Defensive secretion of a flightless grasshopper: Failure to prevent lizard attack

Summary We tested the role of a grasshopper defensive secretion in deterring lizard predation. Adults, but not young larvae, of the chemically defended lubber grasshopperRomalea guttata (=microptera) froth a volatile secretion when attacked by predators. The lizardAnolis carolinensis failed to strike juvenile lubbers (which lack secretion) in laboratory trials. Survivorship of palatable crickets loaded with secretion offered toA. carolinensis was not significantly different from survivorship of control crickets. In experiments designed to investigate if lizards learn an aversion to the secretion, striking times forSceloporus undulatus fed wax worms coated with secretion were not significantly different over three days of trials. Three primary conclusions are drawn from these data. First, the secretion may not be necessary for lubber protection from lizards. Second, lubber secretion does not appear to deter lizards from attacking or eating prey items. Third, lizards do not appear to develop an aversion to the secretion.     

Cardenolide content,emetic potency,and thin-layer chromatography profiles of monarch butterflies,Danaus plexippus,and their larval host-plant milkweed,Asclepias humistrata,in Florida

Summary This paper is the fourth in a series on cardenolide fingerprints of monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus, Danainae) and their host-plant milkweeds (Asclepiadaceae) in the eastern United States. Cardenolide concentrations ofAsclepias humistrata plants from north central Florida ranged from 71 to 710 µg/0.1 g dry weight, with a mean of 417 µg/0.1 g. Monarchs reared individually on these plants contained cardenolide concentrations ranging from 243 to 575 µg/0.1 g dry weight, with a mean of 385 µg/0.1 g. Cardenolide uptake by butterflies was independent of plant concentration, suggesting that sequestration saturation occurs in monarchs fed cardenolide-rich host plants. Thinlayer chromatography resolved 19 cardenolides in the plants and 15 in the butterflies. In addition to humistratin,A. humistrata plants contained several relatively non-polar cardenolides of the calotropagenin series which are metabolized to more polar derivatives in the butterflies. These produced a butterfly cardenolide fingerprint clearly distinct from those previously established for monarchs reared on otherAsclepias species. In emetic assays with the blue jay,Cyanocitta cristata, the 50% emetic dose (ED₅₀) per jay was 57.1 µg, and the average number of ED₅₀ units per butterfly was 13.8, establishing that this important south eastern milkweed produces highly emetic, chemically defended monarchs. Our data provide further support for the use of cardenolide fingerprints of wild-caught monarchs to make ecological predictions concerning defence against natural enemies, seasonal movement and larval host-plant utilization by monarch butterflies during their annual cycle of migration, breeding and overwintering.     

Mimicry: imitative depiction of discharged defensive secretion on carapace of an opilionid

Summary. The opilionid, Parampheres ronae, has a pair of orange markings on its carapace at a location where some other opilionids discharge yellowish, quinone-containing defensive fluid. P. ronae itself produces a defensive secretion, but the fluid is quinone-free and nearly translucent. We suggest that the orange markings in P. ronae are aposematic in the sense that they are imitative of the glandular emissions of quinone-producing opilionids.     

Multi-level complexity in the use of plant allelochemicals by aposematic insects

Summary As recognized by Miriam Rothschild as early as the 1960s and repeatedly emphasized in her papers, the use, misuse, or non-use of plant allelochemicals by insects is extremely variable and difficult to predict, at many levels of time, space, and biological organization. Although certain patterns that reoccur have been important in the development of ecological theory, the optimization of cost-benefit equations involving two or three trophic levels, each with large numbers of individuals, populations, and species in erratic and complex interactions, produces unexpected and fascinating scenarios. The development of rapid colorimetric and chromatographic analyses for several types of plant allelochemicals, notably certain groups of alkaloids, cardiac and cyanogenic glycosides, phenolics, terpenes, and glucosinolates, has permitted a detailed investigation of the variation and flow of these substances in natural organisms and ecosystems. The results of these analyses, in our hands mostly for pyrrolizidine alkaloids (PAs), do not suggest a straightforward classical choice by the aposematic insect to simply sequester or synthesize its defences. Rather, they reveal a confusing variety of diffuse and complex patterns that become increasingly closer to chaos as they are multiplied across structures, species, sexes, stages, sites, seasons, and selective regimes. We present a model reflecting results of analyses at this chemoecological interface. Depending upon an initial option, involving the recognition (or not) of a plant allelochemical, the herbivore will face thereafter options to ingest it (or not), and then to tolerate and absorb (or detoxify and excrete), modify (or not), passively, actively or selectively accumulate, turn over (or not), distribute (or concentrate), and use this compound in a variety of growth, defense, or reproductive functions. The herbivore can also quantitatively or qualitatively regulate the intensity or dispersion of its attack on the plant tissues, in order to modify feedback loops of selection on the plant and its chemicals which exist in most of the earlier steps, or those with its predators and parasites that occur in the later ones. Options that lead to mutualism through positive feedback loops will tend to accumulate and become rapidly fixed by natural selection. Additional variations and anomalies such as automimicry, chemical mimicry, sexual dimorphism and communication, selective sequestration and passing-up of allelochemicals, special glands and structures, and synergism effects, are among the secondary complications of this model that have occupied much thought, time, experimental labor, and polemical space in chemical ecology journals and meetings. Examination of the tendencies and results at various points in the model can be used to explain these features and to make further predictions, plan experiments, and devise activity-based bioassays and new chemical analyses. These may lead some day to new and more robust visions of the major patterns of chemical transfer at this widespread and important natural interface.