Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 1, Issue 3, pp 272–282 | Cite as

Genetic and phenotypic variation in diet breadth in a generalist herbivore

  • Mary Carol Rossiter
Papers

Summary

The genetic and plastic components of polyphagy were investigated in a population ofLymantria dispar, the gypsy moth. A simple genetic experiment assessed the expression of (1) genetic variability in life history traits within each of four environments, (2) genetic variability in diet breadth, expressed as a change in the ranks of family performance across hosts, and (3) homeostasis (equivalent performance by a family across hosts) versus phenotypic plasticity (variable performance by a family across hosts). Sibs from each of 14 families, randomly selected from a single population, were reared on four diets: two natural hosts — chestnut and red oak, and two synthetic hosts — a standard laboratory diet and a low-protein version of this diet. Average population performance, measured in terms of development time and pupal weight, was better on standard laboratory diet than on low-protein diet, and was equal on chestnut and red oak for pupal weight, but better on chestnut oak for development time. Average population performance provided no information about the genetic component of host use ability. The gypsy moth expressed genetic variation in development time within each host environment and in pupal weight within natural host environments. Phenotypic plasticity was expressed by a significant number of families in development time and pupal weight across synthetic hosts and, to a lesser extent, across natural hosts. It was only across natural hosts that genetic variation in diet breadth was expressed, and this was confined to females. Genetic variability in diet breadth may be maintained in this species as a consequence of the unpredictability of its food sources.

Keywords

Genetic variation phenotypic plasticity plant/herbivore interaction diet breadth host use ability generalist herbivore Lymantria dispar 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barbosa, P., Martinat, P. and Waldvogel, M. (1986) Development, fecundity and survival of the herbivoreLymantria dispar and the number of plant species in its diet.Ecol. Ent. 11, 1–6.Google Scholar
  2. Doane, C. C. (1968) Aspects of mating behavior in the gypsy moth.Annals Ent. Soc. Amer. 61, 768–73.Google Scholar
  3. Doane, C. C. and McManus, M. L. (eds) (1981) The gypsy moth: research toward integrated pest management.USDA Forestry Service Technical Bulletin 1584, 757 pp.Google Scholar
  4. Eastel, S. (1985) The ecological genetics of introduced populations of the giant toad,Bufo marinus. III. Geographical patterns of variation.Evolution 29, 1065–75.Google Scholar
  5. Forbush, E. H. and Fernald, C. H. (1896)The Gypsy Moth. Wright and Potter Printing Co., Boston, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  6. Fox, L. R. and Morrow, P. A. (1981) Specialization: species property or local phenomena?Science 211, 887–93.Google Scholar
  7. Futuyma, D. J. and Peterson, S. C. (1985) Genetic variation in the use of resources by insects.Ann. Rev. Ent. 30, 217–38.Google Scholar
  8. Goldschmidt, R. (1934)Lymantria. Bibliographia Genetica XI.Google Scholar
  9. Gould, F. (1979) Rapid host range evolution in a population of the phytophagous miteTetranychus urticae.Evolution 33, 791–802.Google Scholar
  10. Hare, J. D. and Kennedy, G. G. (1986) Genetic variation in plant-insect associations: survival ofLeptinotarsa decemlineata populations onSolanum carolinense.Evolution 40, 1031–43.Google Scholar
  11. Hedrick, P. W., Ginevan, M. E. and Ewing, E. P. (1976) Genetic polymorphism in heterogeneous environments.Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 7, 1–32.Google Scholar
  12. Jaenike, J. (1985) Genetic and environmental determinants of food preference inDrosophila tripunctata.Evolution 39, 362–9.Google Scholar
  13. Jaenike, J. and Selander, R. K. (1979) Ecological generalism inDrosophila falloni: genetic evidence.Evolution 33, 741–8.Google Scholar
  14. Jaenike, J. and Selander, R. K. (1980) On the question of host races in the fall webworm,Hyphantria cunea.Entomol. Exp. et Appl. 27, 31–7.Google Scholar
  15. Leonard, D. E. (1974) Recent developments in ecology and control of the gypsy moth.Annual Review of Entomology 19, 197–229.Google Scholar
  16. Lewontin, R. (1965) Selection for colonizing ability. InGenetics of Colonizing Species (H. G. Baker and G. L. Stebbins, eds) pp. 79–94. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Magnoler, A. (1974) Bioassay of a nuclear polyhedrosis virus of the gypsy moth,Porthetria dispar.J. Invert. Path. 23, 190–6.Google Scholar
  18. McManus, M. L. (1973) The role of behavior in the dispersal of newly hatched gypsy moth larvae.USDA Forest Service Research Paper NE-267.Google Scholar
  19. Mitter, C. and Futuyma, D. J. (1983) An evolutionary-genetic view of host-plant utilization by insects. InVariable Plants and Herbivores in Natural and Managed Systems (R. F. Denno and M. S. McClure, eds) pp. 427–59. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  20. Mitter, C., Futuyma, D. J., Schneider, J. C. and Hare, J. D. (1979) Genetic variation and host plant relations in a parthenogenetic moth.Evolution 33, 777–90.Google Scholar
  21. Mosher, F. H. (1915) Food plants of the gypsy moth in America.USDA Bulletin No. 250.Google Scholar
  22. ODell, T. M. and Rollinson, W. (1966) A technique for rearing the gypsy moth on an artificial diet.J. Econ. Ent. 59, 741–2.Google Scholar
  23. Rausher, M. D. (1984) Tradeoffs in performance on different hosts: evidence from within and between site variation in the beetleDelayala guttata.Evolution 38, 582–95.Google Scholar
  24. Rossiter, M. C. (1987) Use of a secondary host, pitch pine, by non-outbreak populations of the gypsy moth.Ecology 68, 857–68.Google Scholar
  25. Rossiter, M. C., Schultz, J. C. and Baldwin, I. T. (1988) Relationships among defoliation, red oak phenolics, and gypsy moth growth and reproduction.Ecology 69.Google Scholar
  26. SAS Institute, Inc. (1982)SAS User's Guide: Statistics. Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
  27. Schlichting, C. D. (1986) The evolution of phenotypic plasticity in plants.Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 17, 667–93.Google Scholar
  28. Schmalhausen, I. I. (1949)Factors of Evaluation. Blakiston, PA, USA, 327 pp.Google Scholar
  29. Skaller, P. M. (1985) Patterns of dispersal of gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar) (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) egg masses over an 11-year population cycle.Envir. Ent. 14, 106–17.Google Scholar
  30. Via, S. (1984) The quantitative genetics of polyphagy in an insect herbivore. I. Genotype-environment interactions in larval performance on different host plant species.Evolution 38, 881–95.Google Scholar
  31. Via, S. and Lande, R. (1985) Genotype-environment interaction and the evolution of phenotypic plasticity.Evolution 39, 505–22.Google Scholar
  32. Wright, S. (1940) Breeding structure of populations in relation to speculation.Amer. Natur. 74, 232–48.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chapman and Hall Ltd. 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mary Carol Rossiter
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EntomologyPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations