Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Benefits of gregarious feeding by aposematic caterpillars depend on group age structure

Abstract

Gregarious feeding is a common feature of herbivorous insects and can range from beneficial (e.g. dilution of predation risk) to costly (e.g. competition). Group age structure should influence these costs and benefits, particularly when old and young larvae differ in their feeding mode or apparency to predators. We investigated the relative value of gregarious feeding by aposematic larvae of Uresiphita reversalis that we observed feeding in groups of mixed ages and variable densities on wild Lupinus diffusus. In a manipulative field experiment, the survivorship and growth of young larvae were enhanced in the presence of older conspecifics, but not in large groups of similarly aged larvae. Estimates of insect damage and induced plant responses suggest that mixed-age groups enhance plant quality for young larvae while avoiding competition. We conclude that benefits of gregariousness in this species are contingent on group age structure, a finding of significance for the ecology and evolution of gregariousness and other social behaviours.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Battisti A, et al. (2005) Expansion of geographic range in the pine processionary moth caused by increased winter temperatures. Ecol Appl 15:2084–2096

  2. Bernays EA (1997) Feeding by lepidopteran larvae is dangerous. Ecol Entomol 22:121–123

  3. Bernays EA, Montllor CB (1989) Aposematism of Uresiphita reversalis larvae (Pyralidae). J Lepidopt Soc 43:261–273

  4. Carrell JE (2001) Response of predaceous arthropods to chemically defended larvae of the pyralid moth Uresiphita reversalis (Guenee) (Lepidoptera : Pyralidae). J Kans Entomol Soc 74:128–135

  5. Casey TM, Joos B, Fitzgerald TD, Yurlina ME, Young PA (1988) Synchronized group foraging, thermoregulation, and growth of eastern tent caterpillars in relation to microclimate. Physiol Zool 61:372–377

  6. Clark BR, Faeth SH (1997) The consequences of larval aggregation in the butterfly Chlosyne lacinia. Ecol Entomol 22:408–415

  7. Costa JT (2006) The other insect societies. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

  8. Costa JT, Pierce NE (1997) Social evolution in the Lepidoptera: ecological context and communication in larval societies. In: Choe JC, Crespi BJ (eds) The evolution of social behavior in insects and arachnids. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 407–442

  9. Costa JT, Ross KG (2003) Fitness effects of group merging in a social insect. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B-Biol Sci 270:1697–1702

  10. Day RW, Quinn GP (1989) Comparison of treatments after an analysis of variance in ecology. Ecol Monogr 59(4):433–463

  11. Denno RF, Benrey B (1997) Aggregation facilitates larval growth in the neotropical nymphalid butterfly Chlosyne janais. Ecol Entomol 22:133–141

  12. Dorn S, Beckage NE (2007) Superparasitism in gregarious hymenopteran parasitoids: ecological, behavioural and physiological perspectives. Physiol Entomol 32:199–211

  13. Fordyce JA (2003) Aggregative feeding of pipevine swallowtall larvae enhances hostplant suitability. Oecologia 135:250–257

  14. Fordyce JA (2006) Between-clutch interactions affect a benefit of group feeding for pipevine swallowtail larvae. Ecol Entomol 31:75–83

  15. Fordyce JA, Nice CC (2004) Geographic variation in clutch size and a realized benefit of aggregative feeding. Evolution 58:447–450

  16. Francini RB, Lucci Freitas AV (2010) Aggregated oviposition in Actinote pellenea pellenea Hübner (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). J Res Lepidopt 42:74–78

  17. Gamberale G, Tullberg BS (1998) Aposematism and gregariousness: the combined effect of group size and coloration on signal repellence. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B-Biol Sci 265:889–894

  18. Hunter AF (2000) Gregariousness and repellent defences in the survival of phytophagous insects. Oikos 91:213–224

  19. Inouye BD, Johnson DM (2005) Larval aggregation affects feeding rate in Chlosyne poecile (Lepidoptera : Nymphalidae). Fla Entomologist 88:247–252

  20. Jaenike J (1978) Optimal oviposition behavior in phytophagous insects. Theor Popul Biol 14:350–356

  21. Kawasaki N, Miyashita T, Kato Y (2009) Leaf toughness changes the effectiveness of larval aggregation in the butterfly Byasa alcinous bradanus (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae). Entomol Sci 12:135–140

  22. Kessler A, Halitschke R, Poveda KP (2011) Herbivory-mediated pollinator limitation: negative impacts of induced volatiles on plant–pollinator interactions. Ecology 92:1769–1780

  23. Krause J, Ruxton GD (2002) Living in Groups. Oxford University Press, Oxford

  24. Leen R (1995) Biology of Uresiphita reversalis (Guenée) and comparison with U. polygonalis maorialis (Felder) (Crambidae). J Lepidopt Soc 49:163–170

  25. Leen R (1997) Host specificity of Uresiphita reversalis (Guenée) (Crambidae). J Lepidopt Soc 51:149–155

  26. Leen R (1998) Host plant preferences of Uresiphita reversalis (Guenée) (Lep., Crambidae). J Appl Entomol 122:527–541

  27. Montllor CB, Bernays EA, Barbehenn RV (1990) Importance of quinolizidine alkaloids in the relationship between larvae of Uresiphita reversalis (Lepidoptera, Pyralidae) and a host plant, Genista monspessulana. J Chem Ecol 16:1853–1865

  28. Pilson D, Rausher MD (1988) Clutch size adjustment by a swallowtail butterfly. Nature 333:361–363

  29. Prokopy RJ, Roitberg BD (2001) Joining and avoidance behavior in nonsocial insects. Annu Rev Entomol 46:631–665

  30. Raffa KF, Phillips TW, Salom SM (1993) Chapter 6: strategies and mechanisms of host colonization by bark beetles. In: Schowalter TO, Filip G (eds) Interactions among bark beetles, pathogens, and conifers in North American forests. Academic Press, New York, pp 103–128

  31. Reader T, Hochuli DF (2003) Understanding gregariousness in a larval Lepidopteran: the roles of host plant, predation, and microclimate. Ecol Entomol 28:729–737

  32. Reed RD (2003) Gregarious oviposition and clutch size adjustment by a Heliconius butterfly. Biotropica 35:555–559

  33. Ronnas C, Larsson S, Pitacco A, Battisti A (2010) Effects of colony size on larval performance in a processionary moth. Ecol Entomol 35:436–445

  34. Schwachtje J, Minchin PEH, Jahnke S, van Dongen JT, Schittko U, Baldwin IT (2006) SNF1-related kinases allow plants to tolerate herbivory by allocating carbon to roots. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:12935–12940

  35. Shapiro AM (1981) The pierid red-egg syndrome. Am Nat 117:276–294

  36. Sillén-Tullberg B (1988) Evolution of gregariousness in aposematic butterfly larvae—a phylogenetic analysis. Evolution 42:293–305

  37. Stamp NE (1981) Effect of group size on parasitism in a natural population of the Baltimore checkerspot, Euphydryas phaeton. Oecologia 49:201–206

  38. Stamp NE, Bowers MD (1988) Direct and indirect effects of predatory wasps (Polistes sp., Vespidae) on gregarious caterpillars (Hemileuca leucina, Saturniidae). Oecologia 75:619–624

  39. Stamp NE, Bowers MD (1990) Variation in food quality and temperature constrain foraging of gregarious caterpillars. Ecology 71:1031–1039

  40. Tullberg BS, Gamberale-Stille G, Solbreck C (2000) Effects of food plant and group size on predator defence: differences between two co-occurring aposematic Lygaeinae bugs. Ecol Entomol 25:220–225

  41. Ulmer B, Gillott C, Erlandson M (2003) Conspecific eggs and bertha armyworm, Mamestra configurata (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), oviposition site selection. Environ Entomol 32:529–534

  42. Vasconcellos-Neto J, Monteiro RF (1993) Inspection and evaluation of host plant by the butterfly Mechanitis lysimnia (Nymph., Ithomiinae) before laying eggs: a mechanism to reduce intraspecific competition. Oecologia 95:431–438

  43. Wise MJ, Kieffer DL, Abrahamson WG (2006) Costs and benefits of gregarious feeding in the meadow spittlebug, Philaenus spumarius. Ecol Entomol 31:548–555

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, Cornell University, for supporting the field work in Florida, the ABS for housing and logistical support, Heron’s Garden Restaurant and Lounge (Lake Placid, FL) for providing some experimental materials, Mark Deyrup (ABS), Marc Lajeunesse, Peter Marks, Dick Root and particularly Jed Sparks (Cornell University) for advice, and S. Cardinal, G. Désurmont, I. Kaplan, A. Kessler, M. Lajeunesse, S. McArt, A. Parachnowitsch, J. Sparks, J. Thaler, S. van Nouyhus, the Kessler Lab, and two anonymous reviewers for manuscript or project feedback. S. A. C. was supported by a Cornell University Sage Graduate Fellowship during the course of this study, and both authors were supported by fellowships from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (PGS-D).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Correspondence to Stuart A. Campbell.

Additional information

S. A. Campbell and M. Stastny have contributed equally to this work.

Communicated by Roland A. Brandl.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 55 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Campbell, S.A., Stastny, M. Benefits of gregarious feeding by aposematic caterpillars depend on group age structure. Oecologia 177, 715–721 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-014-3141-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Social behaviour
  • Insect-plant interactions
  • Facilitation
  • Uresiphita reversalis
  • Lupinus diffusus