Incompatibility Between Plant-Derived Defensive Chemistry and Immune Response of Two Sphingid Herbivores
- 291 Downloads
Herbivorous insects use several different defenses against predators and parasites, and tradeoffs among defensive traits may occur if these traits are energetically demanding. Chemical defense and immune response potentially can interact, and both can be influenced by host plant chemistry. Two closely related caterpillars in the lepidopteran family Sphingidae are both attacked by the same specialist endoparasitoid species but have mostly non-overlapping host plant ranges that differ in secondary chemistry. Ceratomia catalpae is a specialist on Catalpa and also will feed on Chilopsis, which both produce iridoid glycosides. Ceratomia undulosa consumes members of the Oleaceae, which produce seco-iridoid glycosides. Immune response of the two species on a typical host plant species (Catalpa bignonioides for C. catalpa; Fraxinus americana for C. undulosa) was compared using a melanization assay, and did not differ. In a second experiment, the iridoid glycoside catalpol was added to the diets of both insects, and growth rate, mass, chemical defense, and immune response were evaluated. Increased dietary catalpol weakened the immune response of C. undulosa and altered the development rate of C. catalpae by prolonging the third instar and accelerating the fourth instar. Catalpol sequestration was negatively correlated with immune response of C. catalpae, while C. undulosa was unable to sequester catalpol. These results show that immune response can be negatively influenced by increasing concentrations of sequestered defensive compounds.
KeywordsCatalpol Ceratomia catalpae Ceratomia undulosa Innate immunity Iridoid glycosides Safe-haven hypothesis
Funding was provided by National Science Foundation DEB 0614883 to Deane Bowers and Lee Dyer. We thank Eric Quinter and Richard Olsen, who collected Ceratomia undulosa and C. catalpae, respectively. We thank Ned Friedman for use of his microscope and camera to photograph injected beads.
- Baerg W (1935) Three shade tree insects, II. Great elm leaf beetle, catalpa sphinx, and eastern tent caterpillar. Univ Ark Exp Stn Bull 317:1–27Google Scholar
- Crocker V (2008) Behavioral and developmental responses of the parasitoid, Cotesia congregata (Say) differ with respect to plant-host origin: a test for local adaptation. MS Thesis, Virginia Commonwealth University, RichmondGoogle Scholar
- Greeney HF, Dyer LA, Smilanich AM (2012) Feeding by lepidopteran larvae is dangerous: A review of caterpillars’ chemical, physiological, morphological, and behavioral defenses against natural enemies. Invert Surv J 9:7–34Google Scholar
- Hodges RW (1971) Sphingoidea. Fascicle 21. Moths of North America. E.W. Classey Limited, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Kitching IJ, Cadiou JM (2000) Hawkmoths of the world. An annotated and illustrated revisionary checklist. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
- Krombein KV (1979) Catalog of hymenoptera in America North of Mexico. Smithsonian Institution Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
- Olsen RT, Ranney TG, Hodges CS (2006) Susceptibility of Catalpa, Chilopsis, and hybrids to powdery mildew and catalpa sphinx larvae. Hortscience 41:1629–1634Google Scholar
- Robinson GS, Ackery PR, Kitching IJ, Beccaloni GW, Hernandez LM (2002) Hostplants of the moth and butterfly caterpillars of America north of Mexico. Memoirs of the American Entomological Institute, GainesvilleGoogle Scholar
- Schoonhoven L, van Loon JJA, Dicke M (2006) Insect-plant biology. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Vargas-Dávila JG (2009) Variation in herbivore resistance to parasitoids: the effect of development, diet and sequestration on parasitoids and encapsulation responses. MS Thesis, University of Colorado, BoulderGoogle Scholar