1981
DOI: 10.1086/283859
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Lycaenid Butterflies and Ants: Selection for Enemy-Free Space

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
75
0
1

Year Published

2004
2004
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 146 publications
(77 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
1
75
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…By contrast, the role of mutualistic interactions in evolutionary diversification has been less explored [5,6]. Butterflies in the families Lycaenidae and Riodinidae have been a focal point for interest in the connection between diversification and mutualistic interaction [7][8][9][10]. Approximately, one third of all butterfly species are lycaenids, and more than half of all lycaenids are myrmecophilous: they engage in interactions with ants that are either mutualistic, commensalistic or parasitic [11].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…By contrast, the role of mutualistic interactions in evolutionary diversification has been less explored [5,6]. Butterflies in the families Lycaenidae and Riodinidae have been a focal point for interest in the connection between diversification and mutualistic interaction [7][8][9][10]. Approximately, one third of all butterfly species are lycaenids, and more than half of all lycaenids are myrmecophilous: they engage in interactions with ants that are either mutualistic, commensalistic or parasitic [11].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A number of mechanisms have been suggested to explain this association between the ant interaction and diet breadth [8], however, most attention has focused on two complementary possibilities: (i) the presence of ants influences oviposition decisions, such that a novel host might be used if ants are available and likely to tend, and thereby protect, offspring; and (ii) the presence of ants creates a sufficient reduction in predator pressure to facilitate survival on novel hosts [7]. The former phenomenon (ant-associated oviposition) has received the most attention [18 -21].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, food-plant quality (Slansky, 1993), secondary plant defences (Rhoades & Cates, 1976) and natural enemies (Atsatt, 1981) and shelter from adverse conditions. Most of these factors will act simultaneously to influence host plant choice.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It has been suggested that the influence of natural enemies may play a larger part in host plant choice (Atsatt, 1981;Bernays & Graham, 1988) to the extent that, in some cases, selection for enemy free space may be more important than food plant quality (Damman, 1987;Denno et al, 1990). Parasitoids and other aerial predatory invertebrates may use other search cues such as plant volatiles from damaged plant material (Thaler, 1999).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since, in our model, the forces acting on the evolution of larval host plant specialization are solely determined by selection on the adult stage, there is no a priori reason to expect that plants that have potentially useful pheromone precursors would also be the ones that confer the best performance in the larval stage. Our hypothesis explaining this mismatch is not mutually exclusive with others, such as the enemy-free space model (Lawton and McNeil 1979;Atsatt 1981). Further, having Z-linked oviposition preferences means that any fitness cost associated with host plant choice need only be paid for by increased fitness in males-not females, since they do not inherit the maternal Z chromosome (Miller et al 2006)-suggesting that host plants with sexually antagonistic consequences in favor of sons are suitable substrates on which butterflies may specialize.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 51%