SpringerLink
Log in

Where do Harris’ Checkerspots Lay their Eggs and what are the Consequences?

  • Research
  • Published:
Journal of Insect Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Where a female lays her eggs has strong implications for the survival of her offspring, an impetus that takes on particular significance for species that exhibit highly specific requirements. The preference-performance (optimal oviposition) hypothesis predicts that an individual will place its eggs where the resulting offspring experience their highest success. We assessed the spatial patterns of ovipositioning of the rare, monophagous Harris’ checkerspot butterfly (Chlosyne harrisii: Nymphalidae) and related this pattern to the survival of their early offspring, and the initial foraging-site decisions of the young. Harris’ checkerspots laid their egg masses exclusively on flat-topped white asters (Doellingeria umbellata: Asteraceae), exhibiting a strong preference for tall plants (> 40 cm). However, they frequently laid multiple egg masses on a single plant, seemingly contradicting the preference-performance hypothesis, since even a single brood usually consumed all the leaves of its natal plant, eventually forcing the caterpillars to find another host plant. Larvae in the second instar recruiting to their next aster experienced extremely high losses, though some individuals usually managed to locate the closest site. Accordingly, the average success of single broods on a foodplant significantly exceeded that of multiple ones. We thus found little evidence that plant characteristics associated with oviposition choice benefitted overall survival. Although occasional second broods prevailed over first broods, they typically had fewer food resources than on an unoccupied plant. This study presents an apparent conundrum for the preference performance hypothesis with potential implications for the conservation of this rare butterfly.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (France)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Data Availability

Data are available upon request from TKM.

References

  • Allen PE (2010) Group size effects on survivorship and adult development in the gregarious larvae of Euselasia (Lepidoptera: Riodinidae). Insectes Soc 57:199–204

    Google Scholar 

  • Benrey B, Denno RF (1997) The slow-growth-high-mortality hypothesis: a test using the cabbage butterfly. Ecology 78:987–999

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernays EA (1998) The value of being a resource specialist: behavioral support for a neural hypothesis. Am Nat 151:451–464

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bernays EA, Chapman RF (1994) Host-plant selection by phytophagous insects. Chapman & Hall, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bierzychudek P, Warner KA, McHugh A, Thomas L (2009) Testing the host-finding ability of a monophagous caterpillar in the field. Ecol Entomol 34:632–637

    Google Scholar 

  • Björkman C, Larsson S, Bommarco R (1997) Oviposition preferences in pine sawflies: a trade-off between larval growth and defence against natural enemies. Oikos 79:45–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonebrake TC, Boggs CL, McNally JM, Ranganathan J, Ehrlich PR (2010) Oviposition behavior and offspring performance in herbivorous insects: consequences of climatic and habitat heterogeneity. Oikos 119:927–934

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowers MD (1980) Unpalatability as a defense strategy of Euphydryas phaeton (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Evolution 34:586–600

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cain ML (1985) Random search by herbivorous insects: a simulation model. Ecology 66:876–888

    Google Scholar 

  • Cain ML, Eccleston J, Kareiva PM (1985) The influence of food plant dispersion on caterpillar searching success. Ecol Entomol 10:1–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Capinera J (1979) Qualitative variation in plants and insects – effect of propagule size on ecological plasticity. Am Nat 114:350–361

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark KE, Hartley SE, Johnson SN (2011) Does mother know best? The preference-performance hypothesis and parent-offspring conflict in aboveground-belowground herbivore life cycles. Ecol Entomol 36:117–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen JA, Brower LP (1982) Oviposition and larval success of wild monarch butterflies (Lepidoptera: Danaidae) in relation to host plant size and cardenolide concentration. J Kansas Entomol Soc 55:343–348

    Google Scholar 

  • Damman H (1987) Leaf quality and enemy avoidance by the larvae of a pyralid moth. Ecology 68:88–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Despland E (2021) Selection forces driving herding of herbivorous insect larvae. Front Ecol Evol 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2021.760806

  • Dethier VG (1959) Food-plant distribution and density and larval dispersal as factors affecting insect populations. Can Entomol 91:581–596

    Google Scholar 

  • Feeny PP (1976) Plant apparency and chemical defense. In: Wallace JW, Mansell RL (eds) Biochemical interaction between plants and insects. Plenum Press, New York, pp 1–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald TD, Pescador-Rubio A (2002) Trail marking, trail following and source of the trail pheromone of the processionary caterpillar Hylesia lineata Druce (Lepidoptera: Saturniidae). J Insect Behav 15:659–674

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs M, Lace LA, Jones MJ, Moore AJ (2005) Egg size-number trade-off and a decline in oviposition site choice quality: female Pararge aegeria butterflies pay a cost of having males present at oviposition. J Insect Sci 5:39

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Griese E, Pineda A, Pashalidou FG, Iradi EP, Hilker M, Dicke M, Fatouros NE (2020) Plant responses to butterfly oviposition partly explain preference–performance relationships on different brassicaceous species. Oecologia 192:463–475

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Gripenberg S, Mayhew PJ, Parnell M, Roslin T (2010) A meta-analysis of preference-performance relationships in phytophagous insects. Ecol Lett 13:383–393

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Haan NL, Bakker JD, Dunwidde PW, Linders MJ (2018) Instar-specific effects of host plants on survival of endangered butterfly larvae. Ecol Entomol 43:742–753

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaenike J (1978) On optimal oviposition behaviour in phytophagous insects. Theor Popul Biol 14:350–356

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Janz N (2003) The cost of polyphagy: oviposition decision time vs error rate in a butterfly. Oikos 100:493–496

    Google Scholar 

  • Jermy T, Szentesi A, Horvath J (1988) Host plant finding in phytophagous insects – the case of the Colorado potato beetle. Entomol Exp Appl 49:83–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Menacer K, Cortesero AM, Hervé MR (2021) Challenging the preference–performance hypothesis in an above-belowground insect. Oecologia 197:179–187

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Morse DH (1994) The role of self-pollen in the female reproductive success of common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca: Asclepiadaceae). Am Bot 81:322–330

    Google Scholar 

  • Obermaier E, Heisswolf A, Randlkofer B, Meiners T (2006) Enemies in low places–insects avoid winter mortality and egg parasitism by modulating oviposition height. Bull Entomol Res 96:337–343

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pershing AJ, Alexander MA, Hernandez CM, Kerr LA, Le Bris A, Mills KE, Nye JA, Record NR, Scannell HA, Scott JD, Sherwood GD, Thomas AD (2015) Slow adaptation in the face of rapid warming leads to collapse of the Gulf of Maine cod fishery. Science 350:809–812

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pershing AJ, Alexander MA, Brady DC, Brickman D, Curchitser EN, Diamond AW, McClenachan L, Mills KE, Nichols OC, Pendleton DE, Record NR, Scott JD, Staudinger MD, Wang Y (2021) Climate impacts on the Gulf of Maine ecosystem: a review of observed and expected change in 2050 from rising temperatures. Elementa: Sci Anthropocene 9:1

  • Pierce NE (1995) Predatory and parasitic Lepidoptera: carnivores living on plants. J Lepid Soc 49:412–453

    Google Scholar 

  • Prudic KL, Oliver JC, Bowers MD (2005) Soil nutrient effects on oviposition preference, larval performance, and chemical defense of a specialist insect herbivore. Oecologia 143:578–587

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Qian C, Wen C, Guo X, Yang X, Wen X, Ma T, Wang C (2024). Gregariousness in lepidopteran larvae. Insect Sci

  • R Core Team (2023) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing_. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retreived October 31, 2023, https://www.R-project.org/

  • Rajapaske CNK, Walter GH (2007) Polyphagy and primary host plants: oviposition preference versus larval performance in the lepidopteran pest Helicoverpa armigera. Arthropod-Plant Inte 1:17–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Rausher MD (1979) Larval habitat suitability and oviposition preference in three related butterflies. Ecology 60:503–511

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed RD (2005) Gregarious oviposition in butterflies. J Lepid Soc 59:40–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Reudler Talsma JH, Biere A, Harvey JA, van Nouhuys S (2008) Oviposition cues for a specialist butterfly–plant chemistry and size. J Chem Ecol 34:1202–1212

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson ML, Mitchell RF, Reagel PF, Hanks LM (2010) Causes and consequences of cannibalism in noncarnivorous insects. Annu Rev Entomol 55:39–53

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Robakiewicz P, Robbins JE (2001) Oviposition site choice in Harris’ checkerspot, Charidryas harrisii. Northeast Nat 8:293–300

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosa E, van Nouhuys S, Saastamoinen M (2017) The more the merrier: Conspecific density improves performance of gregarious larvae and reduces susceptibility to a pupal parasitoid. Ecol Evol 7:10710–10720

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Rose NH, Halitschke R, Morse DH (2015) Direct and indirect effects of plant defences vary across development in a shelter-building moth larva and its parasitoid. PLoS ONE 10(3):e120769

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoonhoven LM, van Loon JJA, Dicke M (2005) Insect-plant biology. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith CC, Fretwell SD (1974) The optimal balance between size and number of offspring. Am Nat 108:499–506

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahlschmidt Z, O’Leary ME, Adamo S (2014) Food limitation leads to risky decision making and to tradeoffs with oviposition. Behav Ecol 25:223–227

    Google Scholar 

  • Stamp N (1977) Aggregation behavior of Chlosyne lacinia larvae. J Lepid Soc 31:35–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Stamp NE (1980) Egg deposition patterns in butterflies: why do some species cluster their eggs rather than deposit them singly? Am Nat 115:367–380

    Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stichter S (2014) The butterflies of Massachusetts. 46. Harris’ Checkerspot. Retrieved October 4, 2019, http://www.butterfliesofmassachusetts.net/harris-checkerspot.htm

  • Wheeler GS, Center TD (1996) The influence of Hydrilla leaf quality on larval growth and development of the biological control agent Hydrellia pakistanae (Diptera: Ephydridae). Biol Control 7:1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiklund C (1981) Generalist vs. specialist oviposition behaviour in Papilio machaon (Lepidoptera) and functional aspects on the hierarchy of oviposition preferences. Oikos 36:163–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams EH (2002) Harris’ checkerspot: a very particular butterfly. Am Butterflies, Summer 2002:18–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Wise MJ, Weinberg AM (2002) Prior flea beetle herbivory affects oviposition preference and larval performance of a potato beetle on their shared host plant. Ecol Entomol 27:115–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Zalucki MP, Clarke AR, Malcolm SB (2002) Ecology and behavior of first instar larval Lepidoptera. Annu Rev Entomol 47:361–439

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank M.D. Bowers, E.T. Atwood, and J.R. Kellner for their comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript. In addition, we thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback. We also thank H. Leslie, T.E. Miller, L. Healy, M. Norwood and other staff members of the Darling Marine Center of the University of Maine for facilitating fieldwork. Funding for this research came in part from an Undergraduate Teaching and Research Award to TKM from Brown University and from a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship (DGE #2040434).

Funding

TKM was supported by a Brown University Undergraduate Teaching and Research Award (UTRA) and from a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship (DGE #2040434).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA

    Thomas K. Merchant

  2. Department of Ecology, Evolution and Organismal Biology, Box G-W, Brown University, Providence, RI, 02912, USA

    Douglass H. Morse

Authors
  1. Thomas K. Merchant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Douglass H. Morse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

TKM conceived and designed this study. TKM and DHM conducted fieldwork and wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas K. Merchant.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 15 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Merchant, T.K., Morse, D.H. Where do Harris’ Checkerspots Lay their Eggs and what are the Consequences?. J Insect Behav (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10905-024-09856-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10905-024-09856-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation