Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 1–18 | Cite as

Niche separation in space and time between two sympatric sister species—a case of ecological pleiotropy

  • Magne Friberg
  • Martin Bergman
  • Jaakko Kullberg
  • Niklas Wahlberg
  • Christer Wiklund
Original Paper

Abstract

We investigate the niche separation in space and time between the Palearctic sister species Leptidea sinapis and L. reali (Lepidoptera, Pieridae) in central Sweden. Using field sampling, we show that L. reali is a habitat specialist confined to meadows, whereas L. sinapis is a habitat generalist also inhabiting forests. This difference in habitat utilization was corroborated by experimental release of laboratory-reared L. sinapis and L. reali in two adjacent forest and meadow habitats during their natural flight period; virtually all recaptured L. reali that were released in the forest were later caught in the meadow, whereas L. sinapis shifted equally often from meadow to forest as in the opposite direction. In the field, both species fly in May–June, but L. reali appears on average a week earlier in spring and has a substantial second generation in July, whereas L. sinapis is practically univoltine. When overwintered pupae were incubated under identical conditions in the laboratory, females did, however, not differ in phenology, and L. sinapis males actually emerged earlier than L. reali males. When larvae were reared at 23°C on the host plant Lotus corniculatus at a range of daylengths, both species produced a substantial proportion of directly developing individuals at an 18.5 h daylength or longer. When reared at 23°C and a 22 h daylength, L. reali showed an overall higher propensity to develop directly than L. sinapis on plant species originating from both the meadow and the forest habitat. Both Leptidea species showed a lower propensity to enter direct development on forest associated plants than on meadow associated plants. Hence, we suggest that the difference in phenology and voltinism between L. sinapis and L. reali is largely the result of environmentally implemented ecological pleiotropic effects caused by the between-species difference in habitat preference.

Keywords

Temporal and spatial niche-partitioning Geographic mosaic Secondary contact Diapause Direct development Host plants 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Bertil Borg, Sören Nylin, Niklas Janz, Erik I. Svensson, Henri Descimon and two anonymous reviewers for useful comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript. We are also thankful to Arjen Biere and Olof Leimar for statistical advice and to Helena Larsdotter Mellström and Carlos Peña, for their help during the laboratory work. The study was funded by The Swedish Research Council to Christer Wiklund.

References

  1. Albrecht M, Gotelli NJ (2001) Spatial and temporal niche partitioning in grassland ants. Oecologia 126:134–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amiet JL (2004) Ecological niche partitioning between two sympatric sibling Leptidea species (Lepidoptera, Pieridae). Rev D Ecol Terre Vie 59:433–452Google Scholar
  3. Bearzi M (2005) Dolphin sympatric ecology. Mar Biol Res 1:165–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beneš J, Konvika M, Vrabec V, Zámečník J (2003) Do the sibling species of small whites, Leptidea sinapis and L. reali (Lepidoptera, Pieridae) differ in habitat preferences. Biol Bratisl 58:943–951Google Scholar
  5. Bjelke U, Bohman IM, Herrmann J (2005) Temporal niches of shredders in lake littorals with possible implications on ecosystem functioning. Aquat Ecol 39:41–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boughman JW, Rundle HD, Schluter D (2005) Parallel evolution of sexual isolation in sticklebacks. Evolution 59:361–373PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Danilevsky AS (1965) Photoperiodism and seasonal development of insects. Oliver and Boyd, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  8. Dixon AFG, Jarosik V, Honek A (2005) Thermal requirements for development and resource partitioning in aphidophagous guilds. Eur J Entomol 102:407–411Google Scholar
  9. Dres M, Mallet J (2002) Host races in plant-feeding insects and their importance in sympatric speciation. Phil Trans Roy Soc Lond B 357:471–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eliasson CU, Ryrholm N, Holmer M, Jilg K, Gärdenfors U (2005) Nationalnyckeln till Sveriges flora och fauna. Fjärilar: Dagfjärilar. Hesperiidae – Nymphalidae. edn. Artdatabanken, SLU, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  11. Ellis AG, Weis AE, Gaut BS (2006) Evolutionary radiation of “stone plants” in the genus Argyroderma (Aizoaeae): unravelling the effects of landscape, habitat, and flowering time. Evolution 60:39–55PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Feder J, Filchak K (1999) It’s about time: the evidence for host plant-mediated selection in the apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, and its implications for fitness trade-offs in phytophagous insects. Entomol Exp Appl 91:211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fischer K, Fiedler K (2001) Sexual differences in life-history traits in the butterfly Lycaena tityrus: a comparison between direct and diapause development. Entomol Exp Appl 100:325–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Freese A, Fiedler K (2002) Experimental evidence for species distinctness of the two wood white butterfly taxa, Leptidea sinapis and L. reali (Pieridae). Nota Lepid 25:39–59Google Scholar
  15. Griffiths RA, Edgar PW, Wong ALC (1991) Interspecific competition in tadpoles – growth-inhibition and growth retrieval in natterjack toads, Bufo calamita. J Anim Ecol 60:1065–1076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gutman R, Dayan T (2005) Temporal partitioning: an experiment with two species of spiny mice. Ecology 86:164–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hall TA (1999) BioEdit: a user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT. Nucleic Acids Symp Ser 41:95–98Google Scholar
  18. Hollander J, Lindegarth M, Johannesson K (2005) Local adaptation but not geographical separation promotes assortative mating in a snail. Anim Behav 70:1209–1219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hunter MD, McNeil JN (1997) Host-plant quality influences diapause and voltinism in a polyphagous insect herbivore. Ecology 78:977–986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Janz N, Nyblom K, Nylin S (2001) Evolutionary dynamics of host-plant specialization: a case study of the tribe Nymphalini. Evolution 55:783–796PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jiggins CD, Naisbit RE, Coe RL, Mallet J (2001) Reproductive isolation caused by colour pattern mimicry. Nature 411:302–305PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kotler BP, Brown JS, Subach A (1993) Mechanisms of species coexistence of optimal foragers – temporal partitioning by two species of sand dune gerbils. Oikos 67:548–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kronfeld-Schor N, Dayan T (2003) Partitioning of time as an ecological resource. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:153–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Levin DA (2006) Flowering phenology in relation to adaptive radiation. Syst Bot 31:239–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lorković Z (1993) Leptidea reali REISSINGER 1989 (=lorkovicii REAL 1988), a new European species (Lepid., Pieridae). Natura Croatia 2:1–26Google Scholar
  26. Losos JB, Warheit KI, Schoener TW (1997) Adaptive differentiation following experimental island colonization in Anolis lizards. Nature 387:70–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Martin J-F, Gilles A, Descimon H (2003) Species concepts and sibling species: the case of Leptidea sinapis and Leptidea reali. In: Boggs CL, Watt WB, Ehrlich PR (eds) Butterflies – ecology and evolution – taking flight. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 459–476Google Scholar
  28. Mazel R (2002) Répartition géographique de Leptidea sinapis (L., 1758) et L. reali Reissinger, 1989 au nord de l’Europe, en Russie et dans quelqes pays d’Asie (Lepidoptera: Pieridae, Dismorphiinae). Linneana Belg 18:373–376Google Scholar
  29. Mazel R (2005) Éléments de phylogénie dans le genre Leptidea Bilberg 1820 (Lepidoptera, Pieridae, Dismorphiinae). Revue l’Assoc roussillonaise d’Entomol 14:98–111Google Scholar
  30. Mazel R, Eitschberger U (2003) Biogéographie de Leptidea reali Reissinger, 1989 en Europe et en Turquie / Die Verbreitung von Leptidea reali Reissinger, 1989 in Europa und in der Türkei. Revue l’Assoc roussillonaise d’Entomol 12:91–109Google Scholar
  31. McKinnon JS, Mori S, Blackman BK, David L, Kingsley DM, Jamieson L, Chou J, Schluter D (2004) Evidence for ecology’s role in speciation. Nature 429:294–298PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mossberg B, Stenberg L, Ericsson S (1992) Den nordiska floran. Wahlström & Widstrand, SolnaGoogle Scholar
  33. Rundle HD, Schluter D (2004) Natural selection and ecological speciation in sticklebacks. In: Dieckmann U, Doebeli M, Metz JAJ, Tautz D (eds) Adaptive speciation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 192–209Google Scholar
  34. Rundle HD, Nagel L, Boughman JW, Schluter D (2000) Natural selection and parallel speciation in sympatric sticklebacks. Science 287:306–308PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schluter D (2000) The ecology of adaptive radiation. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Schlyter F, Anderbrant O (1993) Competition and niche separation between two bark beetles – existence and mechanisms. Oikos 68:437–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schoener TW (1974) Resource partitioning in ecological communities. Science 185:27–39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Statsoft (2005) STATISTICA (data analysis software system) version 71. http://www.statsoft.comGoogle Scholar
  39. Tauber MJ, Tauber CA, Masaki S (1986) Seasonal adaptations of insects. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Thompson JN (2005) The geographic mosaic of coevolution. The University of Chigaco Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  41. Waugh SM, Weimerskirch H (2003) Environmental heterogeneity and the evolution of foraging behaviour in long ranging greater albatrosses. Oikos 103:374–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wedell N, Nylin S, Janz N (1997) Effects of larval host plant and sex on the propensity to enter diapause in the comma butterfly. Oikos 78:569–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wiklund C (1977a) Courtship behaviour in relation to female monogamy in Leptidea sinapis (Lepidoptera). Oikos 29:275–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wiklund C (1977b) Oviposition, feeding and spatial separation of breeding and foraging habitats in a population of Leptidea sinapis (Lepidoptera). Oikos 28:56–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wiklund C, Solbreck C (1982) Adaptive versus incidental explanations for the occurrence of protandry in a butterfly, Leptidea sinapis L. Evolution 36:56–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wiklund C, Nylin S, Forsberg J (1991) Sex-related variation in growth rate as a result of selection for large size and protandry in a bivoltine butterfly, Pieris napi. Oikos 60:241–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wiklund C, Wickman PO, Nylin S (1992) A sex difference in the propensity to enter direct/diapause development – a result of selection for protandry. Evolution 46:519–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vila R, Viader S, Jubany J (2003) Leptidea sinapis (Linnaeus, 1758) i L. reali (Reissinger 1988): dues ecpécies “bessones” a Catalunya i Andorra (Lepidoptera: Pieridae). Bull Soc Cat Lep 90:25–47Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Magne Friberg
    • 1
  • Martin Bergman
    • 1
  • Jaakko Kullberg
    • 2
  • Niklas Wahlberg
    • 1
    • 3
  • Christer Wiklund
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Department of Entomology, Finnish Museum of Natural HistoryUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  3. 3.Laboratory of Genetics, Department of BiologyUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland

Personalised recommendations