Directional and stabilizing selection on wing size and shape in migrant and resident monarch butterflies,Danaus plexippus(L.), in Cuba

Abstract

The majority of migrant monarchs (Danaus plexippus) from the eastern USA and south-eastern Canada migrate to Mexico; however, some of them migrate to Cuba. Cuban migrants hatch in south-east Canada and eastern USA, and then engage in a southern trip of 4000 km to this Caribbean island. In Cuba, these migrants encounter resident monarchs, which do not migrate, and instead move between plant patches looking for nectar, mating partners and host plants. These differences in flight behaviour between migrant and resident Cuban monarchs may have resulted in different selective pressures in the wing size and shape. Two modes of selection were tested, directional and stabilizing. In addition, wing condition was compared between these two groups. Monarchs were collected for 4 years in Cuba and classified as resident or migrant using two independent techniques: Thin-layer chromatography and stable hydrogen and stable carbon isotope measurements. Wing size was measured and wing condition was rated in the butterflies. Fourier analysis and wing angular measurements were used to assess wing shape differences. Migrants have significantly longer wings than residents, thus supporting the action of directional selection on wing size. In addition, directional selection acts on wing shape; that is, migrant females differ significantly from resident females in their wing angles. However, the results do not support the action of stabilizing selection: there was no significant variance between migrant and resident monarchs in their wing size or shape. Also, migrant females and males differed in wing condition as a result of differences in flight behaviour. In conclusion, eastern North American monarchs offer a good opportunity to study the selective pressures of migration on wing morphology and how different migratory routes and behaviours are linked to wing morphology and condition. © 2007 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2007, 92, 605–616.