Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 91, Issue 4, pp 468–473 | Cite as

Ants andPolyommatus icarus immatures (Lycaenidae) —sex-related developmental benefits and costs of ant attendance

  • Konrad Fiedler
  • Bert Hölldobler
Original Papers

Summary

Third and fourth instar larvae and pupae of the facultatively myrmecophilous Palaearctic blue butterflyPolyommatus icarus showed no alteration in developmental time when reared in the presence of two species ofLasius ants. Sex differences were observed in larval growth and pupal weight, with males growing larger and faster. Sex-related differences also occurred in the costs and benefits of ant-attendance. Male pupal masses tended to be larger in individuals associated with ants, and their pupal weight loss was not enhanced by ant attendance. This positive developmental effect of myrmecophily is tentatively attributed to a stimulating influence of ants on caterpillar feeding behavior. In contrast, females associated with ants tended to lose more weight during the pupal stage. Hence there is evidence for developmental benefits, rather than costs, of myrmecophily in maleP. icarus immatures, whereas ant attendance appears to be more costly for females during the pupal stage. These findings are discussed in relation to data on other myrmecophilous lycaenid species. It is suggested that maintaining low-level myrmecophily and its related organs is a comparatively inexpensive evolutionary stable strategy among this butterfly group.

Key words

Lycaenidae Formicidae Myrmecophily Mutualism Cost-benefit analysis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Banks CJ, Nixon HL (1958) Effects of the ant,Lasius niger L., on the feeding and excretion of the bean aphid,Aphis fabae Scop. J Exp Biol 35:703–711Google Scholar
  2. Banno H (1990) Plasticity of size and fecundity in the aphidophagous lycaenid butterfly,Taraka hamada. Ecol Entomol 15:111–113Google Scholar
  3. Baylis M (1989) The role of nutritian in an ant-lycaenid-host plant interaction. PhD thesis, Univ OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Baylis M, Pierce NE (1991) The effect of host plant quality on the survival of larvae and oviposition by adults of an ant-tended lycaenid butterfly,Jalmenus evagoras. Ecol Entomol 16:1–9Google Scholar
  5. Baylis M, Pierce NE (1992) Lack of compensation by final instar larvae of the myrmecophilous lycaenid butterfly,Jalmenus evagoras, for the loss of nutrients to ants. Physiol Entomol 17:107–114Google Scholar
  6. Cottrell CB (1984) Aphytophagy in butterflies: its relationship to myrmecophily. Zool J Linn Soc 79:1–57Google Scholar
  7. Cushman JH, Addicott JF (1991) Conditional interactions in antplant-herbivore mutualisms. In: Huxley CR, Cutler DF (eds) Ant-plant interactions. Oxford Univ Press, Oxford, pp 92–103Google Scholar
  8. DeVries PJ (1988) The larval ant-organs ofThisbe irenea (Lepidoptera: Riodinidae) and their effects upon attending ants. Zool J Linn Soc 94:379–393Google Scholar
  9. DeVries PJ (1991) Mutualism betweenThisbe irenea butterflies and ants, and the role of ant ecology in the evolution of larval-ant associations. Biol J Linn Soc 43:179–195Google Scholar
  10. DeVries PJ, Baker I (1989) Butterfly exploitation of an ant-plant mutualism: adding insult to herbivory. J NY Entomol Soc 97:332–340Google Scholar
  11. Elgar MA, Pierce NE (1988) Mating success and fecundity in an ant-tended lycaenid butterfly. In: Clutton-Brock TH (ed) Reproductive success: studies of selection and adaptation in contrasting breeding systems. Chicago Univ Press, pp 59–71Google Scholar
  12. El-Ziady S (1960) Further effects ofLasius niger L. onAphis fabae Scopoli. Proc R Entomol Soc London A 35:30–38Google Scholar
  13. Fiedler K (1990) Effects of larval diet on the myrmecophilous qualities ofPolyommatus icarus caterpillars (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Oecologia 83:284–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fiedler K (1991a) European and North West African Lycaenidae (Lepidoptera) and their associations with ants. J Res Lepid 28:239–257Google Scholar
  15. Fiedler K (1991b) Systematic, evolutionary, and ecological implications of myrmecophily within the Lycaenidae (Insecta: Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea). Bonner Zool Monogr 31:1–210Google Scholar
  16. Fiedler K, Maschwitz U (1988) Functional analysis of the myrmecophilous relationships between ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and lycaenids (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). II. Lycaenid larvae as trophobiotic partners of ants — a quantitative approach. Oecologia 75:204–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fiedler K, Maschwitz U (1989a) Functional analysis... I. Release of food recruitment in ants by lycaenid larvae and pupae. Ethology 80:71–80Google Scholar
  18. Fiedler M, Maschwitz U (1989b) The symbiosis between the weaver ant,Oecophylla smaragdina, andAnthene emolus, an obligate myrmecophilous lycaenid butterfly. J Nat Hist 23:833–846Google Scholar
  19. Henning SF (1984) The effect of ant association on lycaenid larval duration (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Entomol Rec J Var 96:99–102Google Scholar
  20. Hill CJ, Pierce NE (1989) The effect of adult diet on the biology of butterflies. 1. The common imperial blue,Jalmenus evagoras. Oecologia 81:249–257Google Scholar
  21. Kitching RL, Luke B (1989) The eyrmecophilous organs of the larvae of some British Lycaenidae (Lepidoptera): a comparative study. J Nat Hist 19:259–276Google Scholar
  22. Lundgren L (1977) The role of intra-and interspecific male: male interactions inPolyommatus icarus Rott. and some other species of blues (Lycaenidae). J Res Lepid 16:249–264Google Scholar
  23. Malicky H (1969) Versuch einer Analyse der ökologischen Beziehungen zwischen Lycaeniden (Lepidoptera) und Formiciden (Hymenoptera). Tijdschr Entomol 112:213–298Google Scholar
  24. Maschwitz U, Wüst M, Schurian K (1975) Blaulingsraupen als Zuckerlieferanten für Ameisen. Oecologia 18:17–21Google Scholar
  25. Nash DR (1989) Cost-benefit analysis of a mutualism between lycaenid butterflies and ants. PhD thesis, Univ OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. Pierce NE (1983) The ecology and evolution of symbioses between lycaenid butterflies and ants. PhD thesis, Harvard Univ, Cambridge (Massachusetts)Google Scholar
  27. Pierce NE (1989) Butterfly-ant mutualisms. In: Grubb PJ, Whittaker J (eds) Towards a more exact ecology. Blackwell Oxford, pp 299–324Google Scholar
  28. Pierce NE, Easteal S (1986) The selective advantage of attendant ants for the larvae of a lycaenid butterfly,Glaucopsyche lygdamus. J Anim Ecol 55:451–462Google Scholar
  29. Pierce NE, Mead PS (1981) Parasitoids as selective agents in the symbiosis between lycaenid butterfly larvae and ants. Science 112:1185–1187Google Scholar
  30. Pierce NE, Kitching RL, Buckley RC, Taylor MFJ, Benbow KF (1987) The costs and benefits of cooperation between the Australian lycaenid butterfly,Jalmenus evagoras, and its attendant ants. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 21:237–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pierce NE, Nash DR, Baylis M, Carper ER (1991): Variation in the attractiveness of lycaenid butterfly larvae to ants. In: Huxley CR, Cutter DF (eds) Ant-plant interactions, Oxford Univ Press, Oxford, pp 131–142Google Scholar
  32. Robbins RK (in press) Cost and evolution of a facultative mutualism between ants and lycaenid larvae (Lepidoptera). OikosGoogle Scholar
  33. Wiklund C, Nylin S, Forsberg J (1991). Sex-related variation in growth rate as a result of selection for large size and protandry in a bivoltine butterfly,Pieris napi. Oikos 60:241–250Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Konrad Fiedler
    • 1
  • Bert Hölldobler
    • 1
  1. 1.Zoologisches Institut IITheodor-Boveri-Institut für BiowissenschaftenWürzburgFederal Republic of Germany

Personalised recommendations