Host plant utilization in the comma butterfly: sources of variation and evolutionary implications.
Identifieur interne : 002306 ( Main/Corpus ); précédent : 002305; suivant : 002307Host plant utilization in the comma butterfly: sources of variation and evolutionary implications.
Auteurs : Niklas Janz ; Sören Nylin ; Nina WedellSource :
- Oecologia [ 1432-1939 ] ; 1994.
Abstract
A major challenge in the study of insect-host plant interactions is to understand how the different aspects of offspring performance interact to produce a preference hierarchy in the ovipositing females. In this paper we investigate host plant preference of the polyphagous butterfly Polygonia c-album (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) and compare it with several aspects of the life history of its offspring (growth rate, development time, adult size, survival and female fecundity). Females and offspring were tested on four naturally used host plants (Urtica dioica, Ulmus glabra, Salix caprea, and Betula pubescens). There was substantial individual variation in host plant preference, including reversals in rank order, but the differences were largely confined to differences in the ranking of Urtica dioica and S. caprea. Different aspects of performance on these two plants gave conflicting and complementary results, implying a trade-off between short development time on U. dioica, and larger size and higher fecundity on S. caprea. As all performance components showed low individual variation the large variation in host plant preference was interpreted as due to alternative oviposition strategies on the basis of similar 'performance hierarchies'. This indicates that the larval performance component of host-plant utilization may be more conservative to evolutionary change than the preference of ovipositing females. Possible macro-evolutionary implications of this are discussed.
DOI: 10.1007/BF00317093
PubMed: 28313958
Links to Exploration step
pubmed:28313958Le document en format XML
<record><TEI><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Host plant utilization in the comma butterfly: sources of variation and evolutionary implications.</title>
<author><name sortKey="Janz, Niklas" sort="Janz, Niklas" uniqKey="Janz N" first="Niklas" last="Janz">Niklas Janz</name>
<affiliation><nlm:affiliation>Department of Zoology, University of Stockholm, 106 91, Stockholm, Sweden.</nlm:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Nylin, Soren" sort="Nylin, Soren" uniqKey="Nylin S" first="Sören" last="Nylin">Sören Nylin</name>
<affiliation><nlm:affiliation>Department of Zoology, University of Stockholm, 106 91, Stockholm, Sweden.</nlm:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Wedell, Nina" sort="Wedell, Nina" uniqKey="Wedell N" first="Nina" last="Wedell">Nina Wedell</name>
<affiliation><nlm:affiliation>Department of Zoology, University of Stockholm, 106 91, Stockholm, Sweden.</nlm:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">PubMed</idno>
<date when="1994">1994</date>
<idno type="RBID">pubmed:28313958</idno>
<idno type="pmid">28313958</idno>
<idno type="doi">10.1007/BF00317093</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Corpus">002306</idno>
<idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Main" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="PubMed">002306</idno>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title xml:lang="en">Host plant utilization in the comma butterfly: sources of variation and evolutionary implications.</title>
<author><name sortKey="Janz, Niklas" sort="Janz, Niklas" uniqKey="Janz N" first="Niklas" last="Janz">Niklas Janz</name>
<affiliation><nlm:affiliation>Department of Zoology, University of Stockholm, 106 91, Stockholm, Sweden.</nlm:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Nylin, Soren" sort="Nylin, Soren" uniqKey="Nylin S" first="Sören" last="Nylin">Sören Nylin</name>
<affiliation><nlm:affiliation>Department of Zoology, University of Stockholm, 106 91, Stockholm, Sweden.</nlm:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Wedell, Nina" sort="Wedell, Nina" uniqKey="Wedell N" first="Nina" last="Wedell">Nina Wedell</name>
<affiliation><nlm:affiliation>Department of Zoology, University of Stockholm, 106 91, Stockholm, Sweden.</nlm:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
</analytic>
<series><title level="j">Oecologia</title>
<idno type="eISSN">1432-1939</idno>
<imprint><date when="1994" type="published">1994</date>
</imprint>
</series>
</biblStruct>
</sourceDesc>
</fileDesc>
<profileDesc><textClass></textClass>
</profileDesc>
</teiHeader>
<front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">A major challenge in the study of insect-host plant interactions is to understand how the different aspects of offspring performance interact to produce a preference hierarchy in the ovipositing females. In this paper we investigate host plant preference of the polyphagous butterfly Polygonia c-album (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) and compare it with several aspects of the life history of its offspring (growth rate, development time, adult size, survival and female fecundity). Females and offspring were tested on four naturally used host plants (Urtica dioica, Ulmus glabra, Salix caprea, and Betula pubescens). There was substantial individual variation in host plant preference, including reversals in rank order, but the differences were largely confined to differences in the ranking of Urtica dioica and S. caprea. Different aspects of performance on these two plants gave conflicting and complementary results, implying a trade-off between short development time on U. dioica, and larger size and higher fecundity on S. caprea. As all performance components showed low individual variation the large variation in host plant preference was interpreted as due to alternative oviposition strategies on the basis of similar 'performance hierarchies'. This indicates that the larval performance component of host-plant utilization may be more conservative to evolutionary change than the preference of ovipositing females. Possible macro-evolutionary implications of this are discussed.</div>
</front>
</TEI>
<pubmed><MedlineCitation Status="PubMed-not-MEDLINE" Owner="NLM"><PMID Version="1">28313958</PMID>
<DateRevised><Year>2019</Year>
<Month>11</Month>
<Day>20</Day>
</DateRevised>
<Article PubModel="Print"><Journal><ISSN IssnType="Electronic">1432-1939</ISSN>
<JournalIssue CitedMedium="Internet"><Volume>99</Volume>
<Issue>1-2</Issue>
<PubDate><Year>1994</Year>
<Month>Sep</Month>
</PubDate>
</JournalIssue>
<Title>Oecologia</Title>
<ISOAbbreviation>Oecologia</ISOAbbreviation>
</Journal>
<ArticleTitle>Host plant utilization in the comma butterfly: sources of variation and evolutionary implications.</ArticleTitle>
<Pagination><MedlinePgn>132-140</MedlinePgn>
</Pagination>
<ELocationID EIdType="doi" ValidYN="Y">10.1007/BF00317093</ELocationID>
<Abstract><AbstractText>A major challenge in the study of insect-host plant interactions is to understand how the different aspects of offspring performance interact to produce a preference hierarchy in the ovipositing females. In this paper we investigate host plant preference of the polyphagous butterfly Polygonia c-album (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) and compare it with several aspects of the life history of its offspring (growth rate, development time, adult size, survival and female fecundity). Females and offspring were tested on four naturally used host plants (Urtica dioica, Ulmus glabra, Salix caprea, and Betula pubescens). There was substantial individual variation in host plant preference, including reversals in rank order, but the differences were largely confined to differences in the ranking of Urtica dioica and S. caprea. Different aspects of performance on these two plants gave conflicting and complementary results, implying a trade-off between short development time on U. dioica, and larger size and higher fecundity on S. caprea. As all performance components showed low individual variation the large variation in host plant preference was interpreted as due to alternative oviposition strategies on the basis of similar 'performance hierarchies'. This indicates that the larval performance component of host-plant utilization may be more conservative to evolutionary change than the preference of ovipositing females. Possible macro-evolutionary implications of this are discussed.</AbstractText>
</Abstract>
<AuthorList CompleteYN="Y"><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Janz</LastName>
<ForeName>Niklas</ForeName>
<Initials>N</Initials>
<AffiliationInfo><Affiliation>Department of Zoology, University of Stockholm, 106 91, Stockholm, Sweden.</Affiliation>
</AffiliationInfo>
</Author>
<Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Nylin</LastName>
<ForeName>Sören</ForeName>
<Initials>S</Initials>
<AffiliationInfo><Affiliation>Department of Zoology, University of Stockholm, 106 91, Stockholm, Sweden.</Affiliation>
</AffiliationInfo>
</Author>
<Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Wedell</LastName>
<ForeName>Nina</ForeName>
<Initials>N</Initials>
<AffiliationInfo><Affiliation>Department of Zoology, University of Stockholm, 106 91, Stockholm, Sweden.</Affiliation>
</AffiliationInfo>
</Author>
</AuthorList>
<Language>eng</Language>
<PublicationTypeList><PublicationType UI="D016428">Journal Article</PublicationType>
</PublicationTypeList>
</Article>
<MedlineJournalInfo><Country>Germany</Country>
<MedlineTA>Oecologia</MedlineTA>
<NlmUniqueID>0150372</NlmUniqueID>
<ISSNLinking>0029-8549</ISSNLinking>
</MedlineJournalInfo>
<KeywordList Owner="NOTNLM"><Keyword MajorTopicYN="N">Insect-host plant interactions</Keyword>
<Keyword MajorTopicYN="N">Life history Trade-offs</Keyword>
<Keyword MajorTopicYN="N">Plasticity</Keyword>
<Keyword MajorTopicYN="N">Seasonality</Keyword>
</KeywordList>
</MedlineCitation>
<PubmedData><History><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="received"><Year>1994</Year>
<Month>02</Month>
<Day>28</Day>
</PubMedPubDate>
<PubMedPubDate PubStatus="accepted"><Year>1994</Year>
<Month>05</Month>
<Day>13</Day>
</PubMedPubDate>
<PubMedPubDate PubStatus="entrez"><Year>2017</Year>
<Month>3</Month>
<Day>18</Day>
<Hour>6</Hour>
<Minute>0</Minute>
</PubMedPubDate>
<PubMedPubDate PubStatus="pubmed"><Year>1994</Year>
<Month>9</Month>
<Day>1</Day>
<Hour>0</Hour>
<Minute>0</Minute>
</PubMedPubDate>
<PubMedPubDate PubStatus="medline"><Year>1994</Year>
<Month>9</Month>
<Day>1</Day>
<Hour>0</Hour>
<Minute>1</Minute>
</PubMedPubDate>
</History>
<PublicationStatus>ppublish</PublicationStatus>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">28313958</ArticleId>
<ArticleId IdType="doi">10.1007/BF00317093</ArticleId>
<ArticleId IdType="pii">10.1007/BF00317093</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
<ReferenceList><Reference><Citation>Evolution. 1991 Jun;45(4):827-852</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">28564044</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
<Reference><Citation>Evolution. 1988 Sep;42(5):977-985</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">28581180</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
<Reference><Citation>Evolution. 1983 Jan;37(1):163-179</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">28568024</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
<Reference><Citation>Evolution. 1983 Jan;37(1):150-162</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">28568028</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
<Reference><Citation>Oecologia. 1975 Sep;18(3):185-197</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">28308676</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
<Reference><Citation>Evolution. 1993 Jun;47(3):888-905</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">28567894</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
<Reference><Citation>Evolution. 1984 Jul;38(4):881-895</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">28555819</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
<Reference><Citation>Science. 1978 Aug 25;201(4357):745-7</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">17750235</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
<Reference><Citation>Evolution. 1987 Mar;41(2):269-279</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">28568751</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
<Reference><Citation>Evolution. 1981 Jul;35(4):605-617</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">28563141</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
<Reference><Citation>Evolution. 1983 Mar;37(2):389-403</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">28568358</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
<Reference><Citation>Evolution. 1982 May;36(3):581-590</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">28568036</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
<Reference><Citation>Science. 1981 Feb 27;211(4485):887-93</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">17819016</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
<Reference><Citation>Oecologia. 1981 Aug;50(2):225-230</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">28311092</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
<Reference><Citation>Evolution. 1988 Jan;42(1):118-128</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">28563838</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
<Reference><Citation>Oecologia. 1983 Feb;56(2-3):336-340</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">28310213</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
<Reference><Citation>Evolution. 1986 Jul;40(4):778-785</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">28556150</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
<Reference><Citation>Evolution. 1987 Jul;41(4):892-901</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">28564351</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
<Reference><Citation>Evolution. 1977 Sep;31(3):568-579</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">28563490</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
<Reference><Citation>Trends Ecol Evol. 1991 Sep;6(9):290-3</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">21232484</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
<Reference><Citation>Oecologia. 1983 Dec;60(3):365-370</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">28310697</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
<Reference><Citation>Oecologia. 1982 Jan;54(1):101-107</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">28311000</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
<Reference><Citation>Oecologia. 1981 Oct;51(1):91-96</Citation>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">28310315</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</Reference>
</ReferenceList>
</PubmedData>
</pubmed>
</record>
Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Bois/explor/WillowV1/Data/Main/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 002306 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Main/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 002306 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien |wiki= Bois |area= WillowV1 |flux= Main |étape= Corpus |type= RBID |clé= pubmed:28313958 |texte= Host plant utilization in the comma butterfly: sources of variation and evolutionary implications. }}
Pour générer des pages wiki
HfdIndexSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Main/Corpus/RBID.i -Sk "pubmed:28313958" \ | HfdSelect -Kh $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Main/Corpus/biblio.hfd \ | NlmPubMed2Wicri -a WillowV1
![]() | This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.37. | ![]() |