Advertisement

Journal of Insect Behavior

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 77–87 | Cite as

The Role of Olfactory Cues for the Search Behavior of a Specialist and Generalist Butterfly

  • Alexander SchäpersEmail author
  • Mikael A. Carlsson
  • Gabriella Gamberale-Stille
  • Niklas Janz
Article

Abstract

Searching for resources is often a challenging task, especially for small organisms such as insects. Complex stimuli have to be extracted from the environment and translated into a relevant behavioral output. A first step in this process is to investigate the relative roles of the different senses during search for various resources. While the role of olfaction is well documented in nocturnal moths, the olfactory abilities of the closely related diurnal butterflies are poorly explored. Here we investigated how olfactory information is used in the search for host plants and asked if these abilities varied with levels of stimulus complexity. Thus, we tested two nymphalid butterfly species with divergent host plant range in a two-choice olfactometer testing different combinations of host and non-host plants. The experiments show both the monophagous Aglais urticae and the polyphagous Polygonia c-album could navigate towards an odor source, but this ability varied with context. While mated females exhibited a preference for their host plant, unmated females of both species did not show a preference for host plant cues. Furthermore, both species showed inabilities to make fine-tuned decisions between hosts. We conclude that olfactory cues are important for butterflies to navigate towards targets. We argue that there are limitations on how much information can be extracted from host volatiles. These results are discussed in the light of neural processing limitations and degree of host plant specialization, suggesting the necessity of other sensory modalities to sharpen the decision process and facilitate the final oviposition event.

Keywords

Olfaction Lepidoptera search behavior information processing hypothesis host plant specialization 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript. This study was financed by the Faculty of Science, Stockholm University, to NJ.

References

  1. Agosta SJ, Klemens JA (2008) Ecological fitting by phenotypically flexible genotypes: implications for species associations, community assembly and evolution. Ecol Lett 11:1123–1134PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Agosta SJ, Janz N, Brooks DR (2010) How specialists can be generalists: resolving the “parasite paradox” and implications for emerging infectious disease. Zoologia - Curitiba 27:151–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersson S (2003) Antennal responses to floral scents in the butterflies Inachis io, Aglais urticae (Nymphalidae), and Gonepteryx rhamni (Pieridae). Chemoecology 13:13–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andersson S, Dobson HEM (2003) Antennal responses to floral scents in the butterfly Heliconius melpomene. J Chem Ecol 29:2319–2330PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bergman M, Wiklund C (2009) Visual mate detection and mate flight pursuit in relation to sunspot size in a woodland territorial butterfly. Anim Behav 78:17–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernays EA (1998) The value of being a resource specialist: behavioral support for a neural hypothesis. Am Nat 151:451–464PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bernays EA (2001) Neural limitations in phytophagous insects: implications for diet breadth and evolution of host affiliation. Annu Rev Entomol 46:703–727PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Byers JA (1996) An encounter rate model of bark beetle populations searching at random for susceptible host trees. Ecol Model 91:57–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cardé RT, Willis MA (2008) Navigational strategies used by insects to find distant, wind-borne sources of odor. J Chem Ecol 34:854–866PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carlsson MA, Anderson P, Hartlieb E, Hansson BS (1999) Experience-dependent modification of orientational response to olfactory cues in larvae of Spodoptera littoralis. J Chem Ecol 25:2445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carlsson MA, Bisch-Knaden S, Schäpers A, Mozuraitis R, Hansson BS, Janz N (2011) Odour maps in the brain of butterflies with divergent host-plant preferences. PLoS One 6:e24025PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carlsson MA, Schäpers A, Nässel DR, Janz N (2013) Organization of the olfactory system of nymphalidae butterflies. Chem Senses 38:355–367PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chapman RF (2003) Contact chemoreception in feeding by phytophagous insects. Annu Rev Entomol 48:455–484PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cunningham JP (2012) Can mechanism help explain insect host choice? J Evol Biol 25:244–251PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cunningham JP, Zalucki MP, West SA (1999) Learning in Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera : Noctuidae): a new look at the behaviour and control of a polyphagous pest. Bull Entomol Res 89:201–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dweck HKM, Ebrahim SAM, Kromann S, Bown D, Hillbur Y, Sachse S, Hansson BS, Stensmyr MC (2013) Olfactory preference for egg laying on citrus substrates in Drosophila. Curr Biol 23:2472–2480PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Egan SP, Funk DJ (2006) Individual advantages to ecological specialization: insights on cognitive constraints from three conspecific taxa. Proc R Soc B - Biol Sci 273:843–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Feeny P, Städler E, Åhman I, Carter M (1989) Effects of plant odor on oviposition by the black swallowtail butterfly, Papilio polyxenes (Lepidoptera: Papillionidae). J Insect Behav 2:803–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Finch S, Collier RH (2000) Host-plant selection by insects – a theory based on ‘appropriate/inappropriate landings’ by pest insects of cruciferous plants. Entomol Exp Appl 96:91–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Finch S, Kienegger M (1997) A behavioural study to help clarify how undersowing with clover affects host-plant selection by pest insects of brassica crops. Entomol Exp Appl 84:165–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Foster SP, Howard AJ (1998) Influence of stimuli from Camellia japonica on ovipositional behavior of generalist herbivore Epiphyas postvittana. J Chem Ecol 24:1251–1275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goulson D, Cory JS (1993) Flower constancy and learning in foraging preferences of the green-veined white butterfly Pieris napi. Ecol Entomol 18:315–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goyret J, Raguso RA (2006) The role of mechanosensory input in flower handling efficiency and learning by Manduca sexta. J Exp Biol 209:1585–1593PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goyret J, Pfaff M, Raguso RA, Kelber A (2008) Why do Manduca sexta feed from white flowers? Innate and learnt colour preferences in a hawkmoth. Naturwissenschaften 95:569–576PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Heinz CA (2008) Host plant odor extracts with strong effects on oviposition behavior in Papilio polyxenes. Entomol Exp Appl 128:265–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Holliday NJ (1977) Population ecology of winter moth (Operophtera brumata) on apple in relation to larval dispersal and time of bud burst. J Appl Ecol 14:803–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Honda K, Ômura H, Hayashi N (1998) Identification of floral volatiles from Ligustrum japonicum that stimulate flower-visiting by Cabbage butterfly, Pieris rapae. J Chem Ecol 24:2167–2180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ikeura H, Kobayashi F, Hayata Y (2010) How do Pieris rapae search for Brassicaceae host plants? Biochem Syst Ecol 38:1199–1203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Janz N (2003) The cost of polyphagy: oviposition decision time vs error rate in a butterfly. Oikos 100:493–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Janz N, Nylin S (1997) The role of female search behaviour in determining host plant range in plant feeding insects: A test of the information processing hypothesis. Proc R Soc B - Biol Sci 264:701–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Janz N, Nylin S, Wedell N (1994) Host-plant utilization in the comma butterfly: sources of variation and evolutionary implications. Oecologia 99:132–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Janz N, Söderlind L, Nylin S (2009) No effect of larval experience on adult host preferences in Polygonia c-album (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae): on the persistence of Hopkins’ host selection principle. Ecol Entomol 34:50–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kelber A (1999) Why ‘false’ colours are seen by butterflies. Nature 402:251–251PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kelber A (2002) Pattern discrimination in a hawkmoth: innate preferences, learning performance and ecology. Proc R Soc B - Biol Sci 269:2573–2577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mozuraitis R, Stranden M, Ramirez MI, Borg-Karlson AK, Mustaparta H (2002) (−)-germacrene D increases attraction and oviposition by the tobacco budworm moth Heliothis virescens. Chem Senses 27:505–509PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mozuraitis R, Murtazina R, Nylin S, Borg-Karlson AK (2012) Nonvolatile chemical cues affect host-plant ranking by gravid Polygonia c-album females. Z Naturforsch C 67:93–102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Murphy SM (2004) Enemy-free space maintains swallowtail butterfly host shift. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101:18048–18052PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ninkovic V, Al Abassi S, Pettersson J (2001) The influence of aphid-induced plant volatiles on ladybird beetle searching behavior. Biol Control 21:191–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nylin S (1988) Host plant specialization and seasonality in a polyphagous butterfly, Polygonia c-album (Nymphalidae). Oikos 53:381–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nylin S, Janz N (1996) Host plant preferences in the comma butterfly (Polygonia c-album): Do parents and offspring agree? Ecoscience 3:285–289Google Scholar
  41. Nylin S, Bergström A, Janz N (2000) Butterfly host plant choice in the face of possible confusion. J Insect Behav 13:469–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ômura H, Honda K, Hayashi N (1999) Chemical and chromatic bases for preferential visiting by the cabbage butterfly, Pieris rapae, to rape flowers. J Chem Ecol 25:1895–1906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ômura H, Honda K, Asaoka K, Inoue TA (2008) Tolerance to fermentation products in sugar reception: gustatory adaptation of adult butterfly proboscis for feeding on rotting foods. J Comp Physiol A 194:545–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Papaj DR, Vet LEM (1990) Odor learning and foraging success in the parasitoid, Leptopilina heterotoma. J Chem Ecol 16:3137–3150PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Perkins LE, Cribb BW, Brewer PB, Hanan J, Grant M, de Torres M, Zalucki MP (2013) Generalist insects behave in a jasmonate-dependent manner on their host plants, leaving induced areas quickly and staying longer on distant parts. Proc Roy Soc Lond B Biol Sci 280Google Scholar
  46. Pivnick KA, Jarvis BJ, Slater GP (1994) Identification of olfactory cues used in host-plant finding by diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae). J Chem Ecol 20:1407–1427PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. R Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  48. Raguso RA, Willis MA (2002) Synergy between visual and olfactory cues in nectar feeding by naive hawkmoths, Manduca sexta. Anim Behav 64:685–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rutowski RL (2003) Visual ecology of adult butterflies. In: Boggs CL, Watt WB, Ehrlich PR (eds) Butterflies: ecology and evolution taking flight. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 9–25Google Scholar
  50. Saveer AM, Kromann SH, Birgersson G, Bengtsson M, Lindblom T, Balkenius A, Hansson BS, Witzgall P, Becher PG, Ignell R (2012) Floral to green: mating switches moth olfactory coding and preference. Proc R Soc B - Biol Sci 279:2314–2322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Snell-Rood EC, Papaj DR, Gronenberg W (2009) Brain size: a global or induced cost of learning? Brain Behav Evol 73:111–128PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Städler E, Reifenrath K (2009) Glucosinolates on the leaf surface perceived by insect herbivores: review of ambiguous results and new investigations. Phytochem Rev 8:207–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Steidle JM, Schöller M (1997) Olfactory host location and learning in the granary weevil parasitoidLariophagus distinguendus (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae). J Insect Behav 10:331–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tanaka K, Uda Y, Ono Y, Nakagawa T, Suwa M, Yamaoka R, Touhara K (2009) Highly selective tuning of a silkworm olfactory receptor to a key mulberry leaf volatile. Curr Biol 19:881–890PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tosh CR, Krause J, Ruxton GD (2009) Theoretical predictions strongly support decision accuracy as a major driver of ecological specialization. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106:5698–5702PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. van Loon JJA (1990) Chemoreception of phenolic acids and flavonoids in larvae of two species of Pieris. J Comp Physiol A 166:889–899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. van Loon JJA, Blaakmeer A, Griepink FC, van Beek TA, Schoonhoven LM, de Groot A (1992) Leaf surface compound from Brassica oleracea (Cruciferae) induces oviposition by Pieris brassicae (Lepidoptera: Pieridae). Chemoecology 3:39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Visser JH (1986) Host odor perception in phytophagous insects. Annu Rev Entomol 31:121–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Willis MA, Arbas EA (1991) Odor-modulated upwind flight of the sphinx moth, Manduca sexta L. J Comp Physiol A 169:427–440PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Schäpers
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mikael A. Carlsson
    • 1
  • Gabriella Gamberale-Stille
    • 1
  • Niklas Janz
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations