Feeding specialization and host-derived chemical defense in Chrysomeline leaf beetles did not lead to an evolutionary dead end

被引:111
作者
Termonia, A
Hsiao, TH
Pasteels, JM
Milinkovitch, MC
机构
[1] Free Univ Brussels, Unit Evolutionary Genet, ULB, Inst Mol Biol & Med, B-6041 Gosselies, Belgium
[2] Free Univ Brussels, Lab Biol Anim & Cellulaire, ULB, Inst Mol Biol & Med, B-6041 Gosselies, Belgium
[3] Utah State Univ, Dept Biol, Logan, UT 84322 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1073/pnas.061034598
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Combination of molecular phylogenetic: analyses of Chrysomelina beetles and chemical data of their defensive secretions indicate that two lineages independently developed, from an ancestral autogenous metabolism, an energetically efficient strategy that made the insect tightly dependent on the chemistry of the host plant. However, a lineage (the interrupta group) escaped this subordination through the development of a yet more derived mixed metabolism potentially compatible with a large number of new host-plant associations. Hence, these analyses on leaf beetles document a mechanism that can explain why high levels of specialization do not necessarily lead to "evolutionary dead ends."
引用
收藏
页码:3909 / 3914
页数:6
相关论文
共 59 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1984, Insects on plants
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1999, ADV CHRYSOMELIDAE BI
[3]   Insects on plants: Macroevolutionary chemical trends in host use [J].
Becerra, JX .
SCIENCE, 1997, 276 (5310) :253-256
[4]   ON THE EVOLUTION OF HOST SPECIFICITY IN PHYTOPHAGOUS ARTHROPODS [J].
BERNAYS, E ;
GRAHAM, M .
ECOLOGY, 1988, 69 (04) :886-892
[5]  
Bernays E. A., 1994, Host-plant selection by phytophagous insects.
[6]  
BREMER K, 1994, CLADISTICS, V10, P295, DOI 10.1006/clad.1994.1019
[7]  
Cox CB, 1993, BIOGEOGRAPHY ECOLOGI
[8]  
EHRLICH PR, 1964, EVOLUTION, V18, P586, DOI 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1964.tb01674.x
[9]  
ELLIAS SA, 1996, ARCTIC, V49, P292
[10]   When the topology-dependent permutation test (T-PTP) for monophyly returns significant support for monophyly, should that be equated with (a) rejecting a null hypothesis of nonmonophyly, (b) rejecting a null hypothesis of ''no structure,'' (c) failing to falsify a hypothesis of monophyly, or (d) none of the above? [J].
Faith, DP ;
Trueman, JWH .
SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY, 1996, 45 (04) :580-586