4.2 Article

Defence strategies of Chrysomela lapponica (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) larvae: relative efficacy of secreted and stored defences against insect and avian predators

Journal

BIOLOGICAL JOURNAL OF THE LINNEAN SOCIETY
Volume 124, Issue 3, Pages 533-546

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/biolinnean/bly045

Keywords

avoidance learning; bird predation; chemical defence; prey memorability; subtribe Chrysomelina; wood ant predation

Funding

  1. Academy of Finland [268124]
  2. Czech Science Foundation [P505/11/1459]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Larvae of the leaf beetle Chrysomela lapponica defend themselves by release of repellent secretions, but also store potentially toxic compounds in their body tissues. We addressed the role of major groups of predators in the evolution of these two defence strategies by testing effects of these strategies on the behaviour of insect (wood ant, Formica polyctena) and avian (great tit, Parus major) predators. Ants were repelled by larval defensive secretions, but not by larvae devoid of secretions, larval haemolymph or integument. By contrast, birds rejected larvae devoid of secretions after the first attack; this suggests the presence of non-volatile defensive compounds within the larval body. However, survival was three-fold greater for larvae with intact secretions than for larvae with depleted secretions due to (1) irritating effects of secretions, resulting in frequent release of undamaged prey, and (2) faster avoidance learning and better prey memorability based on contact with secretions. Thus, volatile secretions and non-volatile compounds stored in the body act against birds jointly. Secretions sequestered from host plants were more effective than were autogenously produced secretions. We conclude that insect predators could contribute to the evolution of secreted but not of stored defensive chemicals, whereas bird predation could favour the evolution of both lines of defence.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available