Advertisement

Journal of Chemical Ecology

, Volume 33, Issue 6, pp 1149–1159 | Cite as

Isolation, Identification, and Quantification of Potential Defensive Compounds in the Viceroy Butterfly and its Larval Host–Plant, Carolina Willow

  • Kathleen L. Prudic
  • Smriti Khera
  • Anikó Sólyom
  • Barbara N. Timmermann
Article

Abstract

The viceroy–monarch and viceroy–queen butterfly associations are classic examples of mimicry. These relationships were originally classified as Batesian, or parasitic, but were later reclassified as Müllerian, or mutalistic, based on predator bioassays. The Müllerian reclassification implies that viceroy is unpalatable because it too is chemically defended like the queen and the monarch. However, unlike the queen and the monarch, the viceroy defensive chemistry has remained uncharacterized. We demonstrate that the viceroy butterfly (Limenitis archippus, Nymphalidae) not only sequesters nonvolatile defensive compounds from its larval host–plant, the Carolina willow (Salix caroliniana, Salicaceae), but also secretes volatile defensive compounds when disturbed. We developed liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry–mass spectrometry methods to identify a set of phenolic glycosides shared between the adult viceroy butterfly and the Carolina willow, and solid phase microextraction and gas chromatography–mass spectrometry methods to identify volatile phenolic compounds released from stressed viceroy butterflies. In both approaches, all structures were characterized based on their mass spectral fragmentation patterns and confirmed with authentic standards. The phenolics we found are known to deter predator attack in other prey systems, including other willow-feeding insect species. Because these compounds have a generalized defensive function at the concentrations we described, our results are consistent with the Müllerian reclassification put forth by other researchers based on bioassay results. It seems that the viceroy butterfly possesses chemical defenses different from its monarch and queen butterfly counterparts (phenolic glycosides vs. cardiac glycosides, respectively), an unusual phenomenon in mimicry warranting future study.

Keywords

Chemical defense Chemical mimicry Limenitis archippus LC/MS/MS Nymphalidae Salix caroliniana Salicaceae SPME-GC/MS 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank J. Oliver for assistance in collecting the specimen; J. Gu, B. Jackson, R. Lindroth, C. Orians, and V. Rodriguez for assistance in chemistry; D. Bowers, D. Papaj, and D. Ritland for discussion; and the late Hon. M. Rothschild for enthusiasm and insight. This work was funded by an NSF Graduate Research Fellowship, an NSF Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant, a University of Arizona Center for Insect Science Graduate Research Grant, and a University of Arizona BIO5 Fellowship to K.L.P.

Supplementary material

10886_2007_9282_MOESM1_ESM.doc (788 kb)
Supplementary Material Fig. 1 Digital image of solid phase micro-extraction (SPME) setup. The position of the butterfly pinned between the glass plate and the beaker simulated a predation event. In a non-predatory event, the butterfly was allowed to perch freely on the glass plate during the SPME sampling bout. (DOC 807 kb)
10886_2007_9282_MOESM2_ESM.doc (798 kb)
Supplementary Material Fig. 2 Digital image of secretion when butterfly experiences a predation event. One μl of the secretion was collected using a glass capillary for the GC-MS quantification analyses. (DOC 817 kb)

References

  1. Ackery, P. R. and Vane-wright, R. I. 1984. Milkweed Butterflies. Cornell University Press, NY.Google Scholar
  2. Bairlein, F. 1997. Food choice in birds and insect chemical defenses. Entomol. Gener. 21:205–216.Google Scholar
  3. Bates, H. W. 1862. Contributions to an insect fauna of the Amazon valley. Lepidoptera: Heliconidae. Trans. Linn. Soc. London 23:495–566.Google Scholar
  4. Berenbaum, M. R. and Miliczky, E. 1984. Mantids and milkweed bugs: efficacy of aposematic coloration against invertebrate predators. Am. Midl. Nat. 111:64–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borg-Karlson, A. K. and Mozuraitis, R. 1996. Solid phase micro extraction technique used for collecting semio chemicals: identification of volatiles released by individual signaling Phyllonorycter sylvella moths. Z. Naturforsch. 51c:599–602.Google Scholar
  6. Brower, J. V. Z. 1958a. Experimental studies of mimicry in some North American butterflies. I. The monarch, Danaus plexippus, and viceroy, Limenitis archippus. Evolution 12:32–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brower, J. V. Z. 1958b. Experimental studies of mimicry in some North American butterflies. III. Danaus gilippus berenice and Limenitis archippus floridensis. Evolution 12:273–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brower, L. P., Seiber, J. N., Nelson, C. J., Lynch, S. P., and Holland, M. M. 1984. Plant-determined variation in the cardenolide content, thin-layer chromatography profiles, and emetic potency of monarch butterflies, Danaus plexippus L (Lepidoptera, Danaidae) reared on milkweed plants in California. 2. Asclepias speciosa (Apocynales, Asclepiadaceae). J. Chem. Ecol. 10:601–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Charlesworth, D. and Charlesworth, B. 1975. Theoretical genetics of Batesian mimicry. II. Evolution of supergenes. J. Theor. Biol. 55:305–324.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davidson, C., Zimerman, E. F., and Smith, P. K. 1961. Metabolism and toxicity of methyl salicylate. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 312:207–209.Google Scholar
  11. Denno, R. F., Larsson, S., and Olmstead, K. L. 1990. Role of enemy fee space and plant quality in host–plant selection by willow beetles. Ecology 71:124–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dötterl, S., Füssel, U., Jürgens, A., and Aas, G. 2005. 1,4-Dimethoxybenzene, a floral scent compound in willows that attracts an oligolectic bee. J. Chem. Ecol. 31:2993–2998.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fisher, R. A. 1958. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, 2nd ed. Dover Publications, NY.Google Scholar
  14. Glendinning, J. I. 1992. The effectiveness of cardenolides as feeding deterrents to Peromyscus mice. J. Chem. Ecol. 18:1559–1575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Guilford, T. 1991. Is the viceroy a Batesian mimic? Nature 351:611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Julkunen-Tiitto, R. 1989. Phenolic constituents of Salix: a chemotaxonomic survey of further Finnish species. Phytochemistry 28:2115–2125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Julkunen-Tiitto, R. and Sorsa, S. 2001. Testing the effects of drying methods on willow flavonoids, tannins, and salicylates. J. Chem. Ecol. 27:779–789.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Köpf, A., Rank, N. E., Roininen, H., Julkunen-Tiitto, R., Pasteels, J. M., and Tahvanainen, J. 1998. The evolution of host–plant use and sequestration in the leaf beetle genus Phratora (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Evolution 52:517–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lindroth, R. L. and Hemming, J. D. C. 1990. Responses of the gypsy moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) to tremulacin, an aspen phenolic glycoside. Environ. Entomol. 19:842847.Google Scholar
  20. Lindroth, R. L., Hsia, M. T. S., and Scriber, J. M. 1988a. Seasonal patterns in the phytochemistry of three Populus species. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 15:681–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lindroth, R. L., Scriber, J. M., and Hsia, M. T. S. 1988b. Chemical ecology of the tiger swallowtail: mediation of host use by phenolic glycosides. Ecology 69:814–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mallet, J. 1999. Causes and consequences of a lack of coevolution in Müllerian mimicry. Evol. Ecol. 13:777–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Michael, J. B. and Sztajnkrycer, M. D. 2004. Deadly pediatric poisons: nine common agents that kill at low doses. Emerg. Med. Clin. North Am. 22:1019–1050.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mullen, S. P. 2006. Wing pattern evolution and the origins of mimicry among North American admiral butterflies (Nymphalidae: Limenitis). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 39:747–758.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Müller, M. S., Mcwilliams, S. R., Podelsak, D. Donaldson, J. R., Bothwell, H. M., and Lindroth, R. L. 2006. Tri-trophic effects of plant defenses: chickadees consume caterpillars based host–plant defenses. Oikos 114:507–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nishida, R. 2002. Sequestration of defensive substances from plants by Lepidoptera. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 47:57–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nyman, T. and Julkunen-Tiitto, R. 2005. Chemical variation within and among six northern willow species. Phytochemistry 66:2836–2843.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Palo, R. T. 1984. Distribution of birch (Betula spp.), willow (Salix spp.), and poplar (Populus spp.) secondary metabolites and their potential role as chemical defense against herbivores. J. Chem. Ecol. 10:499–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pasteels, J. M., Daloze, D., and Rowell-Rahier, M. 1986. Chemical defense in chrysomelid eggs and neonate larvae. Physiol. Entomol. 11:29–37.Google Scholar
  30. Pasteels, J. M., Rowell-Rahier, M., and Raupp, M. J. 1988. Plant-derived defense in chrysomelid beetles, pp 235–272, in P. Barbosa and D. K. Letourneau (eds.). Novel Aspects of Insect–Plant Interactions. Wiley, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  31. Prudic, K. L., Shapiro, A. M., and Clayton, N. S. 2002. Evaluating a putative mimetic relationship between two butterflies, Adelpha bredowii and Limenitis lorquini (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Ecol. Entomol. 27:68–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Prudic, K. L., Skemp, A. K., and Papaj, D. R. 2007. Aposematic coloration, luminance contrast, and the benefits of conspicuousness. Behav. Ecol. 18:41–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rank, N. E., Smiley, J. T., and Kopf, A. 1996. Natural enemies and host–plant relationships for chrysomeline leaf beetles feeding on Salicaceae, pp 147–171, in P. H. Jolivet and M. L. Cox (eds.). Chrysomelidae Biology. SBE Publishing, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  34. Ritland, D. B. and Brower, L. P. 1991. The viceroy butterfly is not a Batesian mimic. Nature 350:497–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ritland, D. B. and Brower, L. P. 2002. Mimicry-related variation in wing color of viceroy butterflies (Limenitis archippus: Nymphalidae): a test of the model-switching hypothesis. Holartic Lepid. 7:5–11.Google Scholar
  36. Rothschild, M. 1991. Is the viceroy a Batesian mimic? Nature 351:611–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ruxton, G. D., Sherrat, T. N., and Speed, M. P. 2004. Avoiding Attack: The Evolutionary Ecology of Crypsis, Warning Signals and Mimicry. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  38. SAS Institute Inc. 2002. JMP-IN Statistical Exploration Software, Version 5. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
  39. Scott, J. A. 1986. The Butterflies of North America. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  40. Skelhorn, J. and Rowe, C. 2005. Tasting the difference: do multiple defence chemicals interact in Müllerian mimicry? Proc. R. Soc. Lond., B Biol Sci 272:339–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Smiley, J. T., Horn, J. M., and Rank, N. E. 1985. Ecological effects of salicin at three trophic levels: new problems from old adaptations. Science 229:649–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Soetens, P., Pasteels, J. M., Daloze, D., and Kaisin, M. 1998. Host–plant influence on the composition of the defensive secretion of Chrysomela vigintipunctata larvae (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 26:703–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tahvanainen, J., Helle, E., Julkunen-Tiitto, R., and Lavola, A. 1985. Phenolic compounds of willow bark as deterrence against feeding by mountain hare. Oecologia 65:319–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Thompson, J. N. 2005. The Geographic Mosaic of Coevolution. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kathleen L. Prudic
    • 1
    • 2
  • Smriti Khera
    • 3
  • Anikó Sólyom
    • 3
  • Barbara N. Timmermann
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  2. 2.BIO5: Institute for Collaborative BioresearchUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, College of PharmacyUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  4. 4.Department of Medicinal ChemistryUniversity of KansasLawrenceUSA

Personalised recommendations