» Articles » PMID: 35866015

Additive Genetic Variation, but Not Temperature, Influences Warning Signal Expression in Moths (Lepidoptera: Arctiinae)

Overview
Journal Ecol Evol
Date 2022 Jul 22
PMID 35866015
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Many aposematic species show variation in their color patterns even though selection by predators is expected to stabilize warning signals toward a common phenotype. Warning signal variability can be explained by trade-offs with other functions of coloration, such as thermoregulation, that may constrain warning signal expression by favoring darker individuals. Here, we investigated the effect of temperature on warning signal expression in aposematic moths that vary in their black and orange wing patterns. We sampled moths from two flight seasons that differed in the environmental temperatures and also reared different families under controlled conditions at three different temperatures. Against our prediction that lower developmental temperatures would reduce the warning signal size of the adult moths, we found no effect of temperature on warning signal expression in either wild or laboratory-reared moths. Instead, we found sex- and population-level differences in wing patterns. Our rearing experiment indicated that ~70% of the variability in the trait is genetic but understanding what signaling and non-signaling functions of wing coloration maintain the genetic variation requires further work. Our results emphasize the importance of considering both genetic and plastic components of warning signal expression when studying intraspecific variation in aposematic species.

Citing Articles

Predator selection on multicomponent warning signals in an aposematic moth.

Hamalainen L, Binns G, Hart N, Mappes J, McDonald P, ONeill L Behav Ecol. 2024; 35(1):arad097.

PMID: 38550303 PMC: 10976905. DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arad097.


Additive genetic variation, but not temperature, influences warning signal expression in moths (Lepidoptera: Arctiinae).

Binns G, Hamalainen L, Kemp D, Rowland H, Umbers K, Herberstein M Ecol Evol. 2022; 12(7):e9111.

PMID: 35866015 PMC: 9288930. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.9111.

References
1.
Friman V, Lindstedt C, Hiltunen T, Laakso J, Mappes J . Predation on multiple trophic levels shapes the evolution of pathogen virulence. PLoS One. 2009; 4(8):e6761. PMC: 2726984. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0006761. View

2.
Lindstrom L, Alatalo R, Lyytinen A, Mappes J . Strong antiapostatic selection against novel rare aposematic prey. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001; 98(16):9181-4. PMC: 55394. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.161071598. View

3.
Speed . Warning signals, receiver psychology and predator memory. Anim Behav. 2000; 60(3):269-278. DOI: 10.1006/anbe.2000.1430. View

4.
Roskam J, Brakefield P . A COMPARISON OF TEMPERATURE-INDUCED POLYPHENISM IN AFRICAN BICYCLUS BUTTERFLIES FROM A SEASONAL SAVANNAH-RAINFOREST ECOTONE. Evolution. 2017; 50(6):2360-2372. DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1996.tb03624.x. View

5.
Evans J . Quantitative genetic evidence that males trade attractiveness for ejaculate quality in guppies. Proc Biol Sci. 2010; 277(1697):3195-201. PMC: 2982068. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2010.0826. View