| Literature DB >> 29767461 |
Emmanuelle Sophie Briolat1, Mika Zagrobelny2, Carl Erik Olsen2, Jonathan D Blount1, Martin Stevens1.
Abstract
The distinctive black and red wing pattern of six-spot burnet moths (Zygaena filipendulae, L.) is a classic example of aposematism, advertising their potent cyanide-based defences. While such warning signals provide a qualitatively honest signal of unprofitability, the evidence for quantitative honesty, whereby variation in visual traits could provide accurate estimates of individual toxicity, is more equivocal. Combining measures of cyanogenic glucoside content and wing color from the perspective of avian predators, we investigate the relationship between coloration and defences in Z. filipendulae, to test signal honesty both within and across populations. There were no significant relationships between mean cyanogenic glucoside concentration and metrics of wing coloration across populations in males, yet in females higher cyanogenic glucoside levels were associated with smaller and lighter red forewing markings. Trends within populations were similarly inconsistent with quantitative honesty, and persistent differences between the sexes were apparent: larger females, carrying a greater total cyanogenic glucoside load, displayed larger but less conspicuous markings than smaller males, according to several color metrics. The overall high aversiveness of cyanogenic glucosides and fluctuations in color and toxin levels during an individual's lifetime may contribute to these results, highlighting generally important reasons why signal honesty should not always be expected in aposematic species.Entities:
Keywords: Aposematism; Zygaena; cyanogenic glucosides; honest signaling
Year: 2018 PMID: 29767461 PMCID: PMC6099377 DOI: 10.1111/evo.13505
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evolution ISSN: 0014-3820 Impact factor: 3.694
Figure 1Six‐spot burnets, Zygaena filipendulae (A), and their cyanogenic glucoside defence compounds, linamarin, and lotaustralin (B).
Relationship between color metrics and cyanogenic glucoside concentrations across populations
| Color metric | Males | Females |
|---|---|---|
| FW luminance |
|
|
| FW saturation |
|
|
| FW hue |
|
|
| FW chromatic contrast |
|
|
| FW luminance contrast |
|
|
| Proportion of red in FWs |
|
|
| HW luminance |
|
|
| HW saturation |
|
|
| HW hue |
|
|
Significant results are in italics. A relatively high R 2 value for the relationship between toxicity and luminance in females suggests this may be the most relevant result, while low R 2 values for relationships with P‐values near the significance threshold (P < 0.05) indicate that these are less likely to be biologically important. FW = forewing, HW = hindwing.
Figure 2Mean cyanogenic glucoside concentration and luminance (A) and relative spot size (B) across populations, for males (open circles) and females (full circles). Error bars correspond to standard errors for both color metrics and toxin concentration. CNGlcs = cyanogenic glucosides. Lines represent the linear relationship between color metrics and cyanogenic glucoside concentration for females.
Figure 3Relationship between forewing luminance (A), chromatic contrast (B), and the concentration of cyanogenic glucosides, in the Holywell Bay and Taastrup populations. CNGlcs = cyanogenic glucosides.
Results of linear models examining sex and population differences in color metrics
| a. In the forewings | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factor | F | df | P | F | df | P | F | df | P |
| Luminance | Saturation | Hue | |||||||
| Sex:population | 0.84 | 2.67 | 0.44 | 1.17 | 2.67 | 0.32 | 1.28 | 2.67 | 0.28 |
| Population | 2.39 | 2.69 | 0.099 | 1.94 | 2.69 | 0.15 | 1.35 | 2.69 | 0.27 |
| Sex | 0.082 | 1.71 | 0.77 | 4.073 | 1.71 | 0.047 | 4.70 | 1.71 | 0.034 |
Significant results are highlighted in italics.
Figure 4Mean and standard error for color metrics in the forewings (A) and hindwings (B) of specimens from Holywell Bay, Lamorna Cove, and Taastrup. Closed circles represent females, open circles males. Luminance contrast is plotted by population, as the relationship between sex and this metric varied between localities. Significance levels: *** P < 0.001, ** P < 0.01, * P < 0.05.
Figure 5Mean and standard errors for chromatic (A) and luminance (B) contrast between forewing markings and natural backgrounds. In (A), closed circles represent females, open circles males, and dashed lines represent the mean chromatic contrast for each plant type. Lc = Lotus corniculatus, Ka = Knautia arvensis. Significance levels: *** P < 0.001, ** P < 0.01, * P < 0.05.