Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 95, Issue 3, pp 376–384 | Cite as

Presence of predatory wasps and stinkbugs alters foraging behavior of cryptic and non-cryptic caterpillars on plantain (Plantago lanceolata)

  • Nancy E. Stamp
  • M. Deane Bowers
Original Papers

Abstract

We examined the foraging patterns of two species of caterpillar (Junonia coenia: Nymphalidae and Spilosoma congrua: Arctiidae) that contrast in feeding specialization and crypticity on plantain (Plantago lanceolata) in the absence and presence of two different insect predators [stinkbugs, Podisus maculiventris (Pentatomidae) and wasps, Polistes fuscatus (Vespidae)]. Junonia larvae were quite apparent to human observers, feeding on upper leaf surfaces during daylight, whereas Spilosoma larvae were relatively cryptic, often hiding under leaves and in soil crevices during daylight. In the presence of either predator species, the non-cryptic Junonia caterpillars more quickly left the plant on which they were initially placed and were less apparent than Junonia larvae not exposed to predators. The presence of predators had no detectable influence on where the caterpillars occurred on the plants (new, intermediate-aged or mature leaves, or reproductive stalks). Surprisingly, the predators influenced the behavior of the inherently cryptic Spilosoma: the apparency of these larvae at night increased when wasps had access to the plots during the day. Survivorship of the non-cryptic Junonia was less than 12% when stinkbugs were present compared to 60% in their absence. Although the presence of wasps resulted in a lower relative growth rate for the non-cryptic Junonia larvae, the indirect effect of predators on reduction in survivorship due to alterations in prey growth rate through behavioral changes was less than 3%. After taking into account the decline in caterpillars per plot through predation, we found that both the amount of leaves eaten and the proportion of plants eaten were altered on plots with predators present, which suggests that the caterpillars' increased consumption countered increased maintenance costs due to the presence of predators. Overall, our results indicate that hostplant size, level of predation and type of predator can influence the degree to which these caterpillars react to the presence of insect predators. In contrast, degree of inherent feeding specialization and cryptic behavior seemed to have little effect on the expression of reactive behaviors of these caterpillars to predators.

Key words

Predator-prey interaction Junonia coenia Spilosoma congrua Podisus maculiventris Polistes fuscatus 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bobbitt JM, Segebarth KP (1969) Iridoid glycosides and similar substances. In: Taylor WI, Battersby AR (eds) Cyclopentanoid terpene derivatives. Dekker, New York, pp 1–145Google Scholar
  2. Boevé J-L (1991) Gregariousness, field distribution and defence in the sawfly larvae Croesus varus and C. septentrionalis (Hymenoptera, Tenthredinidae) Oecologia 85: 440–446Google Scholar
  3. Bowers MD (1984) Iridoid glycosides and hostplant specificity in larvae of the buckeye butterfly, Junonia coenia (Nymphalidae) J Chem Ecol 10: 1567–1577Google Scholar
  4. Bowers MD (1993) Aposematic caterpillars: Life-styles of the warningly colored and unpalatable. In: Stamp NE, Casey TM (eds) Caterpillars: Ecological and evolutionary constraints on foraging. Chapman & Hall, New York, pp 331–371Google Scholar
  5. Bowers MD, Collinge SK (1992) Sequestration and metabolism of iridoid glycosides by larvae of the buckeye, Junonia coenia (Nymphalidae). J Chem Ecol 18: 817–831Google Scholar
  6. Bowers MD, Stamp NE (1992) Chemical variation within and between individuals of Plantago lanceolata (Plantaginaceae). J Chem Ecol 18: 985–995Google Scholar
  7. Cornell JC, Stamp NE, Bowers MD (1987) Developmental change in aggregation, defense and escape behavior of buckmoth caterpillars, Hemileuca lucina (Saturniidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 20: 383–388Google Scholar
  8. Damman H (1987) Leaf quality and enemy avoidance by the larvae of a pyralid moth. Ecology 68: 88–97Google Scholar
  9. Duff RB, Bacon JSD, Mundie CM, Famer VC, Russell JD, Forrester AR (1965) Catalpol and methyl catalpol: naturally occurring glycosides in Plantago and Buddleia species. Biochem J 96: 1–5Google Scholar
  10. Fitzgerald TD (1993) Sociality in caterpillars. In: Stamp NE, Casey TM (eds) Caterpillars: Ecological and evolutionary constraints on foraging. Chapman & Hall, New York, pp 372–403Google Scholar
  11. Gould WP, Jeanne RL (1984) Polistes wasps (Hymenoptera: Vespidae) as control agents for lepidopterous cabbage pests. Environ Entomol 13: 150–156Google Scholar
  12. Herrebout WM, Kuyten PJ, de Ruiter L (1963) Observations on colour patterns and behaviour of caterpillars feeding on Scots pine. Arch Neerl Zool 15: 315–357Google Scholar
  13. Lopez JD Jr, Ridgway RL, Pinnell RE (1976) Comparative efficacy of four insect predators of the bollworm and tobacco budworm. Environ Entomol 5: 1160–1164Google Scholar
  14. Mukerji MK, LeRoux EJ (1965) Laboratory rearing of a Quebec strain of the pentatomid predator, Podisus maculiventris (Say) (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae). Phytoprotection 46: 40–60Google Scholar
  15. National Climatic Data Center (1991) Climatological data New York 1991, vol. 103. Ashville, NCGoogle Scholar
  16. Pierce CL (1988) Predator avoidance, microhabitat shift, and risk-sensitive foraging in larval dragonflies. Oecologia 77: 81–90Google Scholar
  17. Rabb RL (1960) Biological studies of Polistes in North Carolina (Hymenoptera: Vespidae) Ann Entomol Soc Am 53: 111–121Google Scholar
  18. Schmitt J, Niles J, Wulff RD (1992) Norms of reaction of seed traits to maternal environments in Plantago lanceolata. Am Nat 139: 451–466Google Scholar
  19. Schultz JC (1983) Habitat selection and foraging tactics of caterpillars in heterogeneous trees. In: Denno RF, McClure MS (eds) Variable plants and herbivores in natural and managed systems. Academic Press, New York, pp 61–90Google Scholar
  20. Scott JA (1975) Movement of Precis coenia, a “pseudoterritorial” submigrant (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). J Anim Ecol 44: 843–850Google Scholar
  21. Scott JA (1986) The butterflies of North America. Stanford Univ Press, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  22. Shapiro Am (1974) Butterflies of the Suisan Marsh, California. J Res Lepid 13: 191–206Google Scholar
  23. Sih A (1987) Predation and prey lifestyles: an evolutionary and ecological overview, pp 203–224. In: Kerfoot WC, Sih A (eds) Predation: direct and indirect impacts on aquatic communities. Univ Press New England, Hanover & LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Stein RA (1979) Behavioral response of prey to fish predators. pp 343–353. In: Stroud RH, Clepper H (eds) Predator-prey systems in fisheries management. Sport Fishing Inst, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  25. Stamp NE (1982) Behavioral interactions of parasitoids and Baltimore checkerspot caterpillars Euphydryas phaeton. Environ Entomol 11: 100–104Google Scholar
  26. Stamp NE (1992) Relative susceptibility to predation of two species of caterpillar on plantain. Oecologia 92: 124–129Google Scholar
  27. Stamp NE (1993) Temperate region view of the interaction of temperature, food quality and predators on caterpillar foraging. In: Stamp NE, Casey TM (eds) Caterpillars: Ecological and evolutionary constraints on foraging. Chapman & Hall, New York, pp 478–508Google Scholar
  28. Stamp NE, Bowers MD (1988) Direct and indirect effects of predatory wasps (Polistes sp.: Vespidae) on gregarious larvae of the buckmoth, Hemileuca lucina (Saturniidae). Oecologia 75: 619–624Google Scholar
  29. Stamp NE, Bowers MD (1990) Parasitism of New England buckmoth caterpillars (Hemileuca lucina: Saturniidae) by tachinid flies. J Lepid Soc 44: 199–200Google Scholar
  30. Stamp NE, Bowers MD (1991) Indirect effect on survivorship of caterpillars due to presence of invertebrate predators. Oecologia 88: 325–330Google Scholar
  31. Stamp NE, Bowers MD (1992a) Foraging behavior of specialist and generalist caterpillars on plantain (Plantago lanceolata) altered by predatory stinkbugs. Oecologia 92: 596–602Google Scholar
  32. Stamp NE, Bowers (1992b) Behavior of specialist and generalist caterpillars on plantain (Plantago lanceolata). Ecol Entomol 17: 273–279Google Scholar
  33. Stamp NE, Wilkens RT (1993) on the cryptic side of life: being unapparent to enemies and the consequences for foraging and growth of caterpillars. In: Stamp NE, Casey TM (eds) Caterpillars: Ecological and evolutionary constraints on foraging. Chapman & Hall, New York, pp 283–330Google Scholar
  34. Tietz HM (1972) An index to the described life history, early stages and hosts of the Macrolepidoptera of the continental United States and Canada, vol. II. Allyn Museum, Sarasota, FLGoogle Scholar
  35. Tostowaryk W (1971) Life history and behavior of Podisus modestus (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) in boreal forest in Quebec. Can Entomol 103: 662–673Google Scholar
  36. Werner EE, Gilliam JF, Hall DJ, Mittelbach GG (1983) An experimental test of the effects of predation risk on habitat use in fish. Ecology 64: 1540–1548Google Scholar
  37. Yeargan KV, Braman SK (1989) Comparative behavioral studies of indigenous hemipteran predators and hymenopteran parasites of the green cloverworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J Kansas Entomol Soc 62: 156–163Google Scholar
  38. Zar JH (1984) Biostatistical analysis, 2nd ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nancy E. Stamp
    • 1
  • M. Deane Bowers
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesBinghamton University, State University of New YorkBinghamtonUSA
  2. 2.University of Colorado Museum and Department of E.P.O. BiologyUniversity of ColoradoBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations