Letter | Published:

Rapid human-induced evolution of insect–host associations

Nature volume 366, pages 681683 (16 December 1993) | Download Citation

Subjects

Abstract

RAPID evolution of host association is now occurring independently in two populations of the host-specialist butterfly Euphydryas editha, each of which has recently incorporated a novel host species into its diet. The reasons for these episodes of rapid evolution lie in human land use practices: logging in one case and cattle ranching in the other. In contrast to other insects that have used tolerance of human activities to expand their ranges into disturbed habitats1–3, these rare butterflies have remained at their original sites and evolved adaptations to the changes occurring at those sites. At both sites, the proportion of insects preferring the novel host has increased, in one case clearly because of genetic changes in the insect population. This process is now starting to generate insects that refuse to accept their ancestral host, foreshadowing a new problem in conservation biology. By adapting genetically to human-induced changes in their habitat, the insects risk becoming dependent on continuation of the same practices. This is a serious risk, because human cultural evolution can be even faster than the rapid genetic adaptation that the insects can evidently achieve.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    Science 185, 1064–1066 (1974).

  2. 2.

    , & Insects on Plants: Community Patterns and Mechanisms (Blackwell, Oxford, 1984).

  3. 3.

    & Am. Nat. (in the press).

  4. 4.

    , , , & Evolution 41, 892–901 (1987).

  5. 5.

    Symp. R. ent. Soc., Lond. 11, 81–88 (1984).

  6. 6.

    Oecologia 18, 185–197 (1975).

  7. 7.

    Am. Nat. 124, 609–630 (1984).

  8. 8.

    Evolution 38, 582–592 (1984).

  9. 9.

    Evolution 42, 118–128 (1988).

  10. 10.

    & Evolution 44, 1885–1913 (1990).

  11. 11.

    A. Rev. ecol. Syst. 21, 243–273 (1990).

  12. 12.

    , & Oecologia 76, 138–147 (1988).

  13. 13.

    A. Rev. Ent. 35, 421–426 (1991).

  14. 14.

    , & Oecologia 87, 360–368 (1991).

  15. 15.

    , & Ecology 73, 526–536 (1992).

  16. 16.

    , , & Am. Nat. 139, 9–20 (1992).

  17. 17.

    & Proc. R. Soc. B251, 111–117 (1993).

  18. 18.

    Science 134, 108–109 (1961).

  19. 19.

    , & Evolution 42, 977–985 (1988).

  20. 20.

    Ecology 70, 1726–1737 (1989).

  21. 21.

    Evol. Ecol. 7, 103–108 (1993).

  22. 22.

    & Ecology 68, 1262–1267 (1987).

  23. 23.

    , , & Anim. Behav. 37, 751–759 (1989).

  24. 24.

    Evolution 37, 389–403 (1983).

  25. 25.

    , & Am. Nat. 132, 360–382 (1988).

  26. 26.

    & A Field Guide to the Butterflies of Britain and Europe 4th edn (Collins, London, 1980).

  27. 27.

    New Generation Guide to the Butterflies and Day-flying Moths of Britain and Europe (Collins, London, 1989).

  28. 28.

    Bull. Br. ecol. Soc. 16, 24–26 (1985).

  29. 29.

    Symp. R. ent. Soc., Lond. 11, 333–353 (1984).

  30. 30.

    Symp. Br. ecol. Soc. 31, 149–197 (1991).

  31. 31.

    Bull. Br. ecol. Soc. 20, 212–216 (1989).

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712, USA

    • Michael C. Singer
    •  & Camille Parmesan
  2. School of Biological Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston B15 2TT, UK

    • Chris D. Thomas

Authors

  1. Search for Michael C. Singer in:

  2. Search for Chris D. Thomas in:

  3. Search for Camille Parmesan in:

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/366681a0

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.