title: Warning color changes in response to food deprivation in the pipevine swallowtail butterfly, Battus philenor.
abstract: Predation on distasteful animals should favor warning coloration that is relatively conspicuous and phenotypically invariable. However, even among similarly colored individuals there can be variation in their warning signals. In butterflies, individual differences in larval feeding history could cause this variation. The warning signal of the pipevine swallowtail butterfly, Battus philenor L. (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae) consists of both a blue iridescent patch and pigmentbased orange spots on the ventral hindwing. B. philenor males also display a dorsal surface iridescent patch that functions as a sexual indicator signal. A previous study of iridescence in B. philenor found that the iridescent blue on both the dorsal and ventral hind wings is variable and significantly different between lab-reared and field-caught individuals. These differences could be the result of larval food deprivation in the field. Through experimental manipulation of larval diet, larval food deprivation was evaluated as a potential cause of the differences observed between lab and field individuals, and if food deprivation is a source of inter-individual variation in warning signals. B. philenor larvae were food restricted starting at two points in the last larval instar, and one group was fed through pupation. Adult coloration was then compared. Food deprivation led to poorer adult condition, as indicated by lower adult body mass, forewing length, and fat content of stressed individuals. As the level of food deprivation increased, the hue of the iridescent patches on both the dorsal and ventral hind wing shifted to shorter wavelengths, and the chroma of the orange spots decreased. The shifts in iridescent color did not match the differences previously found between lab and field individuals. However, the treatment differences indicate that food deprivation may be a significant source of warning color variation. The differences between the treatment groups are likely detectable by predators, but the effect of the variation on signal effectiveness and function remains to be empirically explored.
authors.affiliation: 1 School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-4601.
authors.forename: Kimberly V
authors.initials: KV
authors.lastname: Pegram
authors.forename: Alexandra C
authors.initials: AC
authors.lastname: Nahm
authors.forename: Ronald L
authors.initials: RL
authors.lastname: Rutowski
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D001130:Arizona; D002080:Butterflies / Q000254:growth & development / Q000502:physiology*; D003116:Color; D005260:Female; D005508:Food Deprivation; D007814:Larva / Q000254:growth & development / Q000502:physiology; D008297:Male; D010858:Pigmentation; D011897:Random Allocation; D014921:Wings, Animal / Q000502:physiology*
references.citation: Am Nat. 2010 Dec;176(6):768-84
references.pmid: 20942644
references.citation: Evolution. 2004 May;58(5):1038-46
references.pmid: 15212384
references.citation: Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 1972;24:75-106
references.pmid: 4581858
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2004 Apr 22;271(1541):771-83
references.pmid: 15255094
references.citation: Evolution. 2008 Sep;62(9):2334-45
references.pmid: 18616568
references.citation: J Chem Ecol. 2005 Dec;31(12):2835-46
references.pmid: 16365708
references.citation: Oecologia. 1998 Apr;114(2):274-282
references.pmid: 28307942
references.citation: Evolution. 2010 Dec;64(12):3629-33
references.pmid: 21188752
references.citation: Oecologia. 1991 Nov;88(3):422-429
references.pmid: 28313806
references.citation: Evolution. 2008 Sep;62(9):2346-58
references.pmid: 18637962
references.citation: J Comp Physiol A. 1998 Nov;183(5):621-33
references.pmid: 9839454
references.citation: Evolution. 1980 Mar;34(2):342-355
references.pmid: 28563428
references.citation: J Exp Biol. 2002 Dec;205(Pt 23):3747-55
references.pmid: 12409501
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2005 Nov 7;272(1578):2329-35
references.pmid: 16191648
references.citation: Evolution. 1997 Dec;51(6):2050-2053
references.pmid: 28565127
references.citation: J Comp Physiol A. 2000 Apr;186(4):375-87
references.pmid: 10798725
references.citation: J Evol Biol. 2008 Sep;21(5):1297-306
references.pmid: 18631280
references.citation: Evolution. 2005 Aug;59(8):1819-28
references.pmid: 16331840
references.citation: Evolution. 2008 Jul;62(7):1610-1617
references.pmid: 18373625
references.citation: Nature. 2001 Oct 4;413(6855):512-4
references.pmid: 11586357
references.citation: J Comp Physiol A. 2001 Nov;187(9):685-97
references.pmid: 11778831
references.citation: Evolution. 2008 Nov;62(11):2913-21
references.pmid: 18752602
references.citation: Nature. 2004 Sep 2;431(7004):63-6
references.pmid: 15343332
references.citation: Oecologia. 2005 Jul;144(3):353-61
references.pmid: 15891831
references.citation: Evolution. 2007 Jan;61(1):168-83
references.pmid: 17300436
references.citation: Evolution. 1986 Jul;40(4):804-816
references.pmid: 28556175
references.citation: J Econ Entomol. 2007 Jun;100(3):627-45
references.pmid: 17598520
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 1998 Mar 7;265(1394):351-8
references.pmid: 9523436
references.citation: Trends Neurosci. 1993 Nov;16(11):430-6
references.pmid: 7507611
references.citation: Biol Bull. 1975 Aug;149(1):214-25
references.pmid: 1138977
references.citation: Evolution. 2009 Feb;63(2):469-78
references.pmid: 19154362
references.citation: Am Nat. 2004 Apr;163(4):532-47
references.pmid: 15122501
references.citation: Evolution. 1993 Apr;47(2):400-416
references.pmid: 28568718
references.citation: Nature. 2007 Jul 5;448(7149):64-7
references.pmid: 17611539