Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 28, Issue 6, pp 1003–1017 | Cite as

Influences of geographic differentiation in the forewing warning signal of the wood tiger moth in Alaska

Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Aposematic organisms have warning signals advertising their unpalatability to predators, and because signal efficiency is better in higher densities, positive frequency-dependent selection is expected to select against less common signals. The wood tiger moth (Parasemia plantaginis) occurs across the Holarctic and its conspicuous hindwings serve as warning signals to predators. It also has conspicuous black and white forewing patterns that could act as warning signals, or help to hide the moth by preventing predators from seeing the outline of the moth’s body (a strategy known as disruptive coloration). In Alaska, the predominant forewing pattern changes distinctly between the regions around Fairbanks and Anchorage, suggesting local predators may maintain differences if the pattern functions as a warning signal. Alternatively, restricted gene flow along with drift could be responsible. We placed artificial moths with both local dominant and foreign forewing patterns in each of the two regions to test if predators select against the foreign forewing types, which would suggest the warning signal function of forewing patters. We also manipulated the level of disruptiveness in the forewing patterns to see if disruptiveness works in concert with the warning signal. The locally dominant forewing type was better protected in Fairbanks, but not in Anchorage where morphs were attacked equally. Manipulating the level of disruptiveness in the forewing pattern did not influence predation. Population genetic analyses from specimens caught during fieldwork showed the existence of two populations and restricted gene flow. Our results suggest that positive frequency dependent selection may be partially responsible for maintaining local signal differences, although predators seem to avoid both forewing patterns in Anchorage. Restricted gene flow between the two populations could be attributed to a combination of selection against foreign morphs in Fairbanks and physical barriers, which both likely contribute to warning signal differences in Alaska.

Keywords

Frequency dependent selection Arctiidae Mosaic selection Parasemia plantaginis Aposematism Erebidae 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Jonathan Hegna for valuable assistance in carrying out the experiment and collecting specimens throughout Alaska. Atsushi Honma and Janne Valkonen provided valuable input on the design of the experiment. Derek Sikes, Kenelm Philip, James Kruse, Michelle Michaud, and Dayna Dominguez assisted in locating suitable areas for the experiment and locating suitable specimen collecting areas. We thank Eira Ihalainen, Janne Valkonen, Juan Galarza, and Swanne Gordon for comments on earlier versions of this manuscript that significantly improved its quality. This work was conducted under US Fish and Wildlife Service permit KN-11-001, a scientific permit from Alaska State Parks, permit FH11-III-002-SA from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Funding was provided by the Academy of Finland (Finnish Centre of Excellence program, project 252411) and Biological Interactions Graduate School.

Supplementary material

10682_2014_9734_MOESM1_ESM.docx (12 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 11 kb)

References

  1. Adams J, Kang C, June-Wells M (2014) Are tropical butterflies more colorful? Ecol Res 29:685–691Google Scholar
  2. Aronsson M, Gamberale-Stille G (2012) Colour and pattern similarity in mimicry: evidence for a hierarchical discriminative learning of different components. Anim Behav 84:881–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benson WW (1972) Natural selection for Müllerian mimicry in Heliconius erato in Costa Rica. Science 176:936–939PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bohlin T, Tullberg BS, Merilaita S (2008) The effect of signal appearance and distance on detection risk in an aposematic butterfly larva (Parnassius apollo). Anim Behav 76:577–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bohlin T, Gamberale-Stille G, Merilaita S et al (2012) The detectability of the colour pattern in the aposematic firebug, Pyrrhocoris apterus: an image-based experiment with human ‘predators’. Biol J Linn Soc 105:806–816Google Scholar
  6. Borer M, Van Noort T, Rahier M et al (2010) Positive frequency-dependent selection on warning color in alpine leaf beetles. Evolution 64:3629–3633PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brodie ED (1993) Differential avoidance of coral snake banded patterns by free-ranging avian predators in Costa Rica. Evolution 47:227–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buse A, Dury S, Woodburn R et al (1999) Effects of elevated temperature on multi-species interactions: the case of Pedunculate Oak, Winter Moth and Tits. Funct Ecol 13:74–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chapuis MP, Estoup A (2007) Microsatellite null alleles and estimation of population differentiation. Mol Biol Evol 24:621–631PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chouteau M, Angers B (2012) Wright’s shifting balance theory and the diversification of aposematic signals. PLoS One 7:e34028PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Cott HB (1940) Adaptive coloration in animals. Methuen and Co., LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Cuthill IC (2006) Color perception. In: Hill GE, McGraw KJ (eds) Bird coloration: function and evolution: Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp. 3–40Google Scholar
  13. Cuthill IC, Stevens M, Sheppard J et al (2005) Disruptive coloration and background pattern matching. Nature 434:72–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dakin EE, Avise JC (2004) Microsatellite null alleles in parentage analysis. Heredity 93:504–509PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Earl D, vonHoldt B (2012) STRUCTURE HARVESTER: a website and program for visualizing STRUCTURE output and implementing the Evanno method. Conserv Genet Resour 4:359–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Edmunds M (1974) Defense in animals: a survey of anti-predator defenses. Longman Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Eeva T, Veistola S, Lehikoinen E (2000) Timing of breeding in subarctic passerines in relation to food availability. Can J Zool 78:67–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Endler JA (1988) Frequency-dependent predation, crypsis and aposematic coloration. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 319:505–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Endler JA, Mappes J (2004) Predator mixes and the conspicuousness of aposematic signals. Am Nat 163:532–547PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Evanno G, Regnaut S, Goudet J (2005) Detecting the number of clusters of individuals using the software structure: a simulation study. Mol Ecol 14:2611–2620PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Galarza JA, Viinikainen SM, Ashrafi R et al (2010) First microsatellite panel for the Wood Tiger Moth (Parasemia plantaginis). Consv Genet Resour 3:197–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Galarza JA, Nokelainen O, Ashrafi R, Hegna RH, Mappes J (in press) Temporal relationship between genetic and warning signal variation in the aposematic wood tiger moth (Parasemia plantaginis). Mol EcolGoogle Scholar
  23. Gehara M, Summers K, Brown JL (2013) Population expansion, isolation and selection: novel insights on the evolution of color diversity in the strawberry poison frog. Evol Ecol 27:797–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goodale MA, Sneddon I (1977) The effect of distastefulness of the model on the predation of artificial batesian mimics. Anim Behav 25(Part 3):660–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ham A, Ihalainen E, Lindström L et al (2006) Does colour matter? The importance of colour in avoidance learning, memorability and generalisation. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 60:482–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hart NS, Partridge JC, Cuthill IC (2000) Retinal asymmetry in birds. Curr Biol 10:115–117PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hegna RH, Nokelainen O, Hegna JR et al (2013a) To quiver or to shiver: increased melanization benefits thermoregulation, but reduces warning signal efficacy in the wood tiger moth. Proc R Soc Lond B 280:20122812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hegna RH, Saporito RA, Donnelly MA (2013b) Not all colors are equal: predation and color polytypism in the aposematic poison frog Oophaga pumilio. Evol Ecol 27:831–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hubisz MJ, Falush D, Stephens M et al (2009) Inferring weak population structure with the assistance of sample group information. Mol Ecol Resour 9:1322–1332PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Ihalainen E, Lindström L, Mappes J (2007) Investigating Mullerian mimicry: predator learning and variation in prey defences. J Evol Biol 20:780–791PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ihalainen E, Rowland HM, Speed MP et al (2012) Prey community structure affects how predators select for Müllerian mimicry. Proc R Soc Lond B 279:2099–2105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Joron M, Iwasa Y (2005) The evolution of a Müllerian mimic in a spatially distributed community. J Theor Biol 237:87–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kapan DD (2001) Three-butterfly system provides a field test of mullerian mimicry. Nature 409:338–340PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lindstedt C, Eager H, Ihalainen E et al (2011) Direction and strength of selection by predators for the color of the aposematic wood tiger moth. Behav Ecol 22:580–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lindström L, Alatalo RV, Lyytinen A et al (2001) Strong antiapostatic selection against novel rare aposematic prey. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:9181–9184PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Lindström L, Alatalo RV, Lyytinen A et al (2004) The effect of alternative prey on the dynamics of imperfect Batesian and Mullerian mimicries. Evolution 58:1294–1302PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Madsen T (1987) Are juvenile grass snakes, Natrix natrix, aposematically coloured? Oikos 48:265–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mallet J, Barton NH (1989) Strong natural selection in a warning-color hybrid zone. Evolution 43:421–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Meglecz E, Petenian F, Danchin E et al (2004) High similarity between flanking regions of different microsatellites detected within each of two species of Lepidoptera: parnassius apollo and Euphydryas aurinia. Mol Ecol 13:1693–1700PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Merilaita S, Lind J (2005) Background-matching and disruptive coloration, and the evolution of cryptic coloration. Proc R Soc Lond B 272:665–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nokelainen O (2013) Many forms of the wood tiger moth (Parasemia plantaginis): selective heterogeneity favours polymorphic warning signals. Jyväskylä Stud Biol Environ Sci 1456-9701 259:1–52Google Scholar
  42. Nokelainen O, Hegna RH, Reudler JH et al (2012) Trade-off between warning signal efficacy and mating success in the wood tiger moth. Proc R Soc Lond B 279:257–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nokelainen O, Valkonen J, Lindstedt C et al (2014) Changes in predator community structure shifts the efficacy of two warning signals in Arctiid moths. J Anim Ecol 83:598–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Noonan BP, Comeault AA (2009) The role of predator selection on polymorphic aposematic poison frogs. Biol Lett 5:51–54PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Osorio D, Vorobyev M (2005) Photoreceptor sectral sensitivities in terrestrial animals: adaptations for luminance and colour vision. Proc R Soc Lond B 272:1745–1752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Owen DF, Smith DAS, Gordon IJ et al (1994) Polymorphic Müllerian mimicry in a group of African butterflies: a re-assessment of the relationship between Danaus chrysippus, Acraea encedon and Acraea encedana (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). J Zool 232:93–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Peakall R, Smouse PE (2006) GENALEX 6: genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research. Mol Ecol Notes 6:288–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Poulton EB (1890) The colours of animals: their meaning and use especially considered in the case of insects. Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner, & Co. Ltd. LondonGoogle Scholar
  49. Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P (2000) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155:945–959PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. Richards-Zawacki CL, Yeager J, Bart HPS (2013) No evidence for differential survival or predation between sympatric color morphs of an aposematic poison frog. Evol Ecol 27:783–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ricklefs RE (2009) Aspect diversity in moths revisited. Am Nat 173:411–416PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rousset F (2008) genepop’007: a complete re-implementation of the genepop software for Windows and Linux. Mol Ecol Resour 8:103–106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rowe C, Lindström L, Lyytinen A (2004) The importance of pattern similarity between Müllerian mimics in predator avoidance learning. Proc R Soc Lond B 271:407–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rowland HM, Ihalainen E, Lindström L et al (2007) Co-mimics have a mutualistic relationship despite unequal defences. Nature 448:64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ruxton GD, Sherratt TN, Speed MP (2004) Avoiding attack: the evolutionary ecology of crypsis, warning signals and mimicry. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schaefer HM, Stobbe N (2006) Disruptive coloration provides camouflage independent of background matching. Proc R Soc Lond B 273:2427–2432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schemske DW, Mittelbach GG, Cornell HV et al (2009) Is there a latitudinal gradient in the importance of biotic interactions? Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 40:245–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sherratt TN (2006) Spatial mosaic formation through frequency-dependent selection in Müllerian mimicry complexes. J Theor Biol 240:165–174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sherratt TN, Rashed A, Beatty CD (2005) Hiding in plain sight. Trends Ecol Evol 20:414–416PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Siddiqi A, Cronin TW, Loew ER et al (2004) Interspecific and intraspecific views of color signals in the strawberry poison frog Dendrobates pumilio. J Exp Biol 207:2471–2485PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stevens M (2007) Predator perception and the interrelation between different forms of protective coloration. Proc R Soc Lond B 274:1457–1464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Stobbe N, Schaefer HM (2008) Enhancement of chromatic contrast increases predation risk for striped butterflies. Proc R Soc Lond B 275:1535–1541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Svádová K, Exnerová A, Štys P et al (2009) Role of different colours of aposematic insects in learning, memory and generalization of naïve bird predators. Anim Behav 77:327–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tullberg BS, Merilaita S, Wiklund C (2005) Aposematism and crypsis combined as a result of distance dependence: functional versatility of the colour pattern in the swallowtail butterfly larva. Proc R Soc Lond B 272:1315–1321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Valkonen J, Niskanen M, Björklund M et al (2011) Disruption or aposematism? Significance of dorsal zigzag pattern of European vipers. Evol Ecol 25:1047–1063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. van Bemmelen J (1918) The wing-marking of Arctiidae. Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Weteschappen Proc Ser B Phys Sci 20:849–860Google Scholar
  67. Van Oosterhout C, Hutchinson WF, Wills DPM et al (2004) Micro-checker: software for identifying and correcting genotyping errors in microsatellite data. Mol Ecol Notes 4:535–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Veselý P, Luhanová D, Prášková M et al (2012) Generalization of mimics imperfect in colour patterns: the point of view of wild avian predators. Ethology 119:138–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Vorobyev M, Osorio D (1998) Receptor noise as a determinant of colour thresholds. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Vorobyev M, Osorio D, Bennett ATD et al (1998) Tetrachromacy, oil droplets and bird plumage colours. J Comp Physiol A 183:621–633PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wilson GA, Rannala B (2003) Bayesian inference of recent migration rates using multilocus genotypes. Genetics 163:1177–1191PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biology and Environmental Science, Centre of Excellence in Biological InteractionsUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland
  2. 2.Department of BiologyPalm Beach Atlantic UniversityWest Palm BeachUSA

Personalised recommendations