Skip to main content

Non-target effects of grass-specific herbicides differ among species, chemicals and host plants in Euphydryas butterflies

Journal of Insect Conservation volume 20, pages 867–877 (2016)Cite this article

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

Habitat modification by invasive species places numerous butterfly species at risk of extinction. Grass-specific herbicides, graminicides, are a sought-after tool to reduce invasive grasses, augment forbs and enhance butterfly populations. However, possible non-target effects raise concern. We investigated non-target effects of graminicides on three species of caterpillars in the genus Euphydryas (Nymphalidae), a taxon with numerous species in decline worldwide. In one experiment, we compared the effects of three graminicides (clethodim, sethoxydim and fluazifop-p-butyl) on E. colon. In a second experiment, we assessed the effects of fluazifop-p-butyl, the most commonly used graminicide in prairies in the Northwest USA, on three Euphydryas species (E. colon, E. editha and E. phaeton), each raised on two different hostplants. In the first experiment, fluazifop-p-butyl did not affect survivorship of pre-diapause larvae, sethoxydim reduced survivorship by 20 % relative to controls, and effects of clethodim were inconclusive. Graminicides did not change the total concentration of iridoid glycosides in the caterpillars, but all three graminicides increased the concentration of aucubin to almost double the level in control treatments. In the second experiment, the effects of fluazifop-b-butyl were not consistent across butterfly and host plant species. However, fluazifop-b-butyl reduced group size of gregarious pre-diapause larvae under all conditions. Our results suggest that if managers use graminicides over the short-term to control invasive grasses, fluazifop-p-butyl has the most promise for minimal effects. However, efforts should be paired with demographic and behavioral monitoring to quantify context-dependent impacts.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  • Aigner PA, Woerly RJ (2011) Herbicides and mowing to control barb goatgrass (Aegilops triuncialis) and restore native plants in serpentine grasslands. Invasive Plant Sci Manag. 4:448–457

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bates D, Maechler M, Walker S (2015) lme4: linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1–9. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4

  • Blake RJ, Woodcock BA, Westbury DB, Sutton P, Potts SG (2011) New tools to boost butterfly habitat quality in existing grass buffer strips. J Insect Conserv 15:221–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blake RJ, Westbury DB, Woodcock BA, Sutton P, Potts SG (2012) Investigating the phytotoxicity of the graminicide fluazifop-p-butyl against native UK wildflower species. Pest Manag Sci 68:412–421

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bohnenblust E, Egan JF, Mortensen D, Tooker J (2013) Direct and indirect effects of the synthetic-auxin herbicide dicamba on two Lepidopteran species. Environ Entomol 42:586–594

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bowers MD (1981) Unpalatability as a defense strategy of Euphydryas phaeton (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Evol Int J org Evol 35:367–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowers MD (1983) The role of iridoid glycosides in host-plant specificity of checkerspot butterflies. J Chem Ecol 9:475–493

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bowers MD (1991) Iridoid glycosides. In: Rosenthal GA, Berenbaum MR (eds) Herbivores: their interactions with secondary plant metabolites. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 297–326

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bowers MD, Puttick GM (1988) Response of generalist and specialist insects to qualitative allelochemical variation. J Chem Ecol 14:319–334

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bowers MD, Stamp NE (1992) Chemical variation within and between individuals of Plantago lanceolata (Plantaginaceae). J Chem Ecol 18:985–995

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bowers MD, Stamp NE (1997) Effect of hostplant genotype and predators on iridoid glycoside content of pupae of a specialist insect herbivore, Junonia coenia (Nymphalidae). Biochem Syst Ecol 25:571–580

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bowers MD, Williams EH (1995) Variable chemical defense in the checkerspot butterfly Euphydryas gilletti (Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae). Ecol Entomol 20:208–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowers MD, Stamp NE, Collinge SK (1992) Early stage of host range explansion by a specialist herbivore, Euphydryas phaeton (Nymphalidae). Ecology 73:526–536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown L, Crone EE (2016) Minimum area requirements for an at-risk butterfly based on movement and demography. Conserv Biol 30:103–112

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Calvo D, Molina JM (2005) Fecundity-body size relationship and other reproductive aspects of Streblote panda (Lepidoptera: Lasiocampidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 98:191–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa JT, Ross KG (2003) Fitness effects of group merging in a social insect. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 270: 1697–1702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denno RF, Benrey B (1997) Aggregation facilitates larval growth in the neotropical nymphalid butterfly Chlosyne janais. Ecol Entomol 22:133–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunwiddie P, Delvin E (2006) Preliminary prairie restoration study finds sethoxydim reduces exotics without harming natives (Washington). Ecol Restor 24:54

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrlich P, Hanski I (2004) On wings of checkerspots. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Electronic Code of Federal Regulation (ECFR): US National Archives and Records Administration. Wildlife and fisheries, part 17—endangered and threatened wildlife and plants, subpart B—lists (50ECFR.IB.17B. §17.11). http://www.ecfr.gov/. Accessed 19 Apr 2015

  • Elston DA, Moss R, Boulinier T, Arrowsmith C, Lambin X (2001) Analysis of aggregation, a worked example: Numbers of ticks on red grouse chicks. Parasitology 122:563–569

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Forrester JA, Leopold DJ, Hafner SD (2005) Maintaining critical habitat in a heavily managed landscape: effects of power line corridor management on Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) habitat. Restor Ecol 13:488–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner DR, Stermitz FR (1988) Host plant utilization and iridoid glycoside sequestration by Euphydryas anicia (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). J Chem Ecol 14:2147–2168

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Glaeser R, Schultz C (2014) Characterizing a contentious management tool: the effects of a grass-specific herbicide on the silvery blue butterfly. J Insect Conserv 18:1047–1058

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grosboll D (2011) Taylor’s checkerspot (Euphydryas editha taylori) oviposition habitat selection and larval hostplant use in Washington state. The Evergreen State College, Olympia

    Google Scholar 

  • Hellmann JJ (2002) The effect of an environmental change on mobile butterfly larvae and the nutritional quality of their hosts. J Anim Ecol 71:925–936

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P (2008) Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biom J 50:346–363

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Red list of threatened species. http://www.iucnredlist.org/. Accessed 17 June 2014

  • James D, Nunnallee D (2011) Life histories of cascadia butterflies. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen S, Nielsen B, Dahlgren R (1975) Iridoid compounds, their occurrence and systematic importance in the angiosperms. Bot Not 128: 148–180

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser-Bunbury CN, Mougal J, Valentin T, Gabriel R, Bluthgen N (2015) Herbicide application as a habitat restoration tool: impact on native island plant communities. Appl Veg Sci 18:650–660

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kutlesa NJ, Caveney S (2001) Insecticidal activity of glufosinate through glutamine depletion in a caterpillar. Pest Manag Sci 57:25–32

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • LaBar CC, Schultz CB (2012) Investigating the role of herbicides in controlling invasive grasses in prairie habitats: effects on non-target butterflies. Nat Areas J 32: 177–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lill JT (2001) Selection on herbivore life-history traits by the first and third trophic levels: The devil and the deep blue sea revisited. Evol Int J org Evol 55:2236–2247

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln DE, Newton TS, Ehrlich PR, Williams KS (1982) Coevolution of the checkerspot butterfly Euphydryas chalcedona and its larval food plant Diplacus aurantiacus: larval response to protein and leaf resin. Oecologia 52:216–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu Z, Gong P, Wu K, Wei W, Sun J, D Li (2007) Effects of larval hostplants on over-wintering preparedness and survival of the cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner)(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J Insect Physiol 53:1016–1026

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marushia RG, Allen EB (2011) Control of exotic annual grasses to restore native forbs in abandoned agricultural land. Restor Ecol 19:45–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIver J, Macke E (2014) Short-term butterfly response to sagebrush steppe restoration treatments. Rangel Ecol Manag 67: 539–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MDNR (2014) Baltimore Checkerspot. Maryland Department of Natural Resources. http://www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife/Plants_Wildlife/BaltimoreCheckerspot.asp Accessed 17 June 2014

  • Moore SD (1989) Patterns of juvenile mortality within an oligophagous insect population. Ecology 70:1726–1737

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olszyk D, Blakeley-Smith M, Pfleeger T, Lee EH, Plocher M (2013) Effects of low levels of herbicides on prairie species of the Willamette Valley, Oregon. Environ Toxicol Chem 32:2542–2551

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Preston KL, Redak RA, Allen MF, Rotenberry JT (2012) Changing distribution patterns of an endangered butterfly: linking local extinction patterns and variable habitat relationships. Biol Conserv 152:280–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pyle RM (2002) The Butterflies of Cascadia. Seattle Audobon Society, Seattle

    Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team (2015) A language and environment for statistical computing. The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna

  • Reader T, Hochuli DF (2003) Understanding gregariousness in a larval Lepidopteran: the roles of host plant, predation, and microclimate. Ecol Entomol 28:729–737

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rimpler H (1991) Sequestration of iridoids by insects. In: Harborne J, Thomas F (eds) Ecological chemistry and biochemistry of plant terpnoids. Oxford Science Publications, Oxford, pp 314–330

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson GS, Ackery PR, Kitching IJ, Beccaloni GW, Hernández LM (2016) HOSTS—a database of the world’s Lepidopteran hostplants. Natural History Museum, London. http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosts. Accessed 7 Mar 2016

  • Russell C, Schultz CB (2010) Effects of grass-specific herbicides on butterflies: an experimental investigation to advance conservation efforts. J Insect Conserv 14:53–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saastamoinen M (2007) Life-history, genotypic, and environmental correlates of clutch size in the Glanville fritillary butterfly. Ecol Entomol 32:235–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitz J, Schafer K, Bruhl CA (2014) Agrochemicals in field margins-field evaluation of plant reproduction effects. Agric Ecosyst Environ 189:82–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz CB, Russell C, Wynn L (2008) Restoration, reintroduction and captive propagation efforts for at-risk butterflies: a review. Isr J Ecol Evol 54:41–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz CB, Henry E, Carleton A, Hicks T, Thomas R, Potter A, Collins M, Linders M, Fimbel C, Black S, Anderson HE, Diehl G, Hamman S, Gilbert R, Foster J, Hays D, Wilderman D, Davenport R, Steel E, Page N, Lilley PL, Heron J, Kroeker N, Webb C, Reader B (2011) Conservation of prairie-oak butterflies in Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. Northwest Sci 85:361–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Severns PM (2008) Exotic grass invasion impacts fitness of an endangered prairie butterfly, Icaricia icarioides fenderi. J Insect Conserv 12:651–661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Severns PM, Warren AD (2008) Selectively eliminating and conserving exotic plants to save an endangered butterfly from local extinction. Anim Conserv 11:476–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer MC (1986) The definition and measurement of oviposition preference in plant-feeding insects. In: Miller J, Miller T (eds) Plant-insect Interactions. Springer, Berlin, pp 65–94

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Singer MC, McBride CS (2010) Multitrait, host-associated divergence among sets of butterfly populations: implications for reproductive isolation and ecological speciation. Evolution Int J org Evolution 64:921–933

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer M, Wee B, Hawkins S, Butcher M (2008) Rapid natural and anthropogenic diet evolution: three examples from checkerspot butterflies. In: Tilmon KJ (ed) Specialization, speciation and radiation: the evolutionary biology of herbivorous insects. University of California Press, Berkley, pp 311–324

    Google Scholar 

  • Smee M, Smyth W, Tunmore M, Ffrench-Constant R, Hodgson D (2011) Butterflies on the brink: habitat requirements for declining populations of the marsh fritillary (Euphydryas aurinia) in SW England. J Insect Conserv 15:153–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stamp NE (1981) Effect of group-size on parasitism in a natural-population of the Baltimore Checkerspot Euphydryas phaeton. Oecologia 49:201–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stamp NE (1982) Aggregation behavior in Baltimore checkerspot caterpillars, Euphydryas phaeton (Nymphalidae). J Lepidopterists’ Soc 36:31–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanley AG, Kaye TN, Dunwiddie PW (2011) Multiple treatment combinations and seed addition increase abundance and diversity of native plants in Pacific Northwest prairies. Ecol Restor 29:35–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stark JD, Chen XD, Johnson CS (2012) Effects of herbicides on Behr’s metalmark butterfly, a surrogate species for the endangered butterfly, Lange’s metalmark. Environ Pollut 164:24–27

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • van Swaay C, Cuttelod A, Collins S, Maes D, Lopez-Munguira M, Sasic M, Settele J, Verovnik R, Vestrael T, Warren M, Wiemers M, Wynhoff I (2010) European red list of butterflies. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg

  • Wagner DL, Van Driesche RG (2010) Threats posed to rare or endangered insects by invasions of nonnative species. Ann Rev Entomol 55:547–568

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wahlberg N (2001) The phylogenetics and biochemistry of host-plant specialization in Melitaeine butterflies (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Evol Int J Org Evol 55:522–537

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Walker KA, Ridley SM, Lewis T, Harwood JL (1988) Fluazifop, a grass-selective herbicide which inhibits acetyl-CoA carboxylase in sensitive plant species. Biochem J 254:307–310

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • White R, Singer M (1974) Geographical distribution of hostplant choice in Euphydryas editha (Nymphalidae). J Lepidopterists’ Soc 28:103–107

    Google Scholar 

  • Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation: Red List of Butterflies and Moths Sorted by Scientific Name. http://www.xerces.org/red-list-of-butterflies-and-moths-sorted/. Accessed 17 June 2014

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Strategic Environmental Research and Development Fund (SERDP, RC-2119), Washington State University Vancouver, Robert Lane Fellowship in Environmental Studies at WSU, and University of Colorado for financial support for this project. We thank Leone Brown and Emma Sass for collecting eggs from E. phaeton and David James for assisting in finding sites with E. editha colonia and E. colon. We thank Paul Butler of SunGro Horticulture for his generous donation of potting soil, and Mary Maddocks of McConkey Co. for arranging its delivery. We thank Sierra Smith and Center for Natural Lands Management for supplying Castilleja hispida. We thank Zach Freed, Kim Harless, Caitlin Kelly, Charlie McGowan, and Rebecca Neville for assistance in the greenhouse and laboratory, and Jahi Chappell and John Bishop for reviewing earlier versions of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Washington State University, School of Biological Sciences, 14204 NE Salmon Creek Ave, Vancouver, WA, USA

    Cheryl B. Schultz, Jessica L. Zemaitis & Cameron C. Thomas

  2. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA

    M. Deane Bowers

  3. Department of Biology, Tufts University, 163 Packard Ave, Medford, MA, USA

    Elizabeth E. Crone

Authors
  1. Cheryl B. Schultz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jessica L. Zemaitis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cameron C. Thomas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. Deane Bowers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Elizabeth E. Crone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cheryl B. Schultz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schultz, C.B., Zemaitis, J.L., Thomas, C.C. et al. Non-target effects of grass-specific herbicides differ among species, chemicals and host plants in Euphydryas butterflies. J Insect Conserv 20, 867–877 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-016-9920-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-016-9920-8

Keywords

  • Butterfly conservation
  • Checkerspots
  • Euphydryas
  • Habitat restoration
  • Herbicides