45–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowden SR (1971) American white butterflies and English foodplants. J Lepid Soc 25:6–12Google Scholar
  7. Brower AVZ (2000) Phylogenetic relationships among the Nymphalidae (Lepidoptera) inferred from partial sequences of the wingless gene. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:1201–1211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caterino MS, Reed RD, Kuo MM, Sperling FAH (2001) A partitioned likelihood analysis of swallowtail butterfly phylogeny (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae). Syst Biol 50:106–127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chew FS (1975) Coevolution of pierid butterflies and their cruciferous food plants. I. The relative quality of available resources. Oecologia 20:1117–1127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Courtney SP (1982) Coevolution of pierid butterflies and their cruciferous foodplants. II. Habitat selection, community structure and speciation. Oecologia 54:101–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cox CB, Moore PD (2005) Biogeography: an ecological and evolutionary approach. Blackwell Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Denno RF, Larsson S, Olmstead KL (1990) Role of enemy-free space and plant quality in host-plant selection by willow beetles. Ecology 71:124–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ehrlich P, Raven PH (1964) Butterflies and plants: a study in coevolution. Evolution 18:586–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ellers J, van Alphen JJM (1997) Life history evolution in Asobara tabida: plasticity in allocation of fat reserves to survival and reproduction. J Evol Biol 10:771–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ellers J, Jervis MA (2003) Body size and the timing of egg production in parasitoid wasps. Oikos 102:164–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ellers J, Jervis MA (2004) Why are so few parasitoid wasp species pro-ovigenic? Evol Ecol Res 6:937–1110Google Scholar
  17. Ellers J, Sevenster JG, Driessen G (2000) Egg load evolution in parasitoids. Am Nat 156:650–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fang QQ, Mitchell A, Regier JC, Mitter C, Friedlander TP, Poole RW (2000) Phylogenetic utility of the nuclear gene Dopa Decarboxylase in noctuoid moths (Insecta: Noctuoidea). Mol Phylogenet Evol 15:473–486PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Feeny P (1976) Plant apparency and chemical defence. Rec Adv Phytochem 10:1–40Google Scholar
  20. Feldman TS, Haber WA (1998) Oviposition behavior, host plant use, and diet breadth of Anthanassa butterflies (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) using plants in the Acanthaceae in a Costa Rican community. Florida Entomol 81:396–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Forister ML (2004) Oviposition preference and larval performance within a diverging lineage of lycaenid butterflies. Ecol Entomol 29:264–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fry JD (1996) The evolution of host specialization: are trade-offs overrated? Am Nat 148:S84–S107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gaston KJ, Reavey D (1989) Patterns in the life histories and feeding strategies of British macrolepidoptera. Biol J Linn Soc 37:367–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Graves SD, Shapiro AM (2003) Exotics as host plants of the California butterfly fauna. Biol Conserv 110:413–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harvey P, Pagel MD (1991) The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. Hawkins BA (1994) Pattern and process in host-parasitoid interactions. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. Heimpel GE, Mangel M, Rosenheim JA (1998) Effects of time limitation and egg limitation on lifetime reproductive success of a parasitoid in the field. Am Nat 152:273–289CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Heisswolf A, Obermaier E, Poethke J (2005) Selection of large plants for oviposition by a monophagous leaf beetle: nutritional quality or enemy-free-space. Ecol Entomol 30:299–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Holling CS (1959a) The components of predation as revealed by a study of small mammal predation of the European sawfly. Can Entomol 91:293–320Google Scholar
  30. Holling CS (1959b) Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism. Can Entomol 91:385–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jaenike J (1978) On optimal oviposition behaviour in phytophagous insects. Theor Pop Biol 14:350–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jaenike J (1990) Host specialization by phytophagous insects. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 21:243–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Janz N, Nylin S (1997) The role of female search behaviour in determining host plant range in plant feeding insects: a test of the information processing hypothesis. Proc R Soc Lond B 264:710–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jervis MA, Ferns PN (2004) The timing of egg maturation in insects: ovigeny index and initial egg load as measures of fitness and of resource allocation. Oikos 107:449–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jervis MA, Heimpel GE, Ferns PN, Harvey JA, Kidd NAC (2001) Life-history strategies in parasitoid wasps: a comparative analysis of ‘ovigeny’. J Anim Ecol 70:442–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jervis MA, Ferns PN, Heimpel GE (2003) Body size and the timing of egg production: a comparative analysis. Funct Ecol 17:375–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jervis MA, Boggs CL, Ferns PN (2005a) Egg maturation strategy and its associated trade-offs: a synthesis focusing on Lepidoptera. Ecol Entomol 30:359–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jervis MA Copland MJW, Harvey JA (2005b) The life cycle. In: Jervis MA (ed) Insects as natural enemies. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 73–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jervis MA, Boggs CL, Ferns PN (2006) Egg maturation strategy and survival trade-offs in holometabolous insects: a comparative approach. Biol J Linn Soc (in press)Google Scholar
  40. Johnson CG (1969) Migration and dispersal of insects by flight. Methuen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  41. de Jong R, Vane-Wright RI, Ackery PR (1996) The higher classification of butterflies (Lepidoptera): problems and prospects. Ent Scand 27:65–101Google Scholar
  42. Karowe DN (1990) Predicting host range evolution: colonization of Coronilla varia by Colias philodice (Lepidoptera: Pieridae). Evolution 44:1637–1647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kawecki TJ (1994) Accumulation of deleterious mutations and the evolutionary cost of being a generalist. Am Nat 144:833–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kristensen NP, Skalski AW (1996) Phylogeny and palaeontology. In: Kristensen NP (ed) Lepidoptera, moths and butterflies. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 7–25Google Scholar
  45. Ladner DT, Altizer S (2005) Oviposition preference and larval performance of North American monarch butterflies on four Asclepias species. Ent Exp Appl 116:9–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Levins R, MacArthur R (1969) An hypothesis to explain the incidence of monophagy. Ecology 50:910–911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lewontin RC (1965) Selection for colonising ability. In: Baker HG, Stebbins GL (eds) The genetics of colonizing species. Academic Press, New York, pp 79–94Google Scholar
  48. Mangel M (1989) Evolution of host selection in parasitoids: does the state of the parasitoid matter? Am Nat 133:688–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mangel M, Roitberg B (1989) Dynamic information and host acceptance by a tephritid fly. Ecol Entomol 14:181–189Google Scholar
  50. May P (1988) Determinants of foraging profitability in two nectarivorous butterflies. Ecol Entomol 13:171–184Google Scholar
  51. Mayhew PJ (1997) Adaptive patterns of host-plant selection by phytophagous insects. Oikos 79:417–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mayhew PJ (2001) Herbivore host choice and optimal bad motherhood. Trends Ecol Evol 16:165–167PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Minet J (1991) Tentative reconstruction of the ditrysian phylogeny (Lepidoptera: Glossata). Ent Scand 22:69–95Google Scholar
  54. Niemelä P, Hanhimäki S, Mannila R (1981) The relationship of adult size in noctuid moths (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae) to breadth of diet and growth form of plants. Ann Ent Fenn 47:17–20Google Scholar
  55. Obermaier E, Pfeiffer B, Linsenmair KE (2001) Mortality and parasitism in West African tortoise beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Entom General 25:189–203Google Scholar
  56. Price PW (1991) The plant vigor hypothesis and herbivore attack. Oikos 62:244–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Prinzing A (2003) Are generalists pressed for time? An interspecific test of the time-limited disperser model. Ecology 84:1744–1755Google Scholar
  58. Renwick JAA (2002) The chemical world of crucivores: lures, treats and traps. Ent Exp Appl 104:35–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Robinson GS (1999) HOSTS – a database of the hostplants of the world’s Lepidoptera. Nota Lep 22:35–47Google Scholar
  60. Robinson GS, Sattler K (2001) Plutella in the Hawaiian Islands – relatives and host races of the diamondback moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae). Occ Pap Bernice P Bishop Mus, Honolulu 67:1–27Google Scholar
  61. Robinson GS, Ackery PR, Kitching IJ, Beccaloni GW, Hernández LM (2000) HOSTS – a database of the hostplants of the world’s Lepidoptera. http://www.nhm.ac.uk/entomology/hostplants/Google Scholar
  62. Roitberg B (2000) Threats, flies, and protocol gaps: can evolutionary ecology save biological control? In: Hochberg ME, Ives AR (eds) Parasitoid population biology. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, pp 254–265Google Scholar
  63. Rosenheim JA (1996) An evolutionary argument for egg limitation. Evolution 50:2089–2094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sahragard A, Jervis MA, Kidd NAC (1991) Influence of host availability on rates of oviposition and host-feeding, and on longevity in Dicondylus indianus Olmi (Hym., Dryinidae), a parasitoid of the Rice Brown Planthopper, Nilaparvata lugens Stål (Hem., Delphacidae). J Appl Entomol 112:153–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Schoonhoven LM, Jermy T, van Loon JJA (1998) Insect-plant biology: from physiology to evolution. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  66. Sevenster JG, Ellers J, Driessen G (1998) An evolutionary argument for time limitation. Evolution 52:1241–1244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Singer MC, Ng D, Thomas CD (1988) Heritability of oviposition preference and its relationship to offspring performance within a single insect population. Evolution 42:977–985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Speight MR, Hunter MD, Watt AD (1999) Ecology of insects: concepts and applications. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  69. Stevens DJ, Hansell MH, Freel JA, Monaghan P (1999) Developmental trade-offs in caddis flies: increased investment in larval defence alters adult resource allocation. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:1049–1054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Stevens DJ, Hansell MH, Monaghan P (2000) Developmental trade-offs and life histories: strategic allocation of resources in caddis flies. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:1511–1515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Straatman R (1962) Notes on certain Lepidoptera ovipositing on plants which are toxic to their larvae. J Lepidop Soc 16:99–103Google Scholar
  72. Strauss SY, Zangerl AR (2002) Plant–insect interactions in terrestrial ecosystems. In: Herrera CM, Pellmyr O (eds) Plant–animal interactions: an evolutionary approach. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp 77–106Google Scholar
  73. Strong DR, Lawton JH, Southwood TRE (1984) Insects on plants: community patterns and mechanisms. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  74. Thorne AD, Pexton JJ, Dytham C, Mayhew PJ (2006) Small body size shifts development towards early reproduction in an insect. Proc R Soc Lond B 273:1099–1103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wahlberg N, Weingartner E, Nylin S (2003) Towards a better understanding of the higher systematics of Nymphalidae (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea). Mol Phylogenet Evol 28:473–484PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wahlberg N, Braby MF, Brower AVZ, de Jong R, Lee M-M, Nylin S, Pierce N, Sperling FAH, Vila RU, Warren AD, Zhakarov E (2005) Synergistic effects of combining morphological and molecular data in resolving the phylogeny of butterflies and skippers. Proc R Soc Lond B 272:1577–1586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wasserman SS, Mitter C (1978) The relationship of body size to breadth of diet in some Lepidoptera. Ecol Entomol 3:155–160Google Scholar
  78. Whitlock MC (1996) The Red Queen beats the jack-of-all trades: the limitations on the evolution of phenotypic plasticity and niche breadth. Am Nat 148:S65–S77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wiklund C (1975) The evolutionary relationship between adult oviposition preferences and larval host plant range in Papilio machaon L.. Oecologia 18:186–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark A. Jervis
    • 1
  • Peter N. Ferns
    • 1
  • Carol L. Boggs
    • 2
  1. 1.Cardiff School of BiosciencesCardiff UniversityCardiff, WalesUK
  2. 2.Department of Biological Sciences, Center for Conservation BiologyStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations