Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 237–252 | Cite as

Enemy targeting, trade-offs, and the evolutionary assembly of a tortoise beetle defense arsenal

Original Paper

Abstract

In response to intense enemy selection, immature folivorous insects have evolved elaborate, multi-trait defense arsenals. How enemies foster trait diversification and arsenal assembly depends on which selective mode they impose: whether different enemies select for the same defense or exert conflicting selection on a prey species. Theory has long supposed that the selective advantage of a defense depends on its efficacy against a broad spectrum of enemies, which implies that predator selection is more diffuse than pairwise. Here, we use the multi-trait defense arsenal of the tortoise beetle, Acromis sparsa, which consists of shields, gregariousness and maternal guarding to test whether: (1) diverse enemies have selected for narrowly targeted defenses in the Acromis lineage; (2) newer traits out-performed older ones or vice versa, and; (3) if selection by different enemies results in positive (escalation) trends in defense effectiveness. Because their defenses could be modified or ablated, individuals were rendered differentially protected, and their survival was quantified in a long-term field study. Exclusion experiments evaluated defense efficacy against particular enemy guilds. Logit regression revealed that: (1)no single trait increased survival against the entire enemy suite; (2)trait efficacy was strongly correlated with a particular enemy, consistent with narrow targeting; (3)traits lacked strong cross-resistance among enemies; (4)traits performed synergistically, consistent with the idea of escalation, and; (5)traits interacted negatively to decrease survival, indicative of performance trade-offs. From collation of the phylogenetic histories of arsenal and enemy community assembly we hypothesize that older traits performed better against older enemies and that patterns of both trait and enemy accumulation are consistent with defense escalation. Trade-offs and lack of cross-resistance among defenses imply that enemy selection has been conflicting at the guild level and that negative functional interactions among defenses have fostered the evolution of a defense arsenal of increasing complexity.

Keywords

Acromis sparsa Community assembly Modes of selection Escalation Shield Gregariousness Guild Maternal care Multiple species interactions Trade-offs 

Supplementary material

10682_2012_9603_MOESM1_ESM.doc (410 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 410 kb)
10682_2012_9603_MOESM2_ESM.doc (74 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOC 73 kb)

References

  1. Abrams PA (2000) Character shifts of prey species that share predators. Am Nat 156:S45–S61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abrams PA (2001) The effect of density-independent mortality on the coexistence of exploitative competitors for renewing resources. Am Nat 158:459–470PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Agrawal AA (2007) Macroevolution of plant defense strategies. Trends Ecol Evol 22:103–109PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Agrawal AA (2011) Currents trends in the evolutionary ecology of plant defence. Funct Ecol 25:420–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borowiec L, Świętojańska J (2012) World catalog of Cassidinae, url:http://www.biol.uni.wroc.pl/cassidae/katalog%20internetowy/index.htm. Wrocław, Poland
  6. Botham MS, Kerfoot CJ, Louca V, Krause J (2006) The effects of different predator species on anti-predator behavior in the Trinidadian guppy, Poecilia reticulata. Naturwissenschaften 93:431–439PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brady SG, Larkin L, Danforth BN (2009) Bees, ants, and stinging wasps (Aculeata). In: Hedges SB, Kumar S (eds) The time tree of life. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 264–269Google Scholar
  8. Carpenter JM, Grimaldi DA (1997) Social wasps in amber. AMNH Novitates 3203:3–7Google Scholar
  9. Cavender-Bares J, Kozak KH, Fine PVA, Kemberl SW (2009) The merging of community ecology and phylogenetic biology. Ecol Lett 12:693–715PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chaboo CS (2007) Biology and phylogeny of the Cassidinae Gyllenhal sensu lato (tortoise and leaf-mining beetles) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Bull Am Mu Nat Hist 305:189–233Google Scholar
  11. Chaboo CS, Engel MS (2009) Eocene tortoise beetles from the green river formation in Colorado, U.S.A. (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Cassidinae). Syst Entomol 34:202–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cornell HV, Hawkins BA, Hochberg ME (1998) Towards an empirically-based theory of herbivore demography. Ecol Entomol 2:340–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cox ML (1996) Insect predators of the Chrysomelidae. In: Jolivet PHA, Cox ML (eds) Chrysomelidae biology, vol 2, ecological studies. SPB Academic Publishing, Amsterdam, pp 23–91Google Scholar
  14. Cuignet M, Windsor D, Reardon J, Hance T (2008) The diversity and specificity of parasitoids attacking neotropical tortoise beetles (Chrysomelidae, Cassidinae). In: Jolivet P, Santiago-Blay J, Schmitt M (eds) Research on Chrysomelidae, 1. Brill Publishers, Leiden, pp 345–367Google Scholar
  15. Dlussky GM, Rasnitsyn AP (2003) Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) of Formation Green River and some other Middle Eocene deposits of North America. Russ Entomol J 11:411–436Google Scholar
  16. Dyer LA, Bowers MD (1996) The importance of sequestered iridoid glycosides as a defense against an ant predator. J Chem Ecol 22:1527–1539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ehrlich PR, Raven PH (1964) Butterflies and plants: a study in coevolution. Evolution 18:586–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Evans LE, Schmidt JO (1991) Insect defenses adaptive mechanisms of prey and predators. State University of New York Press, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  19. Farrell BD (1998) ‘‘Inordinate Fondness’’ explained: why are there so many beetles? Science 281:555–559Google Scholar
  20. Farrell BD, Sequeira AS (2004) Evolutionary rates in the adaptive radiation of beetles on plants. Evolution 58:1984–2001Google Scholar
  21. Futuyma DJ, Slatkin M (1983) Introduction. In: Futuyma DJ, Slatkin M (eds) Coevolution. Sinauer Associates, MA, pp 1–13Google Scholar
  22. Gentry GL, Dyer LA (2002) On the conditional nature of neotropical caterpillar defenses against their natural enemies. Ecology 83:3108–3119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gómez NE, Witte L, Hartmann T (1999) Chemical defense in a tortoise beetle: essential oil composition of larval fecal shields of Eurypedus nigrosignata and its host plant Cordia curassavica. J Chem Ecol 25:1007–1027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grimaldi DA (1995) The age of Dominican amber. In: Anderson KB, Crelling JC (eds) Amber, resinites, and fossil resins. Am Chem Soc Symp 617:203–215Google Scholar
  25. Grimaldi DA, Engel MS (2005) Evolution of the insects. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Gross P (1993) Insect behavioral and morphological defenses against parasitoids. Ann Rev Entomol 38:251–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The ants. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  28. Hsiao TH, Windsor DM (1999) Host plants and the diversification of Neotropical tortoise beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Hispinae). In: Cox ML (ed) Advances in Chrysomelidae biology. Backhuys, Leiden, pp 85–105Google Scholar
  29. Hunter AF (2000) Gregariousness and repellent defenses in the survival of phytophagous insects. Oikos 91:213–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Langerhans RB (2009) Trade-off between steady and unsteady swimming underlies predator-driven divergence in Gambusia affinis. J Evol Biol 22:1057–1075PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lemos WP, Zanuncio JC, Serrão JE (2005) Attack behavior of Podisus rostralis (Heteroptera: Pentatomidade) adults on caterpillars of Bombyx mori (Lepidoptera: Bombycidae). Braz Arch Biol Technol 48:975–981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mikolajewski DJ, Johansson F, Wohlfahrt B, Stoks R (2006) Invertebrate predation selects for the loss of a morphological antipredator trait. Evolution 60:1306–1310PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Moreau CS, Bell CD, Vila R, Archibald SB, Pierce NE (2006) Phylogeny of the ants: diversification in the age of angiosperms. Science 312:101–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Morton TC, Vencl FV (1998) Larval beetles (Chrysomelidae: Criocerinae) form defense from recycled host compounds discharged as fecal wastes. J Chem Ecol 24:765–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Müller C (2002) Variation in the effectiveness of abdominal shields of cassidine larvae against predators. Entomol Exp Appl 102:191–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Novotny V, Basset Y, Auga J, Boen W, Dal C, Drozd P, Kasbal M, Isua B, Kutil R, Molem K (1999) Predation risk for herbivorous insects on tropical vegetation: a search for enemy-free space and time. Aust J Ecol 24:477–483Google Scholar
  37. Olmstead KL (1996) Cassidine defenses and natural enemies. In: Jolivet PH, Cox ML (eds) Chrysomelidae biology, vol 2: ecological studies. SPB Academic Publishing, Amsterdam, pp 3–21Google Scholar
  38. Olmstead KL, Denno RF (1993) Effectiveness of tortoise beetle larval shields against different predator species. Ecology 74:1394–1405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pearson D (1990) The evolution of multi anti-predator characteristics as illustrated by tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae). Behav Ecol 73:68–79Google Scholar
  40. Relyea RA (2003) How prey respond to combined predators: a review and an empirical test. Ecology 84:1827–1839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ruxton GD, Sherratt TN, Speed MP (2004) Avoiding attack: the evolutionary ecology of crypsis, warning signals and mimicry. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. SAS (2009) v 9.2 The SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, USAGoogle Scholar
  43. Schenk D, Bacher S (2002) Functional response of a generalist insect predator to one of its prey species in the field. J An Ecol 71:524–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sillén-Tullberg B, Leimar O (1988) The evolution of gregariousness in distasteful insects as a defense against predators. Am Nat 132:723–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stamp NE, Casey TM (1993) Caterpillars: Ecological and Evolutionary Constraints on Foraging. Chapman and Hall, NYGoogle Scholar
  46. Stoks R, McPeek MA (2003) Predators and life histories shape Lestes damselfly assemblages along a freshwater habitat gradient. Ecology 84:1576–1587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vencl FV, Schultz JC, Mumma RC, Morton TC (1999) The shield defense of a larval tortoise beetle. J Chem Ecol 25:549–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vencl FV, Nogueira-de-Sá F, Allen BJ, Windsor DM, Futuyma DJ (2005) Dietary specialization influences the efficacy of larval tortoise beetle shield defenses. Oecologia 145:409–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vencl FV, Gómez NE, Ploss K, Boland W (2009) The chlorophyll catabolite, pheophorbide a, confers predation resistance in a larval tortoise beetle shield defense. J Chem Ecol 35:281–288PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vencl FV, Trillo PA, Geeta R (2011) Functional interactions among tortoise beetle larval defenses reveal trait suites and escalation. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 64:227–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vermeij GJ (1994) The evolutionary interaction among species: selection, escalation, and coevolution. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 25:219–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ward PS, Brady SG, Fisher BL, Schultz TR (2010) Phylogeny and Biogeography of Dolichoderine ants: effects of data partitioning and relict taxa on historical inference. Syst Biol 59:342–362PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Weirauch C, Schuh RT (2011) Systematics and evolution of Heteroptera: 25 years of progress. Annu Rev Entomol 56:487–510PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wilf P, Labandeira CC, Kress WJ, Staines CL, Windsor DM, Allen AL, Johnson KR (2000) Timing the radiations of leaf beetles: hispines on gingers from latest Cretaceous to recent. Science 289:291–294PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wilson EO, Hölldobler B (2005) The rise of the ants: a phylogenetic and ecological explanation. PNAS 102:7411–7414PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Windsor DM (1987) Natural history of a subsocial tortoise beetle, Acromis sparsa Boheman (Chrysomelidae: Cassidinae) in Panama. Psyche 94:127–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Windsor DM, Riley EG, Stockwell HP (1992) An introduction to the biology and systematics of Panamanian tortoise beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Cassidinae). In: Quintero D, Aiello A (eds) Insects of Panama and Mesoamerica. Selected studies. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 372–391Google Scholar
  58. Witz BW (1990) Antipredator mechanisms in arthropods: a twenty-year literature survey. Fla Entomol 73:71–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Yasuda T (1998) Role of chlorophyll content of prey diets in prey- locating behavior of generalist predatory stink bug Eocanthecona furcellata. Entomol Exp Appl 86:119–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zalucki MP, Clarke AR, Malcolm SB (2002) Ecology and behavior of first instar larval Lepidoptera. Annu Rev Entomol 47:361–393PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ecology and EvolutionStony Brook UniversityStony BrookUSA
  2. 2.USDA-Agricultural Research Service, Northern Plains Agricultural Research LabSidneyUSA
  3. 3.The Smithsonian Tropical Research InstituteBalboa, AnconRepublic of Panama

Personalised recommendations