| Literature DB >> 24101991 |
Hélène Audusseau1, Sören Nylin, Niklas Janz.
Abstract
Although changes in phenology and species associations are relatively well-documented responses to global warming, the potential interactions between these phenomena are less well understood. In this study, we investigate the interactions between temperature, phenology (in terms of seasonal timing of larval growth) and host plant use in the polyphagous butterfly Polygonia c-album. We found that the hierarchy of larval performance on three natural host plants was not modified by a temperature increase as such. However, larval performance on each host plant and temperature treatment was affected by rearing season. Even though larvae performed better at the higher temperature regardless of the time of the rearing, relative differences between host plants changed with the season. For larvae reared late in the season, performance was always better on the herbaceous plant than on the woody plants. In this species, it is likely that a prolonged warming will lead to a shift from univoltinism to bivoltinism. The demonstrated interaction between host plant suitability and season means that such a shift is likely to lead to a shift in selective regime, favoring specialization on the herbaceous host. Based on our result, we suggest that host range evolution in response to temperature increase would in this species be highly contingent on whether the population undergoes a predicted shift from one to two generations. We discuss the effect of global warming on species associations and the outcome of asynchrony in rates of phenological change.Entities:
Keywords: host plant range; insect–plant interactions; seasonality; specialization; voltinism shift
Year: 2013 PMID: 24101991 PMCID: PMC3790548 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.696
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 2.912
Analysis of deviance table (type II Wald Chi-square tests) showing the effect of temperature (T), host plant (P), seasonality (Brood), and the two-way interactions between those variables on larval growth rate (N = 829)
| Growth rate | df | Chisq | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2575.99 | <0.0001 | |
| P | 2 | 2306.97 | <0.0001 |
| Brood | 1 | 288.94 | <0.0001 |
| Sex | 1 | 0.0283 | 0.87 |
| P × | 2 | 686.94 | <0.0001 |
| P × Brood | 2 | 11.68 | 0.0029 |
| 1 | 183.32 | <0.0001 |
Brood, temperature, host plant, and the two-way interactions in the table were considered as fixed effects and family as a random effect of the mixed model.
Factors affecting the different performance measures. Between broods, we tested the effect of temperature (T), host plant (P), seasonality (Brood), sex, and the two−way interactions on larval performance measures (mass and development time fifth instar larvae and pupae, pupal time and growth rate). Within brood, we tested the effect of temperature, host plant, sex, and the two−way interactions. Those analyses allowed us to investigate, respectively, inter− (seasonal) and intrabrood variations. The N values indicate the sample sizes
| Performance measure | Data | Linear model selected | AIC | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Log mass 5th instar | 812 | Brood 1 + 2 | Ln mass5 ∼ | −196.4 | 13.94 |
| 284 | Brood 1 | Ln mass5 ∼ | 18.76 | 12.86 | |
| 528 | Brood 2 | Ln mass5 ∼ | −208.4 | 6.56 | |
| Log mass pupae | 836 | Brood 1 + 2 | Mass p ∼ | −1309 | 18.46 |
| 303 | Brood 1 | Mass p ∼ | −487.2 | 32.17 | |
| 533 | Brood 2 | Mass p ∼ | −821 | 8.06 | |
| Development Time to reach the 5th instar | 829 | Brood 1 + 2 | DT 5 ∼ | 4149 | 91.02 |
| 301 | Brood 1 | DT 5 ∼ | 1441 | 93.53 | |
| 528 | Brood 2 | DT 5 ∼ | 2703 | 92.43 | |
| Development Time to reach the pupal stage | 829 | Brood 1 + 2 | DT p ∼ | 2721 | 89.52 |
| 301 | Brood 1 | DT p ∼ | 984.6 | 89.89 | |
| 528 | Brood 2 | DT p ∼ | 1742 | 89.15 | |
| Pupal time | 654 | Brood 1 + 2 | DT a ∼ | 2444 | 94.4 |
| 258 | Brood 1 | DT a ∼ | 1058 | 91.8 | |
| 396 | Brood 2 | DT a ∼ | 1338 | 96.45 | |
| Growth Rate | 829 | Brood 1 + 2 | GR ∼ | −3597 | 93.20 |
| 301 | Brood 1 | GR ∼ | −1291 | 94.17 | |
| 528 | Brood 2 | GR ∼ | −2330 | 94.50 |
Temperature, host plant, brood, and sex were considered as fixed effects and family as a random effect of the mixed model (see text for more details). For size models, Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) values were calculated using maximum likelihood (ML) and R² from restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimations. The R² gives information on the variance explained by the fixed effect. In bold are the significant variables from the anova tables of the selected models.
Values of the different performance measures in each treatment (mean ± SD). Mass fifth instar larvae (Mass 5), development time to reach the fifth instar (DT5), mass pupae, and development time to reach the pupal time (DTp)
| Treatment/Generation | G 1 | G 2 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Host plant | Mass 5 | DT5 | Mass pupae | DTp | Mass 5 | DT5 | Mass pupae | DTp | |
| 15°C | 103.3 ± 24.0 | 39.5 ± 5.2 | 280.2 ± 30.5 | 14.7 ± 1.4 | 96.5 ± 14.5 | 48.4 ± 6.1 | 277.9 ± 27.9 | 16.7 ± 2.1 | |
| 97.1 ± 22.1 | 27.8 ± 2.8 | 299.8 ± 33.6 | 11.1 ± 1.7 | 87.1 ± 13.7 | 31.3 ± 3.7 | 287.3 ± 32.4 | 12.6 ± 1.2 | ||
| 112.3 ± 26.9 | 23.9 ± 1.5 | 317.2 ± 27.5 | 9.5 ± 0.8 | 100.8 ± 16.8 | 25.2 ± 2.2 | 299.0 ± 33.6 | 10.7 ± 1.3 | ||
| 23°C | 112.0 ± 23.5 | 15.1 ± 1.9 | 254.5 ± 23.6 | 7.3 ± 1.4 | 99.1 ± 17.1 | 22.7 ± 3.0 | 281.2 ± 29.9 | 8.6 ± 1.2 | |
| 108.4 ± 26.4 | 11.9 ± 1.6 | 282.7 ± 31.1 | 4.9 ± 0.9 | 93.8 ± 20.6 | 14.3 ± 1.7 | 282.7 ± 30.8 | 6.1 ± 1.0 | ||
| 132.6 ± 35.1 | 10.4 ± 0.9 | 302.5 ± 32.4 | 4.1 ± 0.8 | 106.4 ± 26.9 | 11.4 ± 1.0 | 274.7 ± 24.4 | 5.1 ± 0.6 | ||
Figure 1Logarithm of the growth rate of larvae from the first brood is affected by temperature and host plant (N = 305, mean ± SE). The variance between slopes' coefficients reflects the effect of the interaction between temperature and host plant on larval growth rate.
Figure 2Logarithm of the growth rate of larvae from the second brood is affected by temperature and host plant (N = 574, mean ± SE). The variance between slopes' coefficients reflects the effect of the interaction between temperature and host plant on larval growth rate.
Analysis of deviance table (type II Wald Chi-square tests) showing the effects of temperature (T), host plant (P), and brood on larval survival (total number of larvae reared = 1562). The survival variable was built as a two-vector response variable including both the number of failures (dead larvae), and the number of successes (larvae that reached the adult stage) for each combination of temperature, host plant, brood, and family (N = 90). A generalized linear mixed model was fitted using a quasi-binomial error
| Survival | df | Chisq | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brood | 1 | 87.29 | <0.0001 |
| 1 | 60.45 | <0.0001 | |
| P | 2 | 31.30 | <0.0001 |
| P × | 2 | 7.52 | 0.0232 |
| P × Brood | 2 | 14.65 | 0.0007 |
Brood, temperature, host plant, and the two-way interactions in the table were considered as fixed effects and family as a random effect of the mixed model.
Figure 3Effect of temperature, host plant, and seasonality (first brood and second brood in bold) on larval survival rate (mean ± SE). The standard errors reflect interfamily variations in larval survival. Notice the decrease in survival rate in every treatment between the first and the second brood.