Journal of Insect Behavior

, Volume 18, Issue 6, pp 767–780 | Cite as

The Relationship Between Habitat Selection and Preference for Adult and Larval Food Resources in the Polyphagous Butterfly Vanessa cardui (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae)

  • Niklas Janz


Search strategies can have profound fitness-effects for plant-feeding insects. Here I focus on the potential conflict between searching for nectar plants and for larval food plants. I test if the butterfly Vanessa cardui, which can use some of its larval food plants as nectar sources, is able to rationalize this search problem by combining the two search tasks. Lab-experiments revealed a higher oviposition preference for Cirsium arvense over Urtica dioica and a corresponding difference in larval performance. Contrary to predictions, there was no effect of inflorescences on oviposition. However, experiments in large outdoor cages showed a higher occupancy and a higher level of oviposition in patches with access to nectar sources, even on U. dioica. Hence, while there was no preference for individual plants with flowers, the results suggests that V. cardui is simplifying its search task to primarily search for hosts in nectar-rich patches. This strategy allows females to increase oviposition rate, but it is likely that it comes at the expense of not always using optimal host plants in terms of offspring performance.


neural limitations search behavior preference–performance nectar preference patch preference 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bernays, E. A. (1998). The value of being a resource specialist: Behavioral support for a neural hypothesis. Am. Nat. 151: 451–464.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernays, E. A. (2001). Neural limitations in phytophagous insects: Implications for diet breadth and evolution of host affiliation. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 46: 703–727.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernays, E. A., and Funk, D. J. (1999). Specialists make faster decisions than generalists: Experiments with aphids. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B-Biol. Sci. 266: 151–156.Google Scholar
  4. Bernays, E. A., and Wcislo, W. T. (1994). Sensory capabilities, information processing, and resource specialization. Q. Rev. Biol. 69: 187–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boggs, C. L., and Ross, C. L. (1993). The effect of adult food limitation on life-history traits in Speyeria mormonia (Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae). Ecology 74: 433–441.Google Scholar
  6. Brommer, J. E., and Fred, M. S. (1999). Movement of the Apollo butterfly Parnassius apollo related to host plant and nectar plant patches. Ecol. Entomol. 24: 125–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Corbet, S. A. (2000). Butterfly nectaring flowers: Butterfly morphology and flower form. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 96: 289–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dukas, R. (2002). Behavioral and ecological consequences of limited attention. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B-Biol. Sci. 357: 1539–1547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dukas, R., and Ellner, S. (1993). Information-processing and prey detection. Ecology 74: 1337–1346.Google Scholar
  10. Janz, N. (2003). The cost of polyphagy: Oviposition decision time vs. error rate in a butterfly. Oikos 100: 493–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Janz, N., Bergström, A., and Sjögren, A. (2005). The role of nectar sources for oviposition decisions of the common blue butterfly (Polyommatus icarus). Oikos 109: 535–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Janz, N., and Nylin, S. (1997). The role of female search behavior in determining host plant range in plant feeding insects: A test of the information processing hypothesis. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B-Biol. Sci. 264: 701–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Janz, N., Nylin, S., and Nyblom, K. (2001). Evolutionary dynamics of host plant specialization: A case study of the tribe Nymphalini. Evolution 55: 783–796.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Karban, R. (1997). Neighborhood affects a plant's risk of herbivory and subsequent success. Ecol. Entomol. 22: 433–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kuussaari, M., Singer, M., and Hanski, I. (2000). Local specialization and landscape-level influence on host use in an herbivorous insect. Ecology 81: 2177–2187.Google Scholar
  16. Mayhew, P. J. (1997). Adaptive patterns of host–plant selection by phytophagous insects. Oikos 79: 417–428.Google Scholar
  17. Mayhew, P. J. (2001). Herbivore host choice and optimal bad motherhood. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16: 165–167.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McNeely, C., and Singer, M. C. (2001). Contrasting the roles of learning in butterflies foraging for nectar and oviposition sites. Anim. Behav. 61: 847–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mevi-Schutz, J., and Erhardt, A. (2003). Larval nutrition affects female nectar amino acid preference in the map butterfly (Araschnia levana). Ecology 84: 2788–2794.Google Scholar
  20. Murphy, D. D., Menninger, M. S., and Ehrlich, P. R. (1984). Nectar source distribution as a determinant of oviposition host species in Euphydryas chalcedona. Oecologia 62: 269–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nielsen, M. G., and Watt, W. B. (1998). Behavioural fitness component effects of the alba polymorphism of Colias (Lepidoptera, Pieridae): Resource and time budget analysis. Funct. Ecol. 12: 149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nylin, S., Bergström, A., and Janz, N. (2000). Butterfly host plant choice in the face of possible confusion. J. Insect Behav. 13: 469–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pollard, E., van Swaay, C. A. M., Stefanescu, C., Lundsten, K. E., Maes, D., and Greatorex Davies, J. N. (1998). Migration of the painted lady butterfly Cynthia cardui in Europe: Evidence from monitoring. Divers. Distributions 4: 243–253.Google Scholar
  24. Scheirs, J., and de Bruyn, L. (2002). Integrating optimal foraging and optimal oviposition theory in plant–insect research. Oikos 96: 187–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Scheirs, J., de Bruyn, L., and Verhagen, R. (2000). Optimization of adult performance determines host choice in a grass miner. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B-Biol. Sci. 267: 2065–2069.Google Scholar
  26. Scott, J. A. (1986). The Butterflies of North America, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  27. Singer, M. C., Ng, D., Vasco, D., and Thomas, C. D. (1992). Rapidly evolving associations among oviposition preferences fail to constrain evolution of insect diet. Am. Nat. 139: 9–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stanton, M. L. (1984). Short-term learning and the searching accuracy of egg-laying butterflies. Anim. Behav. 32: 33–40.Google Scholar
  29. Stefanescu, C. (1997). Migration patterns and feeding resources of the Painted Lady butterfly, Cynthia cardui (L.) (Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae) in the northeast of the Iberian peninsula. Misc. Zool. 20: 31–48.Google Scholar
  30. Thomas, C. D., and Singer, M. C. (1987). Variation in host preference affects movement patterns within a butterfly population. Ecology 68: 1262–1267.Google Scholar
  31. Thompson, J. N. (1988). Evolutionary ecology of the relationship between oviposition preference and performance of offspring in phytophagous insects. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 47: 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Thompson, J. N. (1993). Preference hierarchies and the origin of geographic specialization in host use in swallowtail butterflies. Evolution 47: 1585–1594.Google Scholar
  33. Wehling, W. F., and Thompson, J. N. (1997). Evolutionary conservatism of oviposition preference in a widespread polyphagous insect herbivore, Papilio zelicaon. Oecologia 111: 209–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wiklund, C. (1977). Oviposition, feeding, and spatial separation of breeding and foraging habitats in a population of Leptidea sinapis (Lepidoptera). Oikos 28: 56–68.Google Scholar
  35. Wiklund, C., and Ahrberg, C. (1978). Host plants, nectar source plants, and habitat selection of males and females of Anthocharis cardamines (Lepidoptera). Oikos 31: 169–183.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ZoologyStockholm UniversityStockholm

Personalised recommendations