Oecologia

, Volume 99, Issue 3–4, pp 329–336 | Cite as

Host-associated fitness variation in a seed beetle (Coleoptera: Bruchidae): evidence for local adaptation to a poor quality host

  • Charles W. Fox
  • Kim J. Waddell
  • Timothy A. Mousseau
Original Paper

Abstract

The geographic distributions of many generalist herbivores differ from those of their host plants, such that they experience coarse-grained spatial variation in natural selection on characters influencing adaptation to host plants. Thus, populations differing in host use are expected to differ in their ability to survive and grow on these host plants. We examine host-associated variation in larval performance (survivorship, development time, and adult body weight) and oviposition preference, within and between two populations ofStator limbatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) that differ in the hosts available to them in nature. In one population,Acacia greggii (Fabaceae: Mimosoideae) andCercidium microphyllum (Fabaceae: Caesalpininoideae) are each abundant, while in the second population onlyC. floridum andC. microphyllum are present. In both populations, egg-to-adult survivorship was less than 50% onC. floridum, while survivorship was greater than 90% onA. greggii. Most of the mortality onC. floridum occurred as larvae were burrowing through the seed coat; very low mortality occurred during penetration of the seed coat ofA. greggii. Significant variation was present between populations, and among families (within populations), in survivorship and egg-to-adult development time onC. floridum; beetles restricted toCercidium in nature, without access toC. floridum, survived better and developed faster onC. floridum than beetles that had access toA. greggii. Large host effects on body size were detected for female offspring: females reared onA. greggii were larger than those reared onC. floridum, whereas male offspring wee approximately the same size regardless of rearing host. Trade-offs between performance onC. floridum andC. floridum were not detected in this experiment. Instead, our data indicate that development time and survivorship onC. floridum may be largely independent of development time and survivorship onA. greggii. Patterns of oviposition preference corresponded to the observed patterns of host suitability: in laboratory preference tests, beetles with access toA. greggii in nature tended to prefer this host more than beetles without access to this host in nature.

Key words

Geographic variation Genotypeenvironment interactions Host range Oviposition preference Stator limbatus 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Blau WS, Feeny P (1983) Divergence in larval responses to food plants between temperate and tropical populations of the black swallowtail butterfly. Ecol Entomol 8: 249–257Google Scholar
  2. Credland PF, Dick KM, Wright AW (1986) Relationships between larval density, adult size, and egg production in the cowpea seed beetle.Callosobruchus Maculatus Ecol Entomol 11:41–50Google Scholar
  3. Efron B (1982) The jackknife, the bootstrap, and other resampling plans (CBMS-NSF Regional Conference Series in Applied Mathematics 38) Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA, USAGoogle Scholar
  4. Fox CW (1993a) A quantitative genetic analysis of oviposition preference and larval performance on two hosts in the bruchid beetle,Callosobruchus Maculatus. Evolution 47: 166–175Google Scholar
  5. Fox CW (1993b) Multiple mating, lifetime fecundity and female mortality of the bruchid beetleCallosobruchus Maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Funct Ecol 7: 203–208Google Scholar
  6. Fox CW (1993c) The influence of maternal age and mating frequency on egg size and offspring performance. inCallosobruchus Maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Oecologia 96: 139–146Google Scholar
  7. Fox CW, Caldwell RL (1994) Host-associated fitness trade-offs do not limit the evolution of diet breadth in the small milkweed bugLygaeus kalmii (Hemiptera: Lygaeidae). Oecologia 97: 382–389Google Scholar
  8. Fox CW, Dingle H (1994) Dietary mediation of maternal age effects on offspring performance in a seed beetle (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Funct Ecol, (in press)Google Scholar
  9. Fox LR, Morrow PA (1981) Specialization: species property or local phenomenon? Science 211: 887–893Google Scholar
  10. Gould F (1988) Stress specificity and maternal effects inHeliothis Virescens (Boddie) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) larvae. Mem Entomol Soc Can 146: 191–197Google Scholar
  11. Groeters FR (1993) Tests for host-associated fitness trade-offs in the molkweed-oleander aphid. Oecologia 93: 406–411Google Scholar
  12. Hare JD, Kennedy GG (1986) Genetic variation in plant-insect associations: survival ofLeptinotarsa decemlineata populations onSolanum Carolinense. Evolution 40: 1031–1043Google Scholar
  13. Hsiao TH (1978) Host plants adaptations among gographic populations of the Colorado potato beetles. Entomol. Exp Appl 24: 237–247Google Scholar
  14. Isley D (1973) Leguminosae of the United States. I. Subfamily Mimosoideae. Mem NY Bot Gard 25: 1–152Google Scholar
  15. Isley D (1975) Leguminosae of the United States I. Subfamily Caesalpinoioideae. Mem NY Bot Gard 25: 1–228Google Scholar
  16. Janzen DH (1980) Specificity of seed-attacking beetles in a Costa Rican deciduous forest. J Ecol 68: 929–952Google Scholar
  17. Johnson CD, Kingsolver JM (1976) Systematics ofStator of North and Central America (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). USDA Tech Bull 1537Google Scholar
  18. Johnson CD, Kingsolver JM, Teran AL (1989) Sistematica del generoStator (Insecta: Coleoptera: Bruhidae) en Sudamerica. Op Lilloana 37: 1–105Google Scholar
  19. Karlsson B, Wiklund C (1984) Egg weight variation and lack of correlation between egg weight and offspring fitness in the wall brown butterflyLasiommata megera. Oikos 43: 376–385Google Scholar
  20. Mitchell R (1977) Bruchid bettles and seed packaging by paloverde. Ecology 58: 644–651Google Scholar
  21. Møller HR, Smith H, Sibly RM (1989) Evolutionary demography of a bruchid beetle. I. Quantitative genetical analysis of the female life history. Funct Ecol 3: 673–681Google Scholar
  22. Mousseau TA, Dingle H (1991) Maternal effects in insect life histories. Annu Rev Entomol 36: 511–534Google Scholar
  23. Murphy DD, Launer AE, Ehrlich PR (1983) The role of adult feeding in egg production and population dynamics of the checkerspot butterflyEuphydryas editha. Oecologia 56: 257–263Google Scholar
  24. Neter J, Wasserman W, Kutner MH (1990) Applied linear statistical models: Regression analysis of variance, and experimental designs, 3rd ed. Irwin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  25. Nitao JK, Ayres MP, Lederhouse RC, Scriber JM (1991) Larval adaptation to Lauraceous hosts — geographic divergence in the spicebush swallowtail butterfly. Ecology 72: 1428–1435Google Scholar
  26. Pashley DP (1988) Quantitative genetics, development and physiological adaptation in host strains of fall armyworm. Evolution 42: 93–102Google Scholar
  27. Rausher MD (1982) Population differentiation inEuphydryas editha butterflies: larval adaptation to different hosts. Evolution 36: 518–590Google Scholar
  28. Rosenheim JA (1993) Comparative and experimetnal approaches to understanding insect learning. In: Papaj DR, Lewis AC (eds) Insect learning: ecological and evolutionary perspectives. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 273–307Google Scholar
  29. Rossiter MC (1991a) Environmentally based maternal effects: a hidden force in insect population dynamics. Oecologia 87: 288–294Google Scholar
  30. Rossiter MC (1991b) Maternal effects generate variation in life history: consequences of egg weight plasticity in the gypsy moth. Funct Ecol 5: 386–393Google Scholar
  31. SAS Institute (1985) SAS user's guide; statistics, version 5 ed. SAS Institute, CaryGoogle Scholar
  32. Scriber JM (1983) Evolution of feeding specialization, physiological efficiency, and host races in selected Papilionidae and Saturniidae. In: Denno RF, McClure MS, (eds) Variable plants and herbivores in natural and managed systems. Academic Press, New York, pp 373–412Google Scholar
  33. Scriber JM (1986) Origins of the regional feeding abilities in the tiger swallowtail butterfly: ecological monophagy and thePapilio glaucus australis subspecies in Florida. Oecologia 71: 94–103Google Scholar
  34. Siemens DH, Johnson CD (1990) Host-associated differences in fitness within and between populations of a seed beetle (Bruchidae): effects of plant variability. Oecologia 82: 408–423Google Scholar
  35. Siemens DH, Johnson CD, Woodman RL (1991) Determinants of host range in bruchid beetles. Ecology 72: 1560–1566Google Scholar
  36. Siemens DH, Johnson CD, Ribardo KV (1992) Alternative seed defense mechanisms in congeneric plants. Ecology 73: 2152–2166Google Scholar
  37. Singer MC (1986) The definition and measurement of oviposition preference in plant-feeding insects. In: Miller J, Miller TA (eds) Insect-plants relations. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, pp 65–94Google Scholar
  38. Singer MC, Ng D, Thomas CD (1988) Heritability of oviposition preference and its relationship to offspring performance within a single insect population. Evolution 42: 977–985Google Scholar
  39. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1981) Biometry, 2nd edn. Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  40. Via S (1984a) The quantitative genetics of polyphagy in an insect herbivore. I. Genotype-environment interaction in larval performance on different host plant species. Evolution 38: 881–895Google Scholar
  41. Via S (1984b) The quantitative genetics of polyphagy in an insect herbivore. II. Genetic correlations in larval performance within and among host plants. Evolution 38: 896–905Google Scholar
  42. Via S (1990) Ecological genetics and host adaptation in herbivorous insects: the experimental study of evolution in natural and agricultural systems. Annu Rev Entomol 35: 421–446Google Scholar
  43. Via S (1991a) Specialized host plant performance of pea aphid clones is not altered by experience. Ecology 72: 1420–1427Google Scholar
  44. Via S (1991b) The genetic structure of host plant adaptation in a spatial patchwork: demographic variability among reciprocally transplanted pea aphid clones. Evolution 45: 827–852Google Scholar
  45. Vines RA (1960) Trees, shrubs and woody vines of the southwest. University of Texas Press, AustinGoogle Scholar
  46. Wasserman SS, Asami T (1985) The effect of maternal age upon fitness of progeny in the southern cowpea weevil,Callosobruchus maculatus. Oikos 45: 191–196Google Scholar
  47. Wilkinson L (1990) Systat: the system for statistics. Systat, EvanstonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Verlag 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charles W. Fox
    • 1
  • Kim J. Waddell
    • 1
  • Timothy A. Mousseau
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations