Viewed in Barbosa Et Al
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Florida State University Libraries Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School 2018 Insects in Variable Plant Patches Andrew Charles Merwin Follow this and additional works at the DigiNole: FSU's Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected] FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES INSECTS IN VARIABLE PLANT PATCHES By ANDREW CHARLES MERWIN A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Biological Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2018 Andrew Merwin defended this dissertation on August 27, 2018. The members of the supervisory committee were: Nora Underwood Professor Co-Directing Dissertation Brian Inouye Professor Co-Directing Dissertation Nick Cogan University Representative Alice Winn Committee Member Scott Burgess Committee Member Joseph Travis Committee Member The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and certifies that the dissertation has been approved in accordance with university requirements. ii Dedicated to Anita Merwin and Art Fabian, whose curiosity for the natural world was contagious. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A staggering number of kind and brilliant people have helped me with my dissertation. I owe them a mountain of gratitude. Foremost, I would like to thank my advisers, Nora Underwood and Brian Inouye, for being incomparably generous with their time and for teaching me how to think more critically and communicate more clearly. They and the other members of my committee—Scott Burgess, Nick Cogan, Joe Travis, and Alice Winn—have all been exceptionally supportive of me, my research, and my passion for teaching. In particular, I thank Alice Winn for the opportunity to teach as instructor of record and for her insightful comments on both my teaching and research. I also thank current and former members of the Underwood and Inouye labs—Amanda Buchanan, Josh Grinath, Tania Kim, David McNutt, Jessie Mutz, Jane Ogilvie, Brian Spiesman, and Molly Wiebush—for an engaging and welcoming environment, long bike rides, and contra dancing. I was awfully lucky to be around a large group of creative and interesting peer colleagues at FSU. Thank you, Zach Boudreau, Jason Cassara, Katherine Easterling, Kate Hill, Eve Humphrey, Christina Kwapich, Liz Lange, Chris Malinowski, Abigail Pastore, Cheston Peterson, and Natalie Ramirez-Bullon for being great colleagues and friends. Special thanks to Jo Imhoff and Will Ryan for your energy and creativity, especially with regard to the homemade music fest. Has there ever in history been a biology department with as much musical talent? Thanks to the Oncce-ler, Superb Itch, Galactadactyl (formerly known as Survival Knife), Megalops, Marine Snow, and Meredith Cenzer for making beautiful sounds. In addition, I am deeply indebted to the many talented undergraduate and non-traditional student colleagues who have assisted with all stages of my research and who have served as an indispensable source of motivation. They include Alex Basili, Eric Bender, Shelby Biscoe, Elizabeth Elba, Zofia Haack, Chris Hahn, Jacob Hart, Andrew Ibarra, Ryan Kilbride, Zach Lankist, Melanie Larson, Jessica Latimer, Andrew Olsson, Abigail Plyant, Aaron Yilmaz, and other members of the el-fan club. Special thanks to Theresa Jepsen for greenhouse space, plant care, and tremendous tolerance; Roy Weidner for help constructing insect cages large and small; Sandy Heath for help constructing flight mills; Joe Funderburk for using his resources to provide field space for beetle experiments; and Christy and Maxx Manchester being great and giving me space in California to not think about my dissertation. Finally, I owe the completion (and formatting) of this dissertation to Meredith Steck, who enriches my life, deepens my understanding of kindness and sincerity, and who has the best Dumbledore voice of anyone ever. This work was funded in part by Godfrey and Trott Scholarships through the Departmnet of Biological Science, a Dissertation Research Gant from the Graduate School, and a Planning Grant from Office of Research. Caw. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. vi List of Figures ........................................................................................................................... vii Abstract ................................................................................................................................... viii 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1 2. INCREASED CONSUMER DENSITY REDUCES THE STRENGTH OF NEIGHBORHOOD EFFECTS IN A MODEL SYSTEM ...................................................... 5 3. HOMIER HOSTPLANT PATCHES: NATAL HOSTPLANT EXPERIENCE INFLUENCES THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INSECT AND HOSTPLANT DENSITIES ........................................................................................................................ 26 4. THE INFLUENCE OF HABITAT PATCH AREA AND PERIMETER-TO-AREA RATIO ON THE MOVEMENT AND DENSITIES OF INSECTS: PREDICTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS .............................................................................................................. 46 5. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 66 References ................................................................................................................................ 69 Biographical Sketch .................................................................................................................. 80 v LIST OF TABLES 2.1 List of neighborhood effects and their definitions as used in this manuscript. ................... 19 2.2 ANOVA table for GLMMs of damage per gram for black-eyed peas and mung beans. ..... 20 3.1 GLMM results for offspring on and damage to collards among patches ............................ 42 3.2 GLMM results for offspring on and damage to plants within mixed patches.. ................... 43 4.1 GLMM estimates of fixed effects on beetle densities within patches................................. 61 4.2 Estimates of patch traits on recapture rates of C. sayi (n = 31). ......................................... 61 vi LIST OF FIGURES 2.1 A conceptual model for damage to a focal resource type as a function of consumer density... ........................................................................................................................... 21 2.2 Box (“landscape”) configuration ...................................................................................... 22 2.3 Estimates of GLMM parameters for per gram damage to black-eyed peas (above diagonal) and mung beans (below diagonal) in treatments of low, medium, and high beetle densities. .......................................................................................................................... 23 2.4 Per gram damage to focal resource (A) mung beans and (B) black-eyed peas as a function of neighbor and focal resource densities across three densities of bean beetles.................. 24 2.5 Damage to 1 g of black-eyed peas, the less-preferred resource, with and without 4 g of neighboring mung beans, the preferred resource (median ± IQR) ..................................... 25 3.1 Example arrangement of patches within a field-cage. Position of patch types was randomized within each cage for the experiments and cages had a height of 0.75 m (not shown) ............................................................................................................................. 44 3.2 Moth offspring per plant (caterpillars and pupae; Mean ± 1.96 SE) and estimated damage per plant (cm2 leaf tissue removed) on collards among patch types and between plant types within mixed patches. ....................................................................................................... 44 3.3 Results from small-cage experiments (mean ± 1.96 SE): (A) age at pupation (P < 0.001), (B) weight at pupation (P = 0.12). .................................................................................... 45 4.1 An example of a randomly generated landscape showing all 15 area x perimeter-to-area ratio combinations for patches. ......................................................................................... 62 4.2 Layout of soybean patches for large field experiment (35 x 95 m) ..................................... 62 4.3 Simulated patch density over time in patches that vary in their area and perimeter-to-area ratios ................................................................................................................................ 63 4.4 Densities of C. sayi in relation to patch area (A) and patch height (B) and densities of T. carolina in relation to patch area (C) and patch height (D) from our large field experiment ....................................................................................................................... 64 4.5 Untransformed recapture estimates of C. sayi (n = 31) from zero-inflated GLM. ............... 65 vii ABSTRACT Animals move through landscapes where their resources are unevenly and often patchily distributed. When animals move and choose among their scattered resources in predictable ways, ecologists may be able to anticipate the spatial distribution of their populations and the relative strength of their