4.7 Article

Fitness consequences of choosy oviposition for a time-limited butterfly

Journal

ECOLOGY
Volume 87, Issue 2, Pages 395-408

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1890/05-0647

Keywords

Dentaria diphylla; host plant discrimination; larval survival; oviposition; performance; Pieris; preference; time limitation

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

For the majority of insects, a female's choice of oviposition site(s) greatly influences both the Success of individual offspring and her own total fitness. Theory predicts that females most strongly limited by egg number will employ greater oviposition site discrimination than those predominately subject to time limitation. The reproductive success of the butterfly Pieris virginiensis at Our Connecticut, USA, field site is strongly time constrained on two fronts. First, during their three-week flight season, only 60% of days and 28% of daytime hours were suitable for flight. Second, larval survival is impacted by the rapid senescence of their spring ephemeral host plant Dentaria diphylla, With eggs laid during the first half of the flight season having approximately three times the survival chance of those laid later. Yet, on average, females choose to oviposit on only half the plants they closely inspect and fly over most ramets without any inspection. Our experiments demonstrate that the preferred host ramets confer an approximate two-fold survival advantage. Females are not choosing plants that senesce later, despite the advantage that such plants would confer. We use empirical data on female behavior and larval performance to parameterize a simulation model. Model results suggest that, despite the notable time limitation in this system, the observed level of female oviposition site preference not only increases individual larval survival, but also total female fitness. Low egg loads in this species may contribute to selection for strong host plant discrimination.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available