Journal of Insect Conservation

, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp 607–615 | Cite as

Is the globally rare frosted elfin butterfly (Lycaenidae) two genetically distinct host plant races in Maryland? DNA evidence from cast larval skins provides an answer

ORIGINAL PAPER

Abstract

Frosted elfin butterfly caterpillars (Callophrys irus) eat either lupine (Lupinus perennis) or wild indigo (Baptisia tinctoria) legumes. Data from larval behavior, adult morphology, demographics, and phenology have led to the suggestion that lupine-feeding populations are genetically distinct from wild indigo-feeding populations. Frosted elfins are of conservation concern throughout their range in the eastern half of North America, and the possibility of host plant races—in which females pass genetically determined oviposition preferences to their daughters—complicates assessments of this vulnerable species. The maternal inheritance of mitochondrial DNA sequences makes CO1 an excellent gene to determine if genetically distinct host plant races have evolved in frosted elfins. In this paper, we extracted DNA using cast larval skins, a non-lethal, minimal-disturbance method appropriate for insects of conservation concern. Fifty eggs and caterpillars were taken from the field, reared in the lab until molting, and then returned to the plant on which they were found. Over 80 % of individuals had DNA successfully sequenced from their cast larval skins. The sequences allowed unequivocal identification. Neither the lupine-feeding nor wild indigo-feeding populations formed monophyletic clusters because many lupine-feeding and wild-indigo feeding individuals shared the same CO1 658 base pair sequence. An isolated population from the mountains of western Maryland was also not genetically distinct from a coastal population 345 km to the east. These results show the usefulness of using cast larval skins as a non-lethal source of DNA in listed species and suggest that frosted elfins are generalist feeders of lupine and wild indigo and are not comprised of two genetically distinct host plant races.

Keywords

Callophrys irus Wild indigo Lupine Host plant races Mitochondrial CO1 DNA barcodes Deer 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the following individuals for their assistance in all aspects of field work: Paula Becker, Danny Thomas, Chris Frye, John Moulis, Kyle Rambo, Wes Knapp, Joe Fehrer Sara Tangren, and numerous volunteers from the Maryland DNR and the Nature Conservancy, most notably Jeff Bacon, Gordon and Mary Burton, David Hindle, Gary Marine, Tom Ogden, Margaret Schultz, Robert Turk and Tom Ogden. We thank Brian Harris and Margaret Rosati at Smithsonian for technical support, and Scott Miller (who urged us to use cast larval skins as a source for mitochondrial DNA), Paul Goldstein, and Karie Darrow for helpful advice. Dana Limpert at Maryland DNR provided mapmaking expertise, and Jeremy deWaard at Guelph greatly facilitated the sequencing of our samples. For reviewing and commenting on the manuscript, we are grateful to Robert Busby, Paul Goldstein, Scott Miller, Richard Smith, and David Wagner. Two anonymous reviewers and the Editor made many helpful suggestions, for which we are grateful. This project was funded in part through a State Wildlife Grant from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and through the Department of Entomology, NMNH, Smithsonian Institution.

References

  1. Albanese G, Nelson MW, Vickery PD, Sievert PR (2007a) Larval feeding behavior and ant association in frosted elfin, Callophrys irus (Lycaenidae). J Lepid Soc 61:61–66Google Scholar
  2. Albanese G, Vickery PD, Sievert PR (2007b) Habitat characteristics of adult frosted elfins (Callophrys irus) in sandplain communities of southeastern Massachusetts, USA. Biol Conserv 136:53–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Albanese G, Vickery PD, Sievert PR (2008) Microhabitat use by larvae and females of a rare barrens butterfly, frosted elfin (Callophrys irus). J Insect Conserv 12:603–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ballmer GR, Pratt GF (1988) A survey of the last instar larvae of the Lycaenidae of California. J Res Lepid 27:1–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bried JT, Murtaugh JE, Dillon AM (2012) Local distribution factors and sampling effort guidelines for the rare frosted elfin butterfly. Northeast Nat 19:673–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bush GL (1969) Sympatric host race formation and speciation in frugivorous flies of the genus Rhagoletis (Diptera, Tephritidae). Evol 23:237–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bush GL (1975) Modes of animal speciation. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 6:339–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chew FS (1980) Foodplant preferences of Pieris caterpillars (Lepidoptera). Oecologia (Berl.) 46:347–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Frye JA (2012) The effect of deer browse on sundial lupine: implications for frosted elfins. Northeast Nat 19:421–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frye JA, Tangren S (2013) Dual host plant use by Callophrys irus (Godart) (Lycaenidae) larvae at a single site on the Maryland coastal plain. News Lepid Soc 55:156–157Google Scholar
  11. Gatrelle RR (1991) The taxonomic implications of the discovery of Incisalia irus in Florida. News Lepid Soc 1991:57–58Google Scholar
  12. Goloboff PA, Farris JS, Nixon KC (2008) TNT, a free program for phylogenetic analysis. Cladistics 24:774–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hrcek J, Miller SE, Quicke DL, Smith MA (2011) Molecular detection of trophic links in a complex insect host-parasitoid food web. Mol Ecol Resour 11:786–794CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hrcek J, Miller SE, Whitfield JB, Shima H, Novotny V (2013) Parasitism rate, parasitoid community composition and host specificity on exposed and semi-concealed caterpillars from a tropical rainforest. Oecologia 173:521–532CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Janzen DH, Hallwachs W, Blandin P, Burns JM, Cadiou J-M, Chacon I, Dapkey T, Deans AR, Epstein ME, Espinoza B, Franclemont JG, Haber WA, Hajibabaei M, Hall JPW, Hebert PDN, Gauld ID, Harvey DJ, Hasumann A, Kitching IJ, Lafontaine D, Landry J-F, Lemaire C, Miller JY, Miller JS, Miller L, Miller SE, Montero J, Munroe E, Green SR, Ratnasingham S, Rawlins JE, Robbins RK, Rodriguez JJ, Rougerie R, Sharkey MJ, Smith MA, Solis MA, Sullivan JB, Thiaucourt P, Wahl DB, Weller SJ, Whitfield JB, Willmott KR, Wood DM, Woodley NE, Wilson JJ (2009) Integration of DNA barcoding into an ongoing inventory of complex tropical biodiversity. Mol Ecol Resour 9(Supplement 1):1–26CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Maryland Natural Heritage Program (2010) Rare, threatened and endangered animals of Maryland. April 2010 edition, MD Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife and Heritage Service, Annapolis, MD. 24 p 10Google Scholar
  17. NatureServe Explorer (2014) An online encyclopedia of life [web application] Version 4.6. Arlington, Virginia, USA: NatureServe. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed Nov 2014
  18. Nixon KC (2002) WinClada ver. 1.0000. Ithaca, NY. Published by the authorGoogle Scholar
  19. Pfitsch WA, Williams EH (2009) Habitat restoration for lupine and specialist butterflies. Restor Ecol 17:226–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ratnasingham S, Hebert PDN (2007) BOLD: the barcode of life data system (www.barcodinglife.org). Mol Ecol Notes, p 10. Accessed Nov 2014
  21. Robbins RK (1991) Cost and evolution of a facultative mutualism between ants and lycaenid larvae (Lepidoptera). Oikos 62:363–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Robbins RK, Aiello A (1982) Foodplant and oviposition records for Panamanian Lycaenidae and Riodinidae. J Lepid Soc 36:65–75Google Scholar
  23. Schweitzer DF (1992a) Comments regarding Ervnnis persius persius and Incisalia irus. Newsl Ohio Lepid 14:21–23Google Scholar
  24. Schweitzer DF (1992b) Incisalia irus revisited: a response to Reverend Ronald Gatrelle. News Lepid Soc 1992:69–70Google Scholar
  25. Schweitzer DF, Minno MC, Wagner DL (2011) Rare, declining and poorly known butterflies and moths (Lepidoptera) of forests and woodlands in the Eastern United States. Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team. p 517Google Scholar
  26. Servedio MR, Doorn GSV, Kopp M, Frame AM, Nosil P (2011) Magic traits in speciation: ‘Magic’ but not rare? Trends Ecol Evol 26:389–397CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Silveira HCP, Oliveira PS, Trigo JR (2010) Attracting predators without falling prey: chemical camouflage protects honeydew-producing treehoppers from ant predation. Am Nat 175:261–268CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Swengel AB (1996) Observations of Incisalia irus (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) in central Wisconsin 1988–1995. Great Lakes Entomol 29:47–62Google Scholar
  29. Via S (2001) Sympatric speciation in animals: the ugly duckling grows up. Trends Ecol Evol 16:381–390CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Wagner DL, Nelson MW, Schweitzer DF (2003) Shrubland Lepidoptera of southern New England and southeastern New York: ecology, conservation, and management. For Ecol Manag 185:95–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Watts PC, Daguet C, Thompson DJ, Kemp SJ (2005) Exuviae as a reliable source of DNA for population-genetic analysis of odonates. Odonatologica 34:183–187Google Scholar
  32. Wilson JJ (2012) DNA barcodes for insects (Chap 3). In: Kress WJ, Erickson DL (eds) DNA barcodes: methods and protocols. Methods and Molecular Biology, vol 858, pp 17–46. Humana Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Zwickl DJ (2006) Genetic algorithm approaches for the phylogenetic analysis of large biological sequence datasets under the maximum likelihood criterion. Dissertation, University of Texas at AustinGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland (outside the USA)  2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Maryland Department of Natural ResourcesNatural Heritage ProgramWye MillsUSA
  2. 2.Department of EntomologySmithsonian InstitutionWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations