Translator Disclaimer
1 March 2008 Trophic Interactions Involving Herpetogramma phaeopteralis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) and Passiflora incarnata (Passifloraceae)
Author Affiliations +

During several nights in Aug, 2007, I observed tropical sod webworm moths, Herpetogramma phaeopteralis Guenée (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) swarming in large numbers around flowering purple passion vines, Passiflora incarnata L. (Passifloraceae) in suburban north central Florida. Tropical sod webworms use a variety of Poaceae species as larval host plants and probably were emerging from sod grass. Upon closer observation with flash photography, I found that moths fed on the extrafloral nectaries (EFN) located on the bracteoles of the plants (Fig. 1). In this note, I am reporting this observation with the understanding that (like many observations in tropical biology) it might be based on a sporadic rather than on a reoccurring interaction. I also discuss potential ecological significance of this interaction while reviewing the pertinent literature.

Exploitation of EFN by a variety of insects has been reported for a number of plants. For instance, Ipomoea carnea (Convolvulaceae) in Costa Rica attracts insects of 70 different families of Coleoptera, Hemiptera, Lepidoptera, Neuroptera, Diptera, and Hymenoptera (Keeler 1978). A dry area specialist in northwestern Peru, Strymon jacqueline Nicolay & Robbins (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae), feeds on EFN of Neoraimondia arequipensis cactus (Vila & Eastwood 2006). Hesperopsis graciliae (MacNeill) (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae) commutes back and forth between its host plant and mesquite, Prosopis glandulosa (Fabaceae), utilizing the EFN of the latter plant (Wesenborn 1997). Pink bollworm moths, Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) are attracted to cotton flower volatiles that serve as chemical cues for the moths to find the EFN (Wiesenborn & Baker 1990). A variety of African liptenine lycaenid butterflies (Lycaenidae) feed on EFN of bamboos and vines (Callaghan 1992).

The importance of feeding on EFN was shown in increased fertility in soybean looper, Pseudoplusia includens (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). It was even suggested that cultivars of cotton lacking EFN should be used to reduce herbivory and thus increase crop production (Beach et al. 1985). Oviposition by Heliothis puntigera Wallengren (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on cotton also was correlated with EFN production (Adjei-Maafo & Wilson 1983). Fecundity and longevity of Grapholita molesta (Busck) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) doubled when moths were provided EFN of peaches (Atanassov & Shearer 2005).

EFN has high nutritional value. It was shown to be better than sucrose for increasing flight ability of Cotesia glomerata L. (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) (Wanner et al. 2006), and better than honey for increasing longevity and fecundity of Microplitis croceipes (Cresson) (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) (Roese et al. 2006). EFN-feeding had similar beneficial effect on Trichogramma minutum Riley (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae) (Shearer & Atanassov 2004) and on lacewing larvae (Limburg & Rosenheim 2001). Attraction of such natural enemies to EFN helps suppress herbivores. For instance, parasitism of Lepidoptera larvae is higher, while diversity of herbivore species is lower on the EFN-bearing plants of Solanum adherens Roem. and Shult. (Solanaceae) than on species of Solanum lacking nectaries (Gentry 2003).

According to Rudgers (2004), EFN production can have detrimental properties for a plant, by the way of attracting female moths, which not only feed on EFN but also may oviposit on the plant. Ants were thought to be frequently exploitive of EFN-producing plants (e.g., Wheeler 1913). Ants attracted to extrafloral nectaries can deter pollinators such as bees from flowers (Ness 2006). In the neotropics, several coexisting Passiflora species develop different degrees of attractiveness to ants through differences in their EFN development and productivity, which suggests that there are costs and benefits to EFN presence (Apple & Feener 2001). Nevertheless, attendance of extrafloral nectaries by ants was shown to reduce herbivory in Passiflora (e.g., Labeyrie et al. 2001), and specifically in P. incarnata (McLaine 1983). In a field experiment, young Heliconius (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) larvae disappeared from Passiflora plants with EFN at a rate double that of plants without the nectaries (Smiley 1985). By protecting plants against herbivores and nectar-stealing butterflies, ants positively influenced reproductive success of Passiflora coccinea in Brazil, where their presence increased fruit and seed production (Leal et al. 2006).

EFN production can be induced by herbivory. Feeding by larvae of Ceratomia catalpae (Boisduval) (Lepidoptera: Sphingiidae), increased sugars in EFN of Catalpa bignonioides Walter (Bignoniaceae) and led to up to ten-fold increase in attendance by ants (Ness 2003). Similarly, feeding by Heliconius charithonius L. and Agraulis vanillae L. (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) (which was very heavy on the plants in my observation) might be a factor that induced nectar production in EFN of Passiflora, and contributed to attracting the moths. The latter supposition, however, needs to be experimentally tested. I must note though, that if not for the EFN and the numerous ants attracted to them during the day, H. charithonius and A. vanillae larvae would have completely devoured the plants, as happens to the plants when access to ants is denied (pers. obs.). As it was, despite of hundreds of eggs laid on the plants daily, few survived past the first instar due to predation. However, after the first cold temperatures in Nov, the EFNs seemingly shut down production, little attendance by ants was observed, and the survival of the caterpillars feeding on the vines increased dramatically, leading to complete defoliation of the vines. From the view point of benefit to the plants, such strategy is explicable because the above-ground tissues of P. incarnate typically are killed by freezing temperatures in north central Florida.

Extrafloral nectar feeding by H. phaeopteralis reported here possibly falls into the category of quadro-trophic interactions involving plants, butterfly caterpillars, ants, and adult moths. The fourth level of trophic interactions (moths “stealing” EFN at night) does not necessarily have significant influence on the tri-trophic interaction between plants, herbivores, and ants described by previous authors. Although in a study by Heil et al. (2004) the number of EFN-feeding flies correlated negatively with the number of ants attending the plants, the extent to which H. phaeopteralis may have similar effect on ants attending P. incarnata is unclear.

I thank George T. Austin (FLMNH) for identifying the moths.

Summary

Feeding on extrafloral nectar of Passiflora incarnata by tropical sod webworm moths, Herpetogramma phaeopteralis, in Florida is reported and ecological implications of this observation are discussed.

References Cited

1.

I. K. Adjei-Maafo and L. T. Wilson . 1983. Association of cotton nectar production with Heliothis punctigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) oviposition. Environ. Entomol 12:1166–1170. Google Scholar

2.

AppleJ. L. and D. H. Feener Jr . 2001. Ant visitation of extrafloral nectaries of Passiflora: the effects of nectary attributes and ant behavior on patterns in facultative ant-plant mutualisms. Oecologia 127:409–416. Google Scholar

3.

A. Atanassov and P. W. Shearer . 2005. Peach extrafloral nectar impacts life span and reproduction of adult Grapholita molesta (Busck) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). J. Agric. and Urban Entomol 22:41–47. Google Scholar

4.

R. M. Beach, J. W. Todd, and S. H.Baker . 1985. Nectaried and nectariless cotton cultivars as nectar sources for the adult soybean looper. J. Entomol. Sci 20:233–236. Google Scholar

5.

C. J. Callaghan 1992. Biology of epiphyll feeding butterflies in a Nigerian cola forest (Lycaenidae: Lipteninae). J. Lepidopterists’ Soc 46:203–214. Google Scholar

6.

G. Gentry 2003. Multiple parasitoid visitors to the extrafloral nectaries of Solanum adherens. Is S. adherens an insectary plant? Basic and Appl. Ecol 4–405–411. Google Scholar

7.

M. Heil, A. Hilpert, R. Krueger, and K. E. Linsenmair . 2004. Competition among visitors to extrafloral nectaries as a source of ecological costs of an indirect defense. J. Trop. Ecol 20:201–208. Google Scholar

8.

K. H. Keeler 1978. Insects feeding at extrafloral nectaries of Ipomoea carnea (Convolvulaceae). Entomol. News 89:163–168. Google Scholar

9.

E. Labeyrie, L. Pascal, J. Delabie, J. Orivel, A. Dejean, and M. Hossaert-McKey . 2001. Protection of Passiflora glandulosa (Passifloraceae) against herbivory: impact of ants exploiting extrafloral nectaries. Sociobiol 38:317–321. Google Scholar

10.

I. R. Leal, E. Fischer, K. Christian, M. Tabarelli, and R. Wirth . 2006. Ant protection against herbivores and nectar thieves in Passiflora coccinea flowers. Ecoscience 13:431–438. Google Scholar

11.

D. D. Limburg and J. A. Rosenheim . 2001. Extrafloral nectar consumption and its influence on survival and development of an omnivorous predator, larval Chrysoperla plorabunda (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). Environ. Entomol 30:595–604. Google Scholar

12.

D. K. McLain 1983. Ants, extrafloral nectaries and herbivory on the passion vine, Passiflora incarnata. American Midland Naturalist 110:433–439. Google Scholar

13.

J. H. Ness 2006. A mutualism’s indirect costs: the most aggressive plant bodyguards also deter pollinators. Oikos 113:506–514. Google Scholar

14.

J. H. Ness 2003. Catalpa bignonioides alters extrafloral nectar production after herbivory and attracts ant bodyguards. Oecologia 134:210–218. Google Scholar

15.

U. S R. Roese, J. Lewis, and J. H. Tumlinson . 2006. Extrafloral nectar from cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) as a food source for parasitic wasps. Functional Ecol 20:67–74. Google Scholar

16.

J. A. Rudgers 2004. Extrafloral nectar as a resource mediating multispecies interactions. Ecology 85:1495–1502. Google Scholar

17.

P. W. Shearer and A. Atanassov . 2004. Impact of peach extrafloral nectar on key biological characteristics of Trichogramma minutum (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae). J. Econ. Entomol 97:789–792. Google Scholar

18.

J. T. Smiley 1985. Heliconius caterpillar mortality during establishment on plants with and without attending ants. Ecol 66:845–849. Google Scholar

19.

R. Vila and R. Eastwood . 2006. Extrafloral nectar feeding by Strymon jacqueline Nicolay & Robbins, 2005 (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae: Eumaeini). Revista Peruana de Biologia 13–25–128. Google Scholar

20.

H. Wanner, H. Gu, and S. Dorn . 2006. Nutritional value of floral nectar sources for flight in the parasitoid wasp, Cotesia glomerata. Physiol. Entomol 31:127–133. Google Scholar

21.

W. M. Wheeler 1913. Ants. Their Structure, Development and Behavior. Columbia Univ. Press, New York. 663 pp. Google Scholar

22.

W. D. Wiesenborn 1997. Hesperopsis graciliae (MacNeill) (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae) flight between hostplants and Prosopis glandulosa Torrey. Pan-Pacific Entomol 73(3):186–189. Google Scholar

23.

W. D. Wiesenborn and T. C. Baker . 1990. Upwind flight to cotton flowers by Pectinophora gossypiella (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). Environ. Entomol 19(3):490–493. Google Scholar

Appendices

Fig. 1.

Tropical sod webworm moth, Herpetogramma phaeopteralis Guenée, feeding on extrafloral nectary of Passiflora incarnata L.

i0015-4040-91-1-136-f01.gif

Fig. 2.

Florida carpenter ants, Camponotus floridanus (Buckley), feeding on extrafloral nectary of Passiflora incarnata L.

i0015-4040-91-1-136-f02.gif
Andrei Sourakov "Trophic Interactions Involving Herpetogramma phaeopteralis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) and Passiflora incarnata (Passifloraceae)," Florida Entomologist 91(1), 136-138, (1 March 2008). https://doi.org/10.1653/0015-4040(2008)091[0136:TIIHPL]2.0.CO;2
Published: 1 March 2008
JOURNAL ARTICLE
3 PAGES


SHARE
ARTICLE IMPACT
Back to Top