Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Host plants influence parasitism of forest caterpillars

Nature volume 417, pages 170–173 (2002)Cite this article

Abstract

Patterns of association between herbivores and host plants have been thought to reflect the quality of plants as food resources1,2 as influenced by plant nutrient composition3, defences4,5, and phenology6. Host-plant-specific enemies, that is, the third trophic level, might also influence the distribution of herbivores across plant species7,8,9,10. However, studies of the evolution of herbivore host range11,12,13,14,15 have generally not examined the third trophic level, leaving unclear the importance of this factor in the evolution of plant–insect herbivore interactions16. Analysis of parasitoid rearings by the Canadian Forest Insect Survey shows that parasitism of particular Lepidoptera species is strongly host-plant-dependent, that the pattern of host-plant dependence varies among species of caterpillars, and that some parasitoid species are themselves specialized with respect to tree species. Host-plant-dependent parasitism suggests the possibility of top-down influence on host plant use. Differences in parasitism among particular caterpillar–host plant combinations could select for specialization of host plant ranges within caterpillar communities. Such specialization would ultimately promote the species diversification of Lepidoptera in temperate forests with respect to escape from enemies.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2: Parasitoid–host plant associations for 35 parasitoid species with hosts that feed on more than one host plant genus.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ehrlich, P. R. & Raven, P. H. Butterflies and plants: a study of coevolution. Evolution 18, 586–608 (1964).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Cates, R G. Feeding patterns of monophagous, oligophagous, and polyphagous insect herbivores: the effect of resource abundance and plant chemistry. Oecologia 46, 22–31 (1980).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  3. Scriber, J. M. & Feeny, P. Growth of herbivorous caterpillars in relation to feeding specialization and to the growth form of their food plants. Ecology 60, 829–850 (1979).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Courtney, S. P. Coevolution of pierid butterflies and their cruciferous host plants. III. Anthocaris cardamines (L.) survival, development, and oviposition on different host plants. Oecologia 51, 91–96 (1981).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  5. Becerra, J. X. Insects on plants: macroevolutionary chemical trends in host use. Science 276, 253–256 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Wood, T. K. & Keese, M. C. Host-plant-induced assortative mating in Enchenopa tree hoppers. Evolution 44, 619–628 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Brower, L. P. Bird predation and food plant specificity in closely related procryptic insects. Am. Nat. 864, 886–892 (1958).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hawkins, B. A. & Lawton, J. H. Species richness for parasitoids of British phytophagous insects. Nature 326, 788–790 (1987).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  9. Bernays, E. & Graham, M. On the evolution of host specificity in phytophagous arthropods. Ecology 69, 886–892 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Holt, R. D. & Lawton, J. H. The ecological consequences of shared natural enemies. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 25, 495–520 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Feder, J. L., Chilcote, C. A. & Bush, G. L. Genetic differentiation between sympatric host races of the apple maggot fly Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature 336, 61–64 (1988).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  12. Gould, F. Rapid host evolution in a population of the phytophagous mite Tetranychus urticae Koch. Evolution 33, 791–802 (1979).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bush, G. L. Modes of animal speciation. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 6, 339–364 (1975).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Rausher, M. D. Variability for host preference in insect populations: mechanistic and evolutionary models. J. Insect Physiol. 31, 873–889 (1985).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Thompson, J. N. The Coevolutionary Process (Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, 1994).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. Jaenike, J. Host specialization in phytophagous insects. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 21, 243–273 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. McGugan, B. M. The Canadian Forest Insect Survey. Proc. 10th Int. Congr. Entomol. 4, 219–232 (1958).

    Google Scholar 

  18. De Moraes, C. M., Lewis, W. J., Pare, P. W., Alborn, H. T. & Tumlinson, J. H. Herbivore-infested plants selectively attract parasitoids. Nature 393, 570–573 (1998).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Barbosa, P. & Benrey, B. in Conservation Biological Control (ed. Barbosa, P.) 55–82 (Academic, San Diego, 1998).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  20. Le Corff, J., Marquis, R. J. & Whitfield, J. B. Temporal and spatial variation in a parasitoid community associated with the herbivores that feed on Missouri Quercus. Environ. Entomol. 29, 181–194 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Barbosa, P. et al. Differential parasitism of macrolepidopteran herbivores on two deciduous tree species. Ecology 82, 698–704 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Janzen, D. H. A host plant is more than it chemistry. Illinois Nat. Hist. Bull. 33, 141–174 (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Elzen, G. W., Williams, H. J. & Vinson, S. B. Response by the parasitoid Campoletis sonorensis (Hyemonoptera: Ichneumonidae) to chemicals (synomones) in plants: implications for host habitat location. Environ. Entomol. 12, 1873–1877 (1983).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Weseloh, R. M. in Caterpillars: Ecological and evolutionary Constraints on Foraging (eds Stamp, N. E. & Casey, T. M.) 203–221 (Chapman & Hall, New York, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Greenblatt, J. A. & Barbosa, P. Effects of hosts' diet on two pupal parasitoids of the gypsy moth: Brachymeria intermedia (Nees) and Coccygomimus turionellae (L.). J. Appl. Ecol. 18, 1–19 (1981).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mueller, T. F. The effect of plants on the host relations of a specialist parasitoid of Heliothis larvae. Ent. Exp. Appl. 34, 78–84 (1983).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Gross, P. & Price, P. W. Plant influences on parasitism of two leaf miners: a test of enemy-free space. Ecology 69, 1506–1516 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ohsaki, N. & Sato, Y. Food plant choice of Pieris butterflies as a trade-off between parasitoid avoidance and quality of plants. Ecology 75, 59–68 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Karban, R. E. & Ricklefs, R. E. Host characteristics, sampling intensity, and species richness of Lepidoptera larvae on broad-leaved trees in southern Ontario. Ecology 64, 636–641 (1983).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Engels, W. Statistical Tests for Categorical Data Version 1.0 (software package) (Univ. Wisconsin, Madison, 1988).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank G. Howse for making available the CFIS data, E. Selig, A. Frevert, J. McGrath, and M. Walker for their efforts in constructing the database, B. Hawkins, K. Boege, G. Chen, R. Forkner, S. Renner, R. Rios and K. Schultz for their comments on the manuscript, and P. DeVries for software suggestions. Financial support for this project was provided by a University of Missouri Research Award to R.E.R. and R.J.M. Support for J.T.L. was provided by the Missouri Department of Conservation and the USDA.

Author information

Author notes

  1. J. T. Lill

    Present address: Washington University, Tyson Research Center, PO Box 258, Eureka, Missouri, 63025, USA

  2. J. T. Lill: Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to J.T.L.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biology, University of Missouri–St. Louis, St. Louis, 63121, Missouri, USA

    J. T. Lill, R. J. Marquis & R. E. Ricklefs

Authors
  1. J. T. Lill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. J. Marquis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R. E. Ricklefs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. T. Lill.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lill, J., Marquis, R. & Ricklefs, R. Host plants influence parasitism of forest caterpillars. Nature 417, 170–173 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1038/417170a

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/417170a

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing