| Literature DB >> 33194443 |
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Oviposition decisions are critical to the fitness of herbivorous insects and are often impacted by the availability and condition of host plants. Monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus) rely on milkweeds (Asclepias spp.) for egg-laying and as food for larvae. Previous work has shown that monarchs prefer to oviposit on recently regrown plant tissues (after removal of above-ground biomass) while larvae grow poorly on plants previously damaged by insects. We hypothesized that these effects may depend on the life-history strategy of plants, as clonal and non-clonal milkweed species differ in resource allocation and defense strategies. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPALEntities:
Keywords: Butterfly conservation; Clonal plants; Plant-insect interactions
Year: 2020 PMID: 33194443 PMCID: PMC7646301 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10296
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 2.984
Characteristics of the four Asclepias species used in monarch oviposition choice experiments.
| Species | Clade | Habitat | Clonal potential | Clonality |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Temperate North American | North eastern open fields | 31 | Clonal | |
| Temperate North American | Dry fields and open woodlands | 0.3 | Non-clonal | |
| Incarnatae | Midwestern prairie | 1.4 | Clonal | |
| Incarnatae | Eastern wetlands | 0.4 | Non-clonal |
Note:
Shown are each species’ clade (Fishbein et al., 2011), natural habitats (Woodson, 1954), and clonal potential defined as root buds per plant after ~45 days of growth (Pellissier et al., 2016).
Figure 1Mean ± SE number of monarch eggs found on individual mowed and unmowed A. syriaca plants in a field survey before mowing (July 23) and after mowing (August 17).
Mowing occurred on July 29.
Figure 2Mean ± SE proportion of eggs laid on different treatments for each milkweed species during oviposition trials.
Clonal species show a greater (negative) effect of insect damage while non-clonal species show a stronger (positive) effect of apical clipping compared to undamaged controls.
Figure 3Effects of plant treatments on monarch larval performance.
(A) Proportion of surviving larvae on each treatment of A. syriaca and A. tuberosa. We assume all larvae that had abandoned the plant did not survive. Bars are labeled with the total number of replicates for each treatment. For A. syriaca and A. tuberosa, there was no effect on larval mass (not shown). (B) Mean ± SE mass of larvae on each treatment for A. verticillata and A. incarnata (there was no effect on the proportion of surviving caterpillars).