4.7 Article

Climate change and an invasive, tropical milkweed: an ecological trap for monarch butterflies

期刊

ECOLOGY
卷 99, 期 5, 页码 1031-1038

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ecy.2198

关键词

Asclepias; cardenolide; Danaus plexippus; global warming; Lepidoptera; plant defense

类别

资金

  1. LSU BioGrads
  2. NSF [DEB-1256115, DEB-1316334]
  3. LSU Soil Testing and Plant Analysis Lab
  4. LSU
  5. Direct For Biological Sciences
  6. Division Of Environmental Biology [1316334] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

While it is well established that climate change affects species distributions and abundances, the impacts of climate change on species interactions has not been extensively studied. This is particularly important for specialists whose interactions are tightly linked, such as between the monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) and the plant genus Asclepias, on which it depends. We used open-top chambers (OTCs) to increase temperatures in experimental plots and placed either nonnative Asclepias curassavica or native A.incarnata in each plot along with monarch larvae. We found, under current climatic conditions, adult monarchs had higher survival and mass when feeding on A.curassavica. However, under future conditions, monarchs fared much worse on A.curassavica. The decrease in adult survival and mass was associated with increasing cardenolide concentrations under warmer temperatures. Increased temperatures alone reduced monarch forewing length. Cardenolide concentrations in A.curassavica may have transitioned from beneficial to detrimental as temperature increased. Thus, the increasing cardenolide concentrations may have pushed the larvae over a tipping point into an ecological trap; whereby past environmental cues associated with increased fitness give misleading information. Given the ubiquity of specialist plant-herbivore interactions, the potential for such ecological traps to emerge as temperatures increase may have far-reaching consequences.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据