Back to the Table of contents

ACCEPTABILITY OF LOTUS CORNICULATUS AND LOTUS ULIGINOSUS AS A FOOD SOURCE FOR NON-PEST BUTTERFLY LARVAE

A. Hopkins and P. J. Murray
Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research
North Wyke Research Station
Okehampton, Devon, EX20 2SB. UK

The potential effects of sown legumes on the wildlife of agricultural ecosystems is a subject that has received scant attention. In the United Kingdom sown Lotus is still of negligible agricultural importance, though wild lotus is a constituent of semi-natural grasslands where it is an important food source for the larvae of several butterfly species. As many butterfly species have declined markedly in recent decades as a result of intensive agriculture, many are now widely regarded as important 'emblematic' species and targets for conservation measures in, for example, biodiversity action plans. However, agricultural cultivars of L. corniculatus have been reported to be unsuitable food plants for at least one butterfly species, the Common Blue (Polyommatus icarus) (Pollard and Yates, 1995). In this research we investigated the feeding preferences of three butterfly species which use lotus as food plants, Common Blue, Wood White (Leptidea sinapsis) and Clouded Yellow (Colias croceus), for native and cultivated varieties of lotus.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Plants of Lotus corniculatus (cv. Leo and a local English wild type), and of L. uliginosus (cv. Maku) were grown from seed, in 10cm diameter pots, in potting compost. The pots were held outside, under ambient conditions, until required. Butterfly species were obtained as early and late instar larvae (late only for Common Blue) from a commercial supplier, and kept in separate insect cages in the laboratory until required. While the larvae were in the cages white clover was provided as the food source. Entire leaves were excised from each plant and placed singly on moist filter paper in a 9 cm. petri-dish, together with one larva. Ten replicates were set up for each of the plant varieties and each butterfly species. The leaves were chosen so that they were of a similar size and maturity for each plant species. The dishes were then sealed and stored at 20(2oC in an incubator with a 16h light period, for 24h. After 24h the dishes were removed from the incubator and the leaves removed. The area of leaf eaten by the larvae was assessed with a grid of mm squares. The fresh weight of plant material eaten was determined by weighing known areas of leaf on a microbalance immediately after excision.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

For each butterfly species there was a wide variation in the leaf dry matter intake. The larvae of both Common Blue and Wood White consumed more of cv. Leo than either wild lotus or cv. Maku, whilst Clouded Yellow consumed significantly less of cv. Leo than either wild lotus or cv. Maku, at both stages of larval development (Table 1.).

Table 1. Mean weight (mg/d) and SEM of lotus leaf consumed by three species of butterfly larvae

L.corniculatus
wild
L.corniculatus
cv Leo
L.corniculatus
cv Maku
Wood White (Late instar)
1.4 (0.75)
6.5 (2.41)
1.3 (0.43)
Wood White (Early instar)
0.1 (0.08)
0.3 (0.17)
0.2 (0.06)
Clouded Yellow (Late instar)
4.6 (0.65)
1.1 (1.14)
4.0 (0.73)
Clouded Yellow (Early instar)
0.8 (0.22)
0.1 (0.12)
0.7 (0.20)
Common Blue (Late instar)
3.7 (0.01)
8.8 (1.01)
2.9 (0.12)

An important finding was that carbon assimilation by Clouded Yellow differed between lotus varieties. Investigation of the excretory products revealed that for the wild lotus the larvae were able to assimilate a high proportion (44%) of their carbon intake, whereas for cv. Maku the proportion assimilated was much lower (25%). Thus, the larvae were consuming plant material but they were able to assimilate less of it. This may possibly be related to the differences in amount of condensed tannins (not measured in this study). This could be of major consequence for the conservation of this species if lotus were to become a widely sown forage.

REFERENCES

Pollard E and Yates T J. (1995) Monitoring butterflies for ecology and conservation. The British butterfly monitoring scheme. Peterborough: JNCC/ ITE.

Back to the Table of contents