Advertisement

Journal of Insect Conservation

, Volume 12, Issue 5, pp 511–517 | Cite as

Myrmica host-ants limit the density of the ant-predatory large blue Maculinea nausithous

  • Christian AntonEmail author
  • Martin Musche
  • Vladimir Hula
  • Josef Settele
Original Paper

Abstract

Butterflies of the highly endangered genus Maculinea are parasites of red Myrmica ants. Prior to the adoption by Myrmica worker ants Maculinea caterpillars feed on a specific host plant. This field study aims to answer the question whether the density and distribution of the host plant Sanguisorba officinalis or the density of the host ant M. rubra limit the density of M. nausithous egg, larval and adult stage. We found that the density of M. nausithous egg stage and adult stage increased with the density of the host ant. The density of M. nausithous caterpillars was not associated with ant density or plant density. This study suggests that the density of M. nausithous is limited by the density of the host ant M. rubra. We conclude that habitat management for M. nausithous should focus on the maintenance of habitats that hold both resources, but that enable high densities of M. rubra. In addition, it is discussed why high densities of host ants might be more important in predatory than in cuckoo-feeding Maculinea.

Keywords

Habitat conservation Myrmica rubra Spatial density-dependence 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Holger Loritz who provided information on Maculinea -inhabited sites and who helped on two sites in the field. Many thanks to Hannelore Jany, Maria Filowa, Daniela Faust and Dana Weinhold for help in the lab, to the authorities in Rhineland-Palatinate (Struktur- und Genehmigungsdirektion Süd, Neustadt an der Weinstraße) for the permission to work on M. nausithous, and to Karsten Schönrogge and Oliver Boßdorf for comments on an early version of the manuscript. Research has been funded by the EC within the RTD project “MacMan” (EVK2-CT-2001-00126).

References

  1. Andrewartha HG, Birch LC (1954) The distribution and abundance of animals. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  2. Akino T, Knapp JJ, Thomas JA, Elmes GW (1999) Chemical mimicry and host specificity in the butterfly Maculinea rebeli, a social parasite of Myrmica ant colonies. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:1419–1426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Als TD, Nash DR, Boomsma JJ (2002) Geographical variation in host-ant specificity of the parasitic butterfly Maculinea alcon in Denmark. Ecol Entomol 27:403–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Crawley MJ (2002) Statistical computing: an introduction to data analysis using S-Plus. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  5. Dauber J, Wolters V (2005) Colonization of temperate grasslands by ants. Basic Appl Ecol 6:83–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Daufresne M, Renault O (2006) Population fluctuations, regulation and limitation in stream-living brown trout. Oikos 113:459–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Elmes GW, Clarke RT, Thomas JA, Hochberg ME (1996) Empirical tests of specific predictions made from a spatial model of the population dynamics of Maculinea rebeli, a parasitic butterfly of red ant colonies. Acta Oecol 17:61–80Google Scholar
  8. Elmes GW, Thomas JA, Hochberg ME, Clarke RT, Simcox DJ (1998). The ecology of Myrmica ants in relation to the conservation of Maculinea butterflies. J Insect Conserv 2:67–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Glinka U, Settele J (2005). The effect of ant communities and spatial pattern for Maculinea nausithous. In: Settele J, Kühn E, Thomas JA (eds) Studies on the ecology and conservation of butterflies in Europe, Vol 2. Pensoft Publishers, SofiaGoogle Scholar
  10. Hegi G (1995). Illustrierte Flora von Mitteleuropa. Blackwell, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  11. Hochberg ME, Clarke RT, Elmes GW, Thomas JA (1994) Population dynamic consequences of direct and indirect interactions involving a large blue butterfly and its plant and red ant hosts. J Anim Ecol 63:375–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Holt RD (1977) Predation, apparent competition and the structure of prey communities. Theor Pop Ecol 12:197–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Krauss J, Steffan-Dewenter I, Müller CB, Tscharntke T (2005) Relative importance of resource quantity, isolation and habitat quality for landscape distribution of a monophagous butterfly. Ecography 28:465–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Krebs CJ (1989) Ecological methodology. Harper Collins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Kruess A, Tscharntke T (1994) Habitat fragmentation, species loss, and biological control. Science 264:1581–1584PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mantel N (1967) The detection of disease clustering and a generalised regression approach. Cancer Res 27:209–220PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Musche M, Anton C, Worgan AW, Settele J (2006) No experimental evidence for host ant related oviposition in a parasitic butterfly. J Insect Behav 19:631–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nicholson AJ (1933) The self-adjustment of population to change. Cold Spring Harbor Symp Quant Biol 22:153–173Google Scholar
  19. Pollard E, Lakhani KH, Rothery P (1987) The detection of density dependence from a series of annual censuses. Ecology 68:2046–2055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ray C, Hastings A (1996) Density dependence: are we searching at the wrong spatial scale?. J Anim Ecol 65:556–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Seifert B (1996) Ameisen. Naturbuch-Verlag, AugsburgGoogle Scholar
  22. Seppä P, Pamilo P (1995) Gene flow and population viscosity in Myrmica ants. Heredity 74:200–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sinclair ARE, Pech RP (1996) Density dependence, stochasticity, compensation and predator regulation. Oikos 75:164–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Śliwińska E, Novicki P, Nash DR, Witek M, Settele J, Woyciechowski M (2006) Morphology of caterpillars and pupae of European Maculinea species (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) with an identification table. Entomol Fenn 17:351–358Google Scholar
  25. Smith-Gill SJ (1962) Cytophysiological basis of disruptive pigmentary patterns in the leopardfrog Rana pipiens. II. Wild type and mutant cell specific patterns. J Morphol 146:35–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Solow AR, Steele JH (1990) On sample size, statistical power, and the detection of density dependence. J Anim Ecol 59:1073–1076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Stankiewicz A, Sielezniew M (2002) Host specificity of Maculinea teleius Bgstr. and M. nausithous Bgstr. (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). The new insight. Annu Zool 52:403–408Google Scholar
  28. Thomas JA (1977) Second report on the ecology and conservation of the large blue butterfly. Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  29. Thomas JA, Elmes GW (1998). Higher productivity at the cost of increased host-specificity when Maculinea butterfly larvae exploit ant colonies through trophallaxis rather than by predation. Ecol Entomol 23:457–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Thomas JA, Elmes GW, Clarke RT, Kim KG, Munguira ML, Hochberg ME (1997) Field evidence and model predictions of butterfly-mediated apparent competition between gentian plants and ants. Acta Oecol 18:671–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Thomas JA, Elmes GW, Wardlaw JC, Woyciekowski M (1989) Host specificity among Maculinea butterflies in Myrmica ant nests. Oecologia 79:452–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Thomas JA, Elmes GW, Wardlaw JD (1993) Contest competition among Maculinea rebeli butterfly larvae in ant nests. Ecol Entomol 18:73–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Thomas JA, Settele J (2004) Butterfly mimics of ants. Nature 432:283–284PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Thomas JA, Wardlaw JC (1992) The capacity of a Myrmica ant nest to support a predacious species of Maculinea butterfly. Oecologia 91:101–109Google Scholar
  35. Van Helsdingen PJ, Willemse L, Speight MCD (1996) Background information on invertebrates of the habitats directive and the Bern Convention. I. Crustacea, Coleoptera and Lepidoptera. Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, FranceGoogle Scholar
  36. Van Swaay C, Warren M (1999) Red data book of European butterflies (Rhopalocera): Nature and Environment 99. Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, FranceGoogle Scholar
  37. Walde S, Murdoch WW (1988) Spatial density dependence in parasitoids. Annu Rev Entomol 33:441–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wardlaw JC, Elmes GW (1996) Exceptional colony size in Myrmica species (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Entomologist 115:191–196Google Scholar
  39. Wardlaw JC, Elmes GW, Thomas JA (1998) Techniques for studying Maculinea butterflies II: Identification guide to Myrmica ants found on Maculinea sites in Europe. J Insect Conserv 2:119–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Woiwood IP, Hanski I (1992) Patterns of density dependence in moths and aphids. J Anim Ecol 61:619–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wynhoff I (1998) The recent distribution of the European Maculinea species. J Insect Conserv 2:15–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Anton
    • 1
    Email author
  • Martin Musche
    • 1
  • Vladimir Hula
    • 2
  • Josef Settele
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Community EcologyHelmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research – UFZHalleGermany
  2. 2.Mendel University of Agriculture and Forestry BrnoBrnoCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations