Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Isolation, Identification, and Quantification of Potential Defensive Compounds in the Viceroy Butterfly and its Larval Host–Plant, Carolina Willow

  • Published:
Journal of Chemical Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The viceroy–monarch and viceroy–queen butterfly associations are classic examples of mimicry. These relationships were originally classified as Batesian, or parasitic, but were later reclassified as Müllerian, or mutalistic, based on predator bioassays. The Müllerian reclassification implies that viceroy is unpalatable because it too is chemically defended like the queen and the monarch. However, unlike the queen and the monarch, the viceroy defensive chemistry has remained uncharacterized. We demonstrate that the viceroy butterfly (Limenitis archippus, Nymphalidae) not only sequesters nonvolatile defensive compounds from its larval host–plant, the Carolina willow (Salix caroliniana, Salicaceae), but also secretes volatile defensive compounds when disturbed. We developed liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry–mass spectrometry methods to identify a set of phenolic glycosides shared between the adult viceroy butterfly and the Carolina willow, and solid phase microextraction and gas chromatography–mass spectrometry methods to identify volatile phenolic compounds released from stressed viceroy butterflies. In both approaches, all structures were characterized based on their mass spectral fragmentation patterns and confirmed with authentic standards. The phenolics we found are known to deter predator attack in other prey systems, including other willow-feeding insect species. Because these compounds have a generalized defensive function at the concentrations we described, our results are consistent with the Müllerian reclassification put forth by other researchers based on bioassay results. It seems that the viceroy butterfly possesses chemical defenses different from its monarch and queen butterfly counterparts (phenolic glycosides vs. cardiac glycosides, respectively), an unusual phenomenon in mimicry warranting future study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackery, P. R. and Vane-wright, R. I. 1984. Milkweed Butterflies. Cornell University Press, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bairlein, F. 1997. Food choice in birds and insect chemical defenses. Entomol. Gener. 21:205–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bates, H. W. 1862. Contributions to an insect fauna of the Amazon valley. Lepidoptera: Heliconidae. Trans. Linn. Soc. London 23:495–566.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berenbaum, M. R. and Miliczky, E. 1984. Mantids and milkweed bugs: efficacy of aposematic coloration against invertebrate predators. Am. Midl. Nat. 111:64–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borg-Karlson, A. K. and Mozuraitis, R. 1996. Solid phase micro extraction technique used for collecting semio chemicals: identification of volatiles released by individual signaling Phyllonorycter sylvella moths. Z. Naturforsch. 51c:599–602.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brower, J. V. Z. 1958a. Experimental studies of mimicry in some North American butterflies. I. The monarch, Danaus plexippus, and viceroy, Limenitis archippus. Evolution 12:32–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brower, J. V. Z. 1958b. Experimental studies of mimicry in some North American butterflies. III. Danaus gilippus berenice and Limenitis archippus floridensis. Evolution 12:273–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brower, L. P., Seiber, J. N., Nelson, C. J., Lynch, S. P., and Holland, M. M. 1984. Plant-determined variation in the cardenolide content, thin-layer chromatography profiles, and emetic potency of monarch butterflies, Danaus plexippus L (Lepidoptera, Danaidae) reared on milkweed plants in California. 2. Asclepias speciosa (Apocynales, Asclepiadaceae). J. Chem. Ecol. 10:601–639.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Charlesworth, D. and Charlesworth, B. 1975. Theoretical genetics of Batesian mimicry. II. Evolution of supergenes. J. Theor. Biol. 55:305–324.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, C., Zimerman, E. F., and Smith, P. K. 1961. Metabolism and toxicity of methyl salicylate. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 312:207–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denno, R. F., Larsson, S., and Olmstead, K. L. 1990. Role of enemy fee space and plant quality in host–plant selection by willow beetles. Ecology 71:124–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dötterl, S., Füssel, U., Jürgens, A., and Aas, G. 2005. 1,4-Dimethoxybenzene, a floral scent compound in willows that attracts an oligolectic bee. J. Chem. Ecol. 31:2993–2998.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R. A. 1958. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, 2nd ed. Dover Publications, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glendinning, J. I. 1992. The effectiveness of cardenolides as feeding deterrents to Peromyscus mice. J. Chem. Ecol. 18:1559–1575.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Guilford, T. 1991. Is the viceroy a Batesian mimic? Nature 351:611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Julkunen-Tiitto, R. 1989. Phenolic constituents of Salix: a chemotaxonomic survey of further Finnish species. Phytochemistry 28:2115–2125.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Julkunen-Tiitto, R. and Sorsa, S. 2001. Testing the effects of drying methods on willow flavonoids, tannins, and salicylates. J. Chem. Ecol. 27:779–789.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Köpf, A., Rank, N. E., Roininen, H., Julkunen-Tiitto, R., Pasteels, J. M., and Tahvanainen, J. 1998. The evolution of host–plant use and sequestration in the leaf beetle genus Phratora (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Evolution 52:517–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindroth, R. L. and Hemming, J. D. C. 1990. Responses of the gypsy moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) to tremulacin, an aspen phenolic glycoside. Environ. Entomol. 19:842847.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindroth, R. L., Hsia, M. T. S., and Scriber, J. M. 1988a. Seasonal patterns in the phytochemistry of three Populus species. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 15:681–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindroth, R. L., Scriber, J. M., and Hsia, M. T. S. 1988b. Chemical ecology of the tiger swallowtail: mediation of host use by phenolic glycosides. Ecology 69:814–822.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mallet, J. 1999. Causes and consequences of a lack of coevolution in Müllerian mimicry. Evol. Ecol. 13:777–806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michael, J. B. and Sztajnkrycer, M. D. 2004. Deadly pediatric poisons: nine common agents that kill at low doses. Emerg. Med. Clin. North Am. 22:1019–1050.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mullen, S. P. 2006. Wing pattern evolution and the origins of mimicry among North American admiral butterflies (Nymphalidae: Limenitis). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 39:747–758.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Müller, M. S., Mcwilliams, S. R., Podelsak, D. Donaldson, J. R., Bothwell, H. M., and Lindroth, R. L. 2006. Tri-trophic effects of plant defenses: chickadees consume caterpillars based host–plant defenses. Oikos 114:507–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nishida, R. 2002. Sequestration of defensive substances from plants by Lepidoptera. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 47:57–92.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nyman, T. and Julkunen-Tiitto, R. 2005. Chemical variation within and among six northern willow species. Phytochemistry 66:2836–2843.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Palo, R. T. 1984. Distribution of birch (Betula spp.), willow (Salix spp.), and poplar (Populus spp.) secondary metabolites and their potential role as chemical defense against herbivores. J. Chem. Ecol. 10:499–520.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pasteels, J. M., Daloze, D., and Rowell-Rahier, M. 1986. Chemical defense in chrysomelid eggs and neonate larvae. Physiol. Entomol. 11:29–37.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pasteels, J. M., Rowell-Rahier, M., and Raupp, M. J. 1988. Plant-derived defense in chrysomelid beetles, pp 235–272, in P. Barbosa and D. K. Letourneau (eds.). Novel Aspects of Insect–Plant Interactions. Wiley, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prudic, K. L., Shapiro, A. M., and Clayton, N. S. 2002. Evaluating a putative mimetic relationship between two butterflies, Adelpha bredowii and Limenitis lorquini (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Ecol. Entomol. 27:68–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prudic, K. L., Skemp, A. K., and Papaj, D. R. 2007. Aposematic coloration, luminance contrast, and the benefits of conspicuousness. Behav. Ecol. 18:41–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rank, N. E., Smiley, J. T., and Kopf, A. 1996. Natural enemies and host–plant relationships for chrysomeline leaf beetles feeding on Salicaceae, pp 147–171, in P. H. Jolivet and M. L. Cox (eds.). Chrysomelidae Biology. SBE Publishing, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritland, D. B. and Brower, L. P. 1991. The viceroy butterfly is not a Batesian mimic. Nature 350:497–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritland, D. B. and Brower, L. P. 2002. Mimicry-related variation in wing color of viceroy butterflies (Limenitis archippus: Nymphalidae): a test of the model-switching hypothesis. Holartic Lepid. 7:5–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothschild, M. 1991. Is the viceroy a Batesian mimic? Nature 351:611–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruxton, G. D., Sherrat, T. N., and Speed, M. P. 2004. Avoiding Attack: The Evolutionary Ecology of Crypsis, Warning Signals and Mimicry. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • SAS Institute Inc. 2002. JMP-IN Statistical Exploration Software, Version 5. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. A. 1986. The Butterflies of North America. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skelhorn, J. and Rowe, C. 2005. Tasting the difference: do multiple defence chemicals interact in Müllerian mimicry? Proc. R. Soc. Lond., B Biol Sci 272:339–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smiley, J. T., Horn, J. M., and Rank, N. E. 1985. Ecological effects of salicin at three trophic levels: new problems from old adaptations. Science 229:649–651.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Soetens, P., Pasteels, J. M., Daloze, D., and Kaisin, M. 1998. Host–plant influence on the composition of the defensive secretion of Chrysomela vigintipunctata larvae (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 26:703–712.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tahvanainen, J., Helle, E., Julkunen-Tiitto, R., and Lavola, A. 1985. Phenolic compounds of willow bark as deterrence against feeding by mountain hare. Oecologia 65:319–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J. N. 2005. The Geographic Mosaic of Coevolution. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank J. Oliver for assistance in collecting the specimen; J. Gu, B. Jackson, R. Lindroth, C. Orians, and V. Rodriguez for assistance in chemistry; D. Bowers, D. Papaj, and D. Ritland for discussion; and the late Hon. M. Rothschild for enthusiasm and insight. This work was funded by an NSF Graduate Research Fellowship, an NSF Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant, a University of Arizona Center for Insect Science Graduate Research Grant, and a University of Arizona BIO5 Fellowship to K.L.P.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, 85721, USA

    Kathleen L. Prudic

  2. BIO5: Institute for Collaborative Bioresearch, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, 85721, USA

    Kathleen L. Prudic

  3. Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, 85721, USA

    Smriti Khera & Anikó Sólyom

  4. Department of Medicinal Chemistry, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, 66045, USA

    Barbara N. Timmermann

Authors
  1. Kathleen L. Prudic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Smriti Khera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anikó Sólyom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Barbara N. Timmermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kathleen L. Prudic.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material

Supplementary Material Fig. 1

Digital image of solid phase micro-extraction (SPME) setup. The position of the butterfly pinned between the glass plate and the beaker simulated a predation event. In a non-predatory event, the butterfly was allowed to perch freely on the glass plate during the SPME sampling bout. (DOC 807 kb)

Supplementary Material Fig. 2

Digital image of secretion when butterfly experiences a predation event. One μl of the secretion was collected using a glass capillary for the GC-MS quantification analyses. (DOC 817 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Prudic, K.L., Khera, S., Sólyom, A. et al. Isolation, Identification, and Quantification of Potential Defensive Compounds in the Viceroy Butterfly and its Larval Host–Plant, Carolina Willow. J Chem Ecol 33, 1149–1159 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-007-9282-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-007-9282-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation