Journal of Chemical Ecology

, Volume 44, Issue 11, pp 1040–1044 | Cite as

The Effects of Milkweed Induced Defense on Parasite Resistance in Monarch Butterflies, Danaus plexippus

  • Wen-Hao TanEmail author
  • Leiling Tao
  • Kevin M. Hoang
  • Mark D. Hunter
  • Jacobus C. de Roode
Rapid Communication


Many plants express induced defenses against herbivores through increasing the production of toxic secondary chemicals following damage. Phytochemical induction can directly or indirectly affect other organisms within the community. In tri-trophic systems, increased concentrations of plant toxins could be detrimental to plants if herbivores can sequester these toxins as protective chemicals for themselves. Thus, through trophic interactions, induction can lead to either positive or negative effects on plant fitness. We examined the effects of milkweed (Asclepias spp.) induced defenses on the resistance of monarch caterpillars (Danaus plexippus) to a protozoan parasite (Ophryocystis elektroscirrha). Milkweeds contain toxic secondary chemicals called cardenolides, higher concentrations of which are associated with reduced parasite growth. Previous work showed that declines in foliar cardenolides caused by aphid attack render monarch caterpillars more susceptible to infection. Here, we ask whether cardenolide induction by monarchs increases monarch resistance to disease. We subjected the high-cardenolide milkweed A. curassavica and the low-cardenolide A. syriaca to caterpillar grazing, and reared infected and uninfected caterpillars on these plants. As expected, monarchs suffered less parasite growth and disease when reared on A. curassavica than on A. syriaca. We also found that herbivory increased cardenolide concentrations in A. curassavica, but not A. syriaca. However, cardenolide induction in A. curassavica was insufficient to influence monarch resistance to the parasite. Our results suggest that interspecific variation in cardenolide concentration is a more important driver of parasite defense than plasticity via induced defenses in this tri-trophic system.


Induction Herbivory Trophic interactions Asclepias Ophryocystis elektroscirrha 



We thank M. Tsai, A. Ahmad, and Y. Li for help with the experiments, H. Streit for help with the chemical analyses, H. Salem, Y. Yang, and two anonymous reviewers for providing constructive comments on the manuscript. This work was supported by National Science Foundation grant IOS-1557724 to J.C.d.R and M.D.H.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. Agrawal AA, Hastings AP, Patrick ET, Knight AC (2014) Specificity of herbivore-induced hormonal signaling and defensive traits in five closely related milkweeds (Asclepias spp.). J Chem Ecol 40:717–729. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Agrawal AA, Kearney EE, Hastings AP, Ramsey TE (2012a) Attenuation of the jasmonate burst, plant defensive traits, and resistance to specialist monarch caterpillars on shaded common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca). J Chem Ecol 38:893–901. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Agrawal AA, Petschenka G, Bingham RA et al (2012b) Toxic cardenolides: chemical ecology and coevolution of specialized plant-herbivore interactions. New Phytol 194:28–45. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Brower LP, McEvoy PB, Williamson KL, Flannery MA (1972) Variation in cardiac glycoside content of monarch butterflies from natural populations in eastern North America. Science 177:426–429. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Cory JS, Hoover K (2006) Plant-mediated effects in insect-pathogen interactions. Trends Ecol Evol 21:278–286. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. de Roode JC, Chi J, Rarick RM, Altizer S (2009) Strength in numbers: high parasite burdens increase transmission of a protozoan parasite of monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus). Oecologia 161:67–75. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. de Roode JC, Lopez Fernandez de Castillejo C, Faits T, Alizon S (2011a) Virulence evolution in response to anti-infection resistance: toxic food plants can select for virulent parasites of monarch butterflies. J Evol Biol 24:712–722. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. de Roode JC, Rarick RM, Mongue AJ et al (2011b) Aphids indirectly increase virulence and transmission potential of a monarch butterfly parasite by reducing defensive chemistry of a shared food plant. Ecol Lett 14:453–461. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. de Roode JC, Yates AJ, Altizer S et al (2008) Virulence-transmission trade-offs and population divergence in virulence in a naturally occurring butterfly parasite. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105:7489–7494. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Fordyce JA (2001) The lethal plant defense paradox remains: inducible host-plant aristolochic acids and the growth and defense of the pipevine swallowtail. Entomol Exp Appl 100:339–346. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hunter MD, Schultz JC (1993) Induced plant defenses breached? Phytochemical induction protects an herbivore from disease. Oecologia 94:195–203CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Karban R, Baldwin IT (1997) Induced responses to herbivory. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mooney KA, Jones P, Agrawal AA (2008) Coexisting congeners: demography, competition, and interactions with cardenolides for two milkweed-feeding aphids. Oikos 117:450–458. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rasmann S, Johnson MD, Agrawal AA (2009) Induced responses to herbivory and jasmonate in three milkweed species. J Chem Ecol 35:1326–1334. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Sternberg ED, Lefèvre T, Li J et al (2012) Food plant-derived disease tolerance and resistance in a natural butterfly-plant-parasite interactions. Evolution 66:3367–3377. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Tao L, Gowler CD, Ahmad A et al (2015) Disease ecology across soil boundaries: effects of below-ground fungi on above-ground host – parasite interactions. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 282:20151993. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyEmory UniversityAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Ecology & Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations