1
|
Tartally A, Thomas JA, Anton C, Balletto E, Barbero F, Bonelli S, Bräu M, Casacci LP, Csősz S, Czekes Z, Dolek M, Dziekańska I, Elmes G, Fürst MA, Glinka U, Hochberg ME, Höttinger H, Hula V, Maes D, Munguira ML, Musche M, Nielsen PS, Nowicki P, Oliveira PS, Peregovits L, Ritter S, Schlick-Steiner BC, Settele J, Sielezniew M, Simcox DJ, Stankiewicz AM, Steiner FM, Švitra G, Ugelvig LV, Van Dyck H, Varga Z, Witek M, Woyciechowski M, Wynhoff I, Nash DR. Patterns of host use by brood parasitic Maculinea butterflies across Europe. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2019; 374:20180202. [PMID: 30967080 PMCID: PMC6388033 DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2018.0202] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 11/30/2018] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
Abstract
The range of hosts exploited by a parasite is determined by several factors, including host availability, infectivity and exploitability. Each of these can be the target of natural selection on both host and parasite, which will determine the local outcome of interactions, and potentially lead to coevolution. However, geographical variation in host use and specificity has rarely been investigated. Maculinea (= Phengaris) butterflies are brood parasites of Myrmica ants that are patchily distributed across the Palæarctic and have been studied extensively in Europe. Here, we review the published records of ant host use by the European Maculinea species, as well as providing new host ant records for more than 100 sites across Europe. This comprehensive survey demonstrates that while all but one of the Myrmica species found on Maculinea sites have been recorded as hosts, the most common is often disproportionately highly exploited. Host sharing and host switching are both relatively common, but there is evidence of specialization at many sites, which varies among Maculinea species. We show that most Maculinea display the features expected for coevolution to occur in a geographic mosaic, which has probably allowed these rare butterflies to persist in Europe. This article is part of the theme issue 'The coevolutionary biology of brood parasitism: from mechanism to pattern'.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- András Tartally
- Department of Evolutionary Zoology and Human Biology, University of Debrecen, 4032, Debrecen, Egyetem tér 1 Hungary
- Centre for Social Evolution, Department of Biology, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
| | | | - Christian Anton
- Department of Community Ecology, UFZ-Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Theodor-Lieser-Strasse 4, 06120 Halle, Germany
| | - Emilio Balletto
- Department of Life Sciences and Systems Biology, University of Turin, Turin 10123, Italy
| | - Francesca Barbero
- Department of Life Sciences and Systems Biology, University of Turin, Turin 10123, Italy
| | - Simona Bonelli
- Department of Life Sciences and Systems Biology, University of Turin, Turin 10123, Italy
| | | | - Luca Pietro Casacci
- Department of Life Sciences and Systems Biology, University of Turin, Turin 10123, Italy
- Laboratory of Social and Myrmecophilous Insects, Museum and Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Wilcza 64, 00-679 Warszawa, Poland
| | - Sándor Csősz
- MTA-ELTE-MTM Ecology Research Group, Pázmány Péter sétány 1/C, Budapest, H1117, Hungary
| | - Zsolt Czekes
- Hungarian Department of Biology and Ecology, Babeş-Bolyai University, Clinicilor St 5–7, 400006 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
| | - Matthias Dolek
- Büro Geyer und Dolek, Alpenblick 12, 82237 Wörthsee, Germany
| | - Izabela Dziekańska
- Institute of Biology, University of Bialystok, Ciołkowskiego 1 J, 15-245 Białystok, Poland
| | - Graham Elmes
- Centre for Ecology and Hydrology Wallingford, Maclean Building, Benson Lane, Wallingford OX10 8BB, UK
| | - Matthias A. Fürst
- Centre for Social Evolution, Department of Biology, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Uta Glinka
- Department of Community Ecology, UFZ-Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Theodor-Lieser-Strasse 4, 06120 Halle, Germany
| | - Michael E. Hochberg
- Institut des Sciences de l'Evolution – CNRS UMR 5554, Université de Montpellier – CC 065, 34095 Montpellier Cedex 05, France Cedex 05, France
| | - Helmut Höttinger
- Institute of Zoology, Department of Integrative Biology and Biodiversity Research, University of Natural Resources and Live Sciences, Gregor-Mendel-Straße 33, 1180 Vienna, Austria
| | - Vladimir Hula
- Department of Zoology, Hydrobiology, Fishery and Apiculture, Faculty of AgriScience, Mendel University Brno, Zemedelska 1, Brno 61300, Czech Republic
| | - Dirk Maes
- Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Herman Teirlinckgebouw, Havenlaan 88 bus 73, 1000 Brussels, Belgium
| | - Miguel L. Munguira
- Facultad de Ciencias, Departamento de Biología (Zoología), Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Cantoblanco, 28049 Madrid, Spain
| | - Martin Musche
- Department of Community Ecology, UFZ-Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Theodor-Lieser-Strasse 4, 06120 Halle, Germany
| | | | - Piotr Nowicki
- Institute of Environmental Sciences, Jagiellonian University, Gronostajowa 7, 30-387 Kraków, Poland
| | - Paula S. Oliveira
- Department of Forest Science and Landscape, Center for the Research and Technology of Agro-Environmental and Biological Sciences (CITAB)/University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro, 5000-911 Vila Real, Portugal
| | - László Peregovits
- Department of Zoology, Hungarian Natural History Museum, 1088 Budapest Baross u. 13., Hungary
| | - Sylvia Ritter
- Department of Community Ecology, UFZ-Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Theodor-Lieser-Strasse 4, 06120 Halle, Germany
| | - Birgit C. Schlick-Steiner
- Molecular Ecology Group, Department of Ecology, University of Innsbruck, Technikerstrasse 25, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria
| | - Josef Settele
- Department of Community Ecology, UFZ-Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Theodor-Lieser-Strasse 4, 06120 Halle, Germany
- German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv), Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Deutscher Platz 5e, 04103 Leipzig, Germany
| | - Marcin Sielezniew
- Institute of Biology, University of Bialystok, Ciołkowskiego 1 J, 15-245 Białystok, Poland
| | - David J. Simcox
- Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK
- Centre for Ecology and Hydrology Wallingford, Maclean Building, Benson Lane, Wallingford OX10 8BB, UK
| | - Anna M. Stankiewicz
- Laboratory of Social and Myrmecophilous Insects, Museum and Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Wilcza 64, 00-679 Warszawa, Poland
| | - Florian M. Steiner
- Molecular Ecology Group, Department of Ecology, University of Innsbruck, Technikerstrasse 25, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria
| | - Giedrius Švitra
- Lithuanian Entomological Society, Akademijos 2, 08412 Vilnius, Lithuania
| | - Line V. Ugelvig
- Centre for Social Evolution, Department of Biology, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Hans Van Dyck
- Behavioural Ecology and Conservation Group, Biodiversity Research Centre, Earth and Life Institute, Université catholique de Louvain (UCL), Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
| | - Zoltán Varga
- Department of Evolutionary Zoology and Human Biology, University of Debrecen, 4032, Debrecen, Egyetem tér 1 Hungary
| | - Magdalena Witek
- Laboratory of Social and Myrmecophilous Insects, Museum and Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Wilcza 64, 00-679 Warszawa, Poland
| | - Michal Woyciechowski
- Institute of Environmental Sciences, Jagiellonian University, Gronostajowa 7, 30-387 Kraków, Poland
| | - Irma Wynhoff
- Dutch Butterfly Conservation and Butterfly Conservation Europe, PO Box 506, 6700 AM Wageningen, The Netherlands
| | - David R. Nash
- Centre for Social Evolution, Department of Biology, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Ruiz-Raya F, Soler M, Sánchez-Pérez LL, Ibáñez-Álamo JD. Could a Factor That Does Not Affect Egg Recognition Influence the Decision of Rejection? PLoS One 2015; 10:e0135624. [PMID: 26295481 PMCID: PMC4546668 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0135624] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/24/2015] [Accepted: 07/24/2015] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Rejection of the parasitic egg is the most important defence of hosts against brood parasites. However, this response is variable among and within species, and egg discrimination is not always followed by egg rejection. Low risk of parasitism and high risk of rejection costs may lead to the acceptance of the parasitic egg even if it has been previously recognized. The main aim of this paper is to answer a relevant question: can a single egg trait provoke the acceptance of an experimental egg previously recognized as foreign? Increased egg mass should hamper the ejection of an egg that has been discriminated because ejection of a heavy egg may imply higher rejection costs for hosts. We have tested this prediction by experimentally parasitizing natural nests of Common Blackbirds (Turdus merula) with non-mimetic model eggs of different mass (heavy, normal-weight, and light) while controlling for potential confounding factors such as egg size and colour. Our results showed that blackbirds more frequently accepted heavy eggs, even when previously recognized. This differential acceptance may be related to insufficient motivation to assume the higher costs that the ejection of a heavy egg could impose.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Manuel Soler
- Dept. Zoology, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain
- Grupo Coevolución, Unidad Asociada al CSIC, Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain
| | | | - Juan Diego Ibáñez-Álamo
- Dept. Zoology, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain
- Animal Ecology Group, Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Studies, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
- Dept. Wetland Ecology, Estación Biológica de Doñana, CSIC, Sevilla, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Antonov A, Stokke BG, Fossøy F, Ranke PS, Liang W, Yang C, Moksnes A, Shykoff J, Røskaft E. Are cuckoos maximizing egg mimicry by selecting host individuals with better matching egg phenotypes? PLoS One 2012; 7:e31704. [PMID: 22384060 PMCID: PMC3285637 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0031704] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/08/2011] [Accepted: 01/17/2012] [Indexed: 12/02/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Avian brood parasites and their hosts are involved in complex offence-defense coevolutionary arms races. The most common pair of reciprocal adaptations in these systems is egg discrimination by hosts and egg mimicry by parasites. As mimicry improves, more advanced host adaptations evolve such as decreased intra- and increased interclutch variation in egg appearance to facilitate detection of parasitic eggs. As interclutch variation increases, parasites able to choose hosts matching best their own egg phenotype should be selected, but this requires that parasites know their own egg phenotype and select host nests correspondingly. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS We compared egg mimicry of common cuckoo Cuculus canorus eggs in naturally parasitized marsh warbler Acrocephalus palustris nests and their nearest unparasitized conspecific neighbors having similar laying dates and nest-site characteristics. Modeling of avian vision and image analyses revealed no evidence that cuckoos parasitize nests where their eggs better match the host eggs. Cuckoo eggs were as good mimics, in terms of background and spot color, background luminance, spotting pattern and egg size, of host eggs in the nests actually exploited as those in the neighboring unparasitized nests. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE We reviewed the evidence for brood parasites selecting better-matching host egg phenotypes from several relevant studies and argue that such selection probably cannot exist in host-parasite systems where host interclutch variation is continuous and overall low or moderate. To date there is also no evidence that parasites prefer certain egg phenotypes in systems where it should be most advantageous, i.e., when both hosts and parasites lay polymorphic eggs. Hence, the existence of an ability to select host nests to maximize mimicry by brood parasites appears unlikely, but this possibility should be further explored in cuckoo-host systems where the host has evolved discrete egg phenotypes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anton Antonov
- Department of Biology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway
| | - Bård G. Stokke
- Department of Biology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway
| | - Frode Fossøy
- Department of Biology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway
| | - Peter S. Ranke
- Department of Biology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway
| | - Wei Liang
- College of Life Sciences, Hainan Normal University, Haikou, People's Republic of China
| | - Canchao Yang
- College of Life Sciences, Hainan Normal University, Haikou, People's Republic of China
| | - Arne Moksnes
- Department of Biology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway
| | - Jacqui Shykoff
- Laboratoire Ecologie, Systematique et Evolution UMR 8079 CNRS-Université Paris-Sud XI-AgroParisTech, Orsay, France
| | - Eivin Røskaft
- Department of Biology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway
| |
Collapse
|