Journal of Comparative Physiology A

, Volume 194, Issue 12, pp 1043–1052 | Cite as

Gustatory synergism in ants mediates a species-specific symbiosis with lycaenid butterflies

  • Masaru K. HojoEmail author
  • Ayako Wada-Katsumata
  • Mamiko Ozaki
  • Susumu Yamaguchi
  • Ryohei Yamaoka
Original Paper


Here we show that larvae of the lycaenid butterfly Niphanda fusca secrete droplets containing trehalose and glycine. These droplets attract the larva’s host ants Camponotus japonicus, which collect and protect the larvae. We comparatively investigated gustatory preference for trehalose, glycine or a mixture of the two between host (C. japonicus) and non-host (Camponotus obscuripes) species of ants in behavioral and electrophysiological experiments. Glycine itself induced no taste sensation in either host or non-host ants. The mixture of trehalose plus glycine was chosen as much as pure trehalose by non-host ants. However, the host ants clearly preferred the mixture of trehalose plus glycine to trehalose alone. When we used sucrose instead of trehalose, the mixture of sucrose plus glycine was chosen as much as sucrose alone, in both species. These behavioral data are supported by the electrophysiological responsiveness to sugars and/or glycine in the sugar-taste receptor cells of the ants. Considering that lycaenid butterflies’ secretions have species-specific compositions of sugar and amino acid; our results clearly showed that such species-specific compositions of larval secretions are precisely tuned to the feeding preferences of their host ant species, in which the feeding preferences are synergistically enhanced by amino acid.


Lycaenidae Ants Synergism Obligate symbiosis Nectar 



Dorsal nectary organ



We are grateful to David H. Hembry for helpful comments on the manuscript and language revision and two anonymous referees for their valuable comments. We thank Yasuhisa Endo for his help in scanning electron microscope, Hiroshi Oyama and Mayuko Shiraga for their help in chemical analysis, and Takeshi Takeda, Yuji Satoji, Daisuke Imaeda, Hayato Inui and Daisuke Umemoto for their help with collecting our study animals. All work presented here complied with the ‘‘Principles of animal care’’, publication No. 86–23, revised 1985 of the National Institute of Health, and also with the current laws of Japan, where these experiments were performed.


  1. Agrawal AA, Fordyce JA (2000) Induced indirect defence in a lycaenid–ant association: the regulation of a resource in a mutualism. Proc R Soc B 267:1857–1861PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Als TD, Vila R, Kandul NP, Nash DR, Yen SH, Hsu YF, Mignault AA, Boomsma JJ, Pierce NE (2004) The evolution of alternative parasitic life histories in large blue butterflies. Nature 432:386–390PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Axén AH, Leimar O, Hoffman V (1996) Signalling in a mutualistic interaction. Anim Behav 52:321–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernays EA, Singer MS, Rodrigues D, Chapman RF, Hartmann T (2003) Loss of gustatory responses to pyrrolizidine alkaloids after their extensive ingestion in the polyphagous caterpillar Estigmene acrea. J Exp Biol 206:4487–4496PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blüthgen N, Fiedler K (2004a) Competition for composition: lessons from nectar-feeding ant communities. Ecology 85:1479–1485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blüthgen N, Fiedler K (2004b) Preferences for sugars and amino acids and their conditionality in a diverse nectar-feeding ant community. J Anim Ecol 73:155–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blüthgen N, Fiedler K, Gottsberger G (2004) Sugar and amino acid composition of ant-attended nectar and honeydew sources from an Australian rainforest. Austral Ecol 29:418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chapman RF, Bernays EA, Singer MS, Hartmann T (2003) Experience influences gustatory responsiveness to pyrrolizidine alkaloids in the polyphagous caterpillar, Estigmene acrea. J Comp Physiol A 189:833–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chaudhari N, Landin AM, Roper SD (2000) A metabotropic glutamate receptor variant functions as a taste receptor. Nat Neurosci 3:113–119PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chyb S, Dahanukar A, Wickens A, Carlson JR (2003) Drosophila Gr5a encodes a taste receptor tuned to trehalose. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:14526–14530PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clyne PJ, Warr CG, Carlson JR (2000) Candidate taste receptors in Drosophila. Science 287:1830–1834PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cushman JH, Rashbrook VK, Beattie AJ (1994) Assessing benefits to both participants in a lycaenid–ant association. Ecology 75:1031–1041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dahanukar A, Foster K, van der Goes van Naters WM, Carlson JR (2001) A Gr receptor is required for response to the sugar trehalose in taste neurons of Drosophila. Nat Neurosci 4:1182–1186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Daniels H, Gottsberger G, Fiedler K (2005) Nutrient composition of larval nectar secretions from three species of myrmecophilous butterflies. J Chem Ecol 31:2805–2821PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Del Campo ML, Miles CI (2003) Chemosensory tuning to a host recognition cue in the facultative specialist larvae of the moth Manduca sexta. J Exp Biol 206:3979–3990PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dunipace L, Meister S, McNealy C, Amrein H (2001) Spatially restricted expression of candidate taste receptors in the Drosophila gustatory system. Curr Biol 11:822–835PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fiedler K (1998) Lycaenid–ant interactions of the Maculinea type: tracing their historical roots in a comparative framework. J Insect Conserv 2:3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fiedler K, Hölldobler B, Seufert P (1996) Butterflies and ants: the communicative domain. Experientia 52:14–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fraser AM, Axén AH, Pierce NE (2001) Assessing the quality of different ant species as partners of a myrmecophilous butterfly. Oecologia 129:452–460Google Scholar
  20. Glendinning JI, Ensslen S, Eisenberg ME, Weiskopf P (1999) Diet-induced plasticity in the taste system of an insect: localization to a single transduction pathway in an identified taste cell. J Exp Biol 202:2091–2102PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Heath A, Claassens AJM (2003) Ant-association among southern African Lycaenidae. J Lepid Soc 57:1–16Google Scholar
  22. Hill CA, Fox AN, Pitts RJ, Kent LB, Tan PL, Chrystal MA, Cravchik A, Collins FH, Robertson HM, Zwiebel LJ (2002) G protein-coupled receptors in Anopheles gambiae. Science 298:176–178PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hodgson ES, Lettvin JY, Roeder KD (1955) Physiology of a primary chemoreceptor unit. Science 122:417–418PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jordano D, Thomas CD (1992) Specificity of an ant-lycaenid interaction. Oecologia 91:431–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kay A (2004) The relative availabilities of complementary resources affect the feeding preferences of ant colonies. Behav Ecol 15:63–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lanza J (1991) Response of fire ants (Formicidae: Solenopsis invicta and S. geminata) to artificial nectars with amino acids. Ecol Entomol 16:203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Leimar O, Axén AH (1993) Strategic behaviour in an interspecific mutualism: interactions between lycaenid larvae and ants. Anim Behav 46:1177–1182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Maschwitz U, Wüst M, Schurian K (1975) Bläulingsraupen als Zuckerlieferanten für Ameisen. Oecologia 18:17–21Google Scholar
  29. Nagayama H (1950) Life history of Niphanda fusca Bremer et Grey. Insect Ecol 3:9–18Google Scholar
  30. Nelson G, Chandrashekar J, Hoon MA, Feng L, Zhao G, Ryba NJP, Zuker CS (2002) An amino-acid taste receptor. Nature 416:199–202PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nomura K, Hirukawa N, Yamaoka R, Imafuku M (1992) Problems on the symbiosis between the lycaenid butterfly larva, Niphanda fusca shijimia and the ants Camponotus (Camponotus) japonicus. Tyô to Ga 43:138–143Google Scholar
  32. Pierce NE (1985) Lycaenid butterflies and ants: Selection for nitrogen-fixing and other protein-rich food plants. Am Nat 125:888–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pierce NE (1987) The evolution and biogeography of associations between lycaenid butterflies and ants. In: Harvey PH, Partridge L (eds) Oxford surveys in evolutionary biology, vol IV. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 89–116Google Scholar
  34. Pierce NE, Nash DR (1999) The Imperial Blue: Jalmenus evagoras (Lycaenidae). In: Kitching RL, Sheermeyer E, Jone RE, Pierce NE (eds) The biology of Australian butterflies. CSIRO, Sydney, pp 277–313Google Scholar
  35. Pierce NE, Braby MF, Heath A, Lohman DJ, Mathew J, Rand DB, Travassos MA (2002) The ecology and evolution of ant association in the Lycaenidae (Lepidoptera). Annu Rev Entomol 47:733–771PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Robertson HM, Wanner KW (2006) The chemoreceptor superfamily in the honey bee, Apis mellifera: expansion of the odorant, but not gustatory, receptor family. Genome Res 16:1395–1403PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. San Gabriel A, Uneyama H, Yoshie S, Torii K (2005) Cloning and characterization of a novel mGluR1 variant from vallate papillae that functions as a receptor for l-glutamate stimuli. Chem Senses 30:i25–i26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Scott K, Roscoe Brady J, Cravchik A, Morozov P, Rzhetsky A, Zuker C, Axel R (2001) A chemosensory gene family encoding candidate gustatory and olfactory receptors in Drosophila. Cell 104:661–673PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tanimura T, Isono K, Takamura T, Shimada I (1982) Genetic dimorphism in the taste sensitivity to trehalose in Drosophila melanogaster. J Comp Physiol A 147:433–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Völkl W, Woodring J, Fischer M, Lorenz MW, Hoffmann KH (1999) Ant-aphid mutualism: the impact of honeydew production and honeydew sugar composition on ant preferences. Oecologia 118:483–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wada A, Isobe Y, Yamaguchi S, Yamaoka R, Ozaki M (2001) Taste-enhancing effects of glycine on the sweetness of glucose: a gustatory aspect of symbiosis between the ant, Camponotus japonicus, and the larvae of the lycaenid butterfly, Niphanda fusca. Chem Senses 26:983–992PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wagner D (1993) Species-specific effects of tending ants on the development of lycaenid butterfly larvae. Oecologia 96:276–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wieczorek H, Wolff G (1989) The labellar sugar receptor of Drosophila. J Comp Physiol A 164:825–834 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yao I, Akimoto S-I (2002) Flexibility in the composition and concentration of amino acids in honeydew of the drepanosiphid aphid Tuberculatus quercicola. Ecol Entomol 27:745–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Masaru K. Hojo
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ayako Wada-Katsumata
    • 2
  • Mamiko Ozaki
    • 3
  • Susumu Yamaguchi
    • 4
  • Ryohei Yamaoka
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Applied Biology, Graduate School of Science and TechnologyKyoto Institute of TechnologyKyotoJapan
  2. 2.Division of Applied Life Science, Graduate of School of AgricultureKyoto UniversityKyotoJapan
  3. 3.Department of Biology, Graduate School of ScienceKobe UniversityKobeJapan
  4. 4.HokutoJapan

Personalised recommendations