Fitness costs of butterfly oviposition on a lethal non-native plant in a mixed native and non-native plant community
- 438 Downloads
Non-native plants may be unpalatable or toxic, but have oviposition cues similar to native plants used by insects. The herbivore will then oviposit on the plant, but the offspring will be unable to develop. While such instances have been described previously, the fitness costs at the population level in the wild due to the presence of the lethal host have not been quantified, for this or other related systems. We quantified the fitness cost in the field for the native butterfly Pieris macdunnoughii in the presence of the non-native crucifer Thlaspi arvense, based on the spatial distributions of host plants, female butterflies and eggs in the habitat and the survival of the larvae in the wild. We found that 2.9 % of eggs were laid on T. arvense on average, with a survival probability of 0, yielding a calculated fitness cost of 3.0 % (95 % confidence interval 1.7–3.6 %) due to the presence of the non-native in the plant community. Survival probability to the pre-pupal stage for eggs laid on two native crucifers averaged 1.6 % over 2 years. The magnitude of the fitness cost will vary temporally and spatially as a function of the relative abundance of the non-native plant. We propose that the fine-scale spatial structure of the plant community relative to the butterflies’ dispersal ability, combined with the females’ broad habitat use, contributes to the fitness costs associated with the non-native plant and the resulting evolutionary trap.
KeywordsBrassicaceae Evolutionary trap Host mismatch Larval survival Pieridae
This work conforms to the legal requirements of the USA. The authors thank J. Bowsher, A. Cathcart, E. Forwand, and R. Neill for field assistance, and T. Fukami, R. McCoy, W. Watt, A. Porter and an anonymous reviewer for comments on the manuscript. Funding came from the Stanford Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education’s Biology Field Studies Program, NSF REU site grant DBI 9987953 to RMBL, and the Stanford University Center for Conservation Biology’s Bing Fund.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Boggs CL, Wiklund C (2012) When putative host plants invade: perfomance and heritability of performance of butterfly larvae in the native and non-native plant range (in preparation)Google Scholar
- Boggs CL et al (2012) Introduced host and native herbivore: opportunities for evolution in the face of maladaptation (in preparation)Google Scholar
- Bowden SR (1971) American white butterflies (Pieridae) and English food-plants. J Lepidopterists Soc 25:6–12Google Scholar
- Chew FS (1974) Strategies of food plant exploitation in a complex of oligophagous butterflies (Lepidoptera). PhD dissertation, Biology. Yale University, New HavenGoogle Scholar
- Courant AV, Holbrook AE, Van der Reijden ED, Chew FS (1994) Native pierine butterfly (Pieridae) adapting to naturalized crucifer? J Lepidopterists Soc 48:168–170Google Scholar
- Harvey JA, Bukovinszky T, van der Putten WH (2010) Interactions between invasive plants and insect herbivores: a plea for a multitrophic perspective. Biol Conserv 143:2251–2259Google Scholar
- Kuussaari M, van Houhuys S, Hellmann JJ, Singer MC (2004) Larval biology of checkerspots. In: Ehrlich PR, Hanski I (eds) On the wings of checkerspots: a model system for population biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 138–160Google Scholar
- Lockwood JL, Hoopes M, Marchetti M (2007) Invasion ecology. Blackwell, MaldenGoogle Scholar
- R Development Core Team (2009) A language and environment for statistical computing, 2.3.0 edn. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
- Straatman R (1962) Note on certain Lepidoptera ovipositing on plants which are toxic to their larvae. J Lepidopterists Soc 16:99–103Google Scholar
- Western Region Climate Center (2011) Monthly temperature listings. N Crested Butte, ColoradoGoogle Scholar