Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

How Phylogenetics Can Elucidate the Chemical Ecology of Poison Frogs and Their Arthropod Prey

  • Published:
Journal of Chemical Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The sequestration by neotropical poison frogs (Dendrobatidae) of an amazing array of defensive alkaloids from oribatid soil mites has motivated an exciting research theme in chemical ecology, but the details of mite-to-frog transfer remain hidden. To address this, McGugan et al. (2016, Journal of Chemical Ecology 42:537–551) used the little devil poison frog (Oophaga sylvatica) and attempted to simultaneously characterize the prey mite alkaloids, the predator skin alkaloids, and identify the mites using DNA sequences. Heethoff et al. (2016, Journal of Chemical Ecology 42:841–844) argued that none of the mite families to which McGugan et al. allocated the prey was thought to possess alkaloids. Heethoff et al. concluded from analyses including additional sequences that the mite species were unlikely to be close relatives of the defended mites. We re-examine this by applying more appropriate phylogenetic methods to broader and denser taxonomic samples of mite sequences using the same gene (CO1). We found, over trees based on CO1 datasets, only weak support (except in one case) for branches critical to connecting the evolution of alkaloid sequestration with the phylogeny of mites. In contrast, a well-supported analysis of the 18S ribosomal gene suggests at least two independent evolutionary origins of oribatid alkaloids. We point out impediments in the promising research agenda, namely a paucity of genetic, chemical, and taxonomic information, and suggest how phylogenetics can elucidate at a broader level the evolution of chemical defense in prey arthropods, sequestration by predators, and the impact of alkaloids on higher-order trophic interactions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

taken from Norton and Behan-Pelletier (2009) and Schatz et al. (2011). The tree with posterior probabilities is given in Online Resource 9 and the source of all sequences used is given in Online Resource 10

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and material

The data generated or analyzed during this study are included in its Supplementary Information files.

Code availability

The R code used to generate Fig. 5 is included as Online Resource 11.

References

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Analisa Shields-Estrada for comments on early versions of the manuscript and to two anonymous reviewers for valuable feedback and comments on an earlier manuscript draft.

Funding

JLC and DCC were supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF DEB-1556967).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

JLC and DCC jointly formulated the concepts, performed the analyses, and wrote the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeffrey L. Coleman.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Conflicts of interest/Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (ZIP 360 MB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Coleman, J.L., Cannatella, D.C. How Phylogenetics Can Elucidate the Chemical Ecology of Poison Frogs and Their Arthropod Prey. J Chem Ecol 48, 384–400 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-022-01352-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-022-01352-8

Keywords

Navigation