Experimental design and the outcome of preference-performance assays, with examples from Mitoura butterflies (Lycaenidae)

Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society

Volumn 62, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 99-105

  Forister, Matthew L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA   (United States)

Author keywords

Callophrys; Choice test; No choice test; Specialization

Indexed keywords

ASSAY; DETECTION METHOD; ECOLOGICAL APPROACH; EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; HOST PLANT; LARVAL DEVELOPMENT; OVIPOSITION; PLANT-INSECT INTERACTION; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; SPECIATION (BIOLOGY);

CALLOPHRYS; HEXAPODA; LYCAENIDAE; MITOURA; MITOURA MUIRI; MITOURA NELSONI; PAPILIONOIDEA;

EID: 51449122267     PISSN: 00240966     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. ALONSO, C. 1997. Choosing a place to grow. Importance of within-plant abiotic microenvironment for Yponomeuta mahalebella. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 83: 171-180.
2. BARTON BROWNE, L., & T. M. WITHERS. 2002. Time-dependent changes in the host-acceptance threshold of insects: implications for host specificity testing of candidate biological control agents. Biocontrol Sci. Tech. 12: 677-693.
3. BERENBAUM, M. R., & P. FEENY. 2008. Chemical mediation of hostplant specialization: The papilionid paradigm. In K. J. Tilmon (ed.), The evolutionary biology of herbivorous insects: specialization, speciation, and radiation. Berkeley: Univ. of Calif. Press.
4. BERLOCHER, S. H., & J. L. FEDER. 2002. Sympatric speciation in phytophagous insects: Moving beyond controversy? Ann. Rev. Entomol. 47: 773-815.
5. COURTNEY, S. P., G. K. CHEN, & A. GARDNER. 1989. A general model for individual host selection. Oikos 55: 55-65.
6. CRAIG T. P, & J. K. ITAMI. 2008. Evolution of preference and performance relationships. In K. J. Tilmon (ed.), The evolutionary biology of herbivorous insects: specialization, speciation, and radiation. Berkeley: Univ. of Calif. Press.
7. DETHIFR, V. G. 1954. Evolution of feeding preferences in phytophagous insects. Evolution 8: 33-54.
8. DRÉS, M., & J. MALLET. 2002. Host races in plant-feeding insects and their importance in sympatric speciation. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 357: 471-492.
9. FORDYCE, J. A., & A. M. SHAPIRO. 2003. Another perspective on the slow-growth/high-mortality hypothesis: chilling effects on swallowtail larvae. Ecology 84: 263-268.
10. FORISTER, M. L. 2004. Oviposition preference and larval performance within a diverging lineage of lycaenid butterflies. Ecol. Entomol. 29: 264-272.
11. FORISTER, M. L. 2005a. Influence of host plant phenology on Mitoura nelsoni (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 98: 295-301.
12. FORISTER, M. L. 2005b. Independent inheritance of preference and performance in hybrids between host races of Mitoura butterflies (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Evolution 59: 1149-1155.
13. FRY, J. D. 2003. Multilocus models of sympatric speciation: Bush versus Rice versus Felsenstein. Evolution 57: 1735-1746.
14. GERVAIS, B. R., & A. M. SHAPIRO. 1999. Distribution of edaphic-endemic butterflies in the Sierra Nevada of California. Global Ecol. Biogeography 8: 151-162.
15. JAENIKE, J. 1990. Host specialization in phytophagous insects. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 21: 243-273.
16. LITTELL, R. C., W. W. MILLIKEN, & R. D. WOLFINGER. 1996. SAS system for mixed models computer program, version By Littell, R. C., W. W. Milliken, and R. D. Wolfinger, Cary, NY.
17. MAROHASY, J. 1998. The design and interpretation of host-specificity tests for weed biological control with particular reference to insect behaviour. Biocontrol News and Information 19: 13-20.
18. MAYHEW, P. J. 1997. Adaptive patterns of host-plant selection by phytophagous insects. Oikos 79: 417-428.
19. MERCADER, R. J., & J. M. SCRIBER. 2007. Diversification of host use in two polyphagous butterflies: differences in oviposition specificity or host rank hierarchy? Entomol. Exp. Appl. 125: 89-101.
20. NICE, C. C., & A. M. SHAPIRO. 2001. Population genetic evidence of restricted gene flow between host races in the butterfly genus Mitoura (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 94: 257-267.
21. OSIER, T. L., S. Y. HWANG, & R. L. LINDROTH. 2000. Effects of phytochemical variation in quaking aspen Populus tremuloides clones on gypsy moth Lymantria dispar performance in the field and laboratory. Ecol. Entomol. 25: 197-207.
22. SINGER, M. C., D. VASCO, C. PARMESAN, C. D. THOMAS, & D. NG. 1992. Distinguishing between preference and motivation in food choice: An example from insect oviposition. Anim. Behav. 44: 463-471.
23. SINGER, M. C., D. VASCO, C. PARMESAN, C. D. THOMAS, & D. NG. 2000. Reducing ambiguity in describing plant-insect interactions: "preference", "acceptability" and "electivity". Ecology Lett. 3: 159-162.
24. SINGER, M. C., & J. R. LEE. 2000. Discrimination within and between host species by a butterfly: implications for design of preference experiments. Ecology Lett. 3: 101-105.
25. SINGER, M. C., C. STEFANESCU, & I. PEN. 2002. When random sampling does not work: standard design falsely indicates maladaptive host preferences in a butterfly. Ecology Lett. 5: 1-6.
26. THOMPSON, J. N. 1988. Evolutionary ecology of the relationship between oviposition preference and performance of offspring in phytophagous insects. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 47: 3-14.
27. THOMPSON, J. N. 1993. Preference hierarchies and the origin of geographic specialization in host use in swallowtail butterflies. Evolution 47: 1585-1594.
28. THOMPSON, J. N. & O. PELLMYR. 1991. Evolution of oviposition behavior and host preference in Lepidoptera. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 36: 65-89.
29. VAN DRIESCHE, R. G., & T. J. MURRAY. 2004. Overview of testing schemes and designs used to estimate host ranges. In R. G. Van Driesche, and R. Reardon (eds.), Assessing host ranges for parasitoids and predators used for classical biological control: a guide to best practice. Forster Health Technology Enterprise Team.
30. VIA, S. 1986. Genetic covariance between oviposition preference and larval performance in an insect herbivore. Evolution 40: 778-785.
31. WACKERS, F. L., J. ROMEIS, AND P. VAN RIJN. 2007. Nectar and pollen feeding by insect herbivores and implications for multitrophic interactions. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 52: 301-323.
32. WILLIAMS, I. S. 1999. Slow-growth, high-mortality - a general hypothesis, or is it? Ecol. Entomol. 24: 490-495.
33. WITHERS, T. M., & S. MANSFIELD. 2005. Choice or no-choice tests? Effects of experimental design on the expression of host range. In M. Hoddle (ed.), Proceedings, 2nd international symposium of biological control of arthropods. USDA Forest Service, West Virginia.
34. ZALUCKI, M. P., A. R. CLARKE, & S. B. MALCOLM. 2002. Ecology and behavior of first instar larval Lepidoptera. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 47: 361-393.