DOCSLIB.ORG

A Comparison of Predation Rates Measured by Various Types of Sentinel Prey

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Comparison of Predation Rates Measured by Various Types of Sentinel Prey Author Manuscript This is the author manuscript accepted for publication and has undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as doi: 10.1111/jen.12745 This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved Fresh, frozen or fake: a comparison of predation rates measured by various types of sentinel prey Rebecca K. Nagya,b, Nancy A. Schellhornb† and Myron P. Zaluckia aSchool of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia bCSIRO, Brisbane, Qld 4001, Australia †RapidAim, Brisbane, Qld 4000, Australia Acknowledgements Thanks goes to UQAuthor Manuscript Gatton for allowing access to their property to conduct this research. Thanks also to Anna Marcora for her help procuring insects from Narrabri and Dr Lynda Perkins for her help with statistics. R.K.N.’s research is funded by the Australian This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved Government Research Training Program (RTP), AW Howard Memorial Trust and Advance Queensland. Author Manuscript This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved 1 2 MRS. REBECCA NAGY (Orcid ID : 0000-0002-5562-7957) 3 4 5 Article type : Advances in Methodology 6 7 Formatted: Left, Line spacing: Multiple 1.08 li 8 Corresponding author mail id: [email protected] Formatted: Font: 12 pt 9 Fresh, frozen or fake: a comparison 10 of predation rates measured by 11 various types of sentinel prey 12 13 Rebecca K. Nagya,b, Nancy A. Schellhornb and Myron P. Zaluckia 14 aSchool of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld 4072, Australia 15 bCSIRO, Brisbane, Qld 4001, Australia 16 17 18 Abstract 19 Arthropod predators and parasitoids support the health and functioning of the world’s 20 ecosystems, most notably by supplying biological control services to agricultural landscapes. Author Manuscript This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved 21 Quantifying the impact that these organisms have on their prey can be challenging, as direct 22 observation and measurement of arthropod predation is difficult. The use of sentinel prey is 23 one method to measure predator impact; however, despite widespread use, few studies 24 have compared predation on different prey types within a single experiment. This study 25 evaluated the predation rates on four sentinel prey items in grass and wheat fields in south- 26 east Queensland, Australia. Attack rates on live and dead Helicoverpa armigera eggs, and 27 dead H. armigera larvae and artificial plasticine larvae, were compared and the predators 28 that were attracted to each prey type were documented with the use of field cameras. There 29 was no significant difference in predation rates between sentinel eggs, while dead larvae 30 were significantly more attacked than artificial larvae. Prey were attacked by a diverse range 31 of predators, including ants, beetles, various nymph and juvenile insects and small 32 mammals. Different predators were active in grass and crop fields, with predator activity 33 peaking around dawn and dusk. The same trends were observed within and between the 34 two habitats studied, providing a measure of confidence in the sentinel prey method. A 35 range of different sentinel prey types could be suitable for use in most comparative studies; 36 however, each prey type has its own benefits and limitations, and these should be carefully 37 evaluated to determine which is most suitable to address the research questions. 38 39 40 Keywords 41 Predation; grassland; crop; Helicoverpa armigera; plasticine 42 43 44 Introduction Author Manuscript This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved 45 Ecosystem services play a vital role in maintaining the health and functioning of the world’s 46 habitats. Predation is one of the most important ecosystem services, as it has the ability to 47 alter the structure and stability of entire ecosystems. Predation can influence all ecosystem 48 levels, from individual organisms (determining colour, body size, behaviour and life history), 49 to populations (size and stability) and whole communities (species abundance and diversity, 50 regulating herbivore abundance and reducing resource depletion effects) (Powell, Walton, & 51 Jervis, 1996; Sam, Remmel, & Molleman, 2015; Sih, Crowley, McPeek, Petranka, & 52 Strohmeier, 1985). Insects are arguably the largest and most diverse group on the planet, 53 and are also valuable predators, with one quarter of all insect species believed to be 54 predatory or parasitic in at least one life-history stage (Gullan & Cranston, 2014). Insect 55 predators are most well known for their role in agricultural biological control programs, with 56 the economic value of insect-mediated pest control estimated to be over $4.5 billion annually 57 in the US alone (Losey & Vaughan, 2006). 58 Almost every ecosystem in the world benefits from insect predation services; however, 59 measuring and quantifying predators’ impact on their prey is challenging, and the reliability of 60 such evaluations are often questionable (Furlong & Zalucki, 2010; Losey & Vaughan, 2006). 61 Direct observation and measurement of insect predation is very difficult, due to the small 62 size of arthropods, their speed, cryptic habitats, infrequency of their attacks, frequent night 63 activity and the fact predation often leaves no evidence (Low, Sam, McArthur, Posa, & 64 Hochuli, 2014; Powell et al., 1996). As a result, predator presence, absence and density are 65 often measured and impact is inferred – a two-fold increase in predator density is presumed 66 to result in a two-fold increase in predation. This is rarely the case, however, and not a good 67 measure of likely predator effectiveness (Howe, Lövei, & Nachman, 2009; Macfadyen, 68 Davies, & Zalucki, 2015). Informed decisions regarding pest control and Integrated Pest 69 Management (IPM) cannot be made without some “more realisticdirect” evidence of the 70 impact of natural enemy activity (Macfadyen et al., 2015; Zalucki, Furlong, Schellhorn, 71 Macfadyen, & Davies, 2015). Author Manuscript This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved 72 Evidence in the form of direct estimation of predator impact is required for practical decision- 73 making, and several methods have been developed to achieve this, including direct field 74 observation, use of sentinel prey, exclusion cage studies, use of in-field cameras and video 75 recording and gut content identification (Hughes et al., 1973; Macfadyen et al., 2015; Powell 76 et al., 1996; Sunderland, 1987). The use of sentinel prey involves monitoring the 77 disappearance of, or damage to, prey items provided by the researchers, and is one of the 78 easiest and most commonly used methods to obtain a direct, quantitative measure of 79 predation pressure under field conditions (Howe et al., 2009; Powell et al., 1996). There is 80 considerable flexibility in using sentinel prey: previous studies have used prey from a range 81 of insect orders (most commonly Lepidoptera, Coleoptera and Hemiptera), at every life stage 82 (egg, larvae, nymph, adult and pupae), either live or dead (Lövei & Ferrante, 2017). Another 83 potential ‘prey’ item gaining popularity in recent years is artificial sentinel prey – dummies, 84 created most often from plasticine, and used in place of insect ‘real’ prey (Howe et al., 2009; 85 Lövei & Ferrante, 2017). While certain characteristics of artificial prey may influence attack 86 rate, either positively or negatively, the use of dummy prey has certain advantages that may 87 still make it a suitable option for comparative studies. Artificial prey does not move or 88 behave as true prey might and lacks any potential chemical cues; however, it is cheap and 89 fast to produce, does not require mass rearing and predators can often be identified by 90 marks left in the plasticine (Lövei & Ferrante, 2017). 91 Considering the vast range of potential sentinel prey available, it is surprising that very few 92 studies have compared and evaluated several different sentinel prey types in a single study 93 (Ferrante, Barone, & Lövei, 2017; Peisley, Saunders, & Luck, 2016; Sam et al., 2015). All 94 prey have benefits and limitations, and will be better suited for certain studies over others. 95 Understanding how potential prey options perform in relation to each other is important to 96 ensure the most suitable prey are utilised to address the research questions. 97 This study evaluates the predation rates of four commonly used sentinel prey types. 98 Predation of live and dead Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) eggs, Author Manuscript This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved 99 and dead H. armigera larvae and artificial plasticine larvae, were compared, and field 100 cameras were used to observe the predators that were attracted to each prey type. This 101 study was conducted in grass and wheat fields to determine whether the observed trends 102 were consistent across different habitat types. 103 104 105 Materials and Methods 106 Study region 107 This study was undertaken at the University of Queensland’s Gatton Campus (27.5521°S, 108 151.3356°E) in the Lockyer Valley, located 80 km west of Brisbane in south-east 109 Queensland, Australia. The region has a humid subtropical climate with hot, humid 110 summers (mean maximum 30-32°C), mild to cool winters (mean maximum 20-23°C) and 111 annual rainfall averaging 750-800 mm. It is a mixed farming region, with fertile soils and 112 intensively cultivated, dominated by vegetable crops, while also supporting fodder crop 113 production, mostly grains and lucerne, and beef and dairy cattle farming. 114 One grass and one crop site were selected, 2.5 km apart. The crop was winter wheat (mid 115 grain-fill, approx. BBCH 85; Lancashire et al., 1991), and was surrounded by other wheat 116 fields and small cattle holding yards (Figure 1a).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 06-Secondary Productivity.Pptx
    BIO 3072 !Ecology !Eric L. Peters! Ecological (Biomass) Production! Earth Area Available to Support Humans! Primary Production:! Productive sea and land area Production of autotroph (producer)" biomass! available to support each Autotrophs capture and store their own" energy and synthesize their own" person in Africa: ! structural materials! 1.36 ha! Limited by photosynthetic rates! …on Earth: 1.90 ha! Secondary Production:! Production of heterotroph" Used by each W. European/U.S. (consumer) biomass! citizen:" Heterotrophs’ structural" 5.06/5.26 ha! materials (and energy) must be" World obtained from their food! Productive sea and land area needed to produce Wildlife Limited by primary productivity, number and efficiency of energy the products consumed by each U.S. citizen:" Fund," transfers, and other factors. Many chemical elements (e.g., Ca and P) 9.71 ha (the CSU campus is 64.75 ha: enough to Living Planet must be provided in specific chemical forms or combinations! sustain 12.3 U.S. citizens) ! Report 2002. ! Nutrient Requirements of Consumers! Energy-bearing Nutrients and Respiration! !Edible, adj. good to eat and wholesome to digest, as a worm Cells use many organic molecules as fuel for respiration:! to a toad, a toad to a snake, a snake to a pig, a pig to a man, and a man to a worm.! –Ambrose Bierce, The Devil’s Dictionary !" ! There is tremendous variability in organismal nutritional requirements, as well as in the adaptations to meet those needs, e.g.,! Insects require a dietary source of cholesterol, mammals manufacture
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution and Genomic Basis of Beetle Diversity
    The evolution and genomic basis of beetle diversity Duane D. McKennaa,b,1,2, Seunggwan Shina,b,2, Dirk Ahrensc, Michael Balked, Cristian Beza-Bezaa,b, Dave J. Clarkea,b, Alexander Donathe, Hermes E. Escalonae,f,g, Frank Friedrichh, Harald Letschi, Shanlin Liuj, David Maddisonk, Christoph Mayere, Bernhard Misofe, Peyton J. Murina, Oliver Niehuisg, Ralph S. Petersc, Lars Podsiadlowskie, l m l,n o f l Hans Pohl , Erin D. Scully , Evgeny V. Yan , Xin Zhou , Adam Slipinski , and Rolf G. Beutel aDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN 38152; bCenter for Biodiversity Research, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN 38152; cCenter for Taxonomy and Evolutionary Research, Arthropoda Department, Zoologisches Forschungsmuseum Alexander Koenig, 53113 Bonn, Germany; dBavarian State Collection of Zoology, Bavarian Natural History Collections, 81247 Munich, Germany; eCenter for Molecular Biodiversity Research, Zoological Research Museum Alexander Koenig, 53113 Bonn, Germany; fAustralian National Insect Collection, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia; gDepartment of Evolutionary Biology and Ecology, Institute for Biology I (Zoology), University of Freiburg, 79104 Freiburg, Germany; hInstitute of Zoology, University of Hamburg, D-20146 Hamburg, Germany; iDepartment of Botany and Biodiversity Research, University of Wien, Wien 1030, Austria; jChina National GeneBank, BGI-Shenzhen, 518083 Guangdong, People’s Republic of China; kDepartment of Integrative Biology, Oregon State
    [Show full text]
  • Vertical and Horizontal Trophic Networks in the Aroid-Infesting Insect Community of Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve, Mexico
    insects Article Vertical and Horizontal Trophic Networks in the Aroid-Infesting Insect Community of Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve, Mexico Guadalupe Amancio 1 , Armando Aguirre-Jaimes 1, Vicente Hernández-Ortiz 1,* , Roger Guevara 2 and Mauricio Quesada 3,4 1 Red de Interacciones Multitróficas, Instituto de Ecología A.C., Xalapa, Veracruz 91073, Mexico 2 Red de Biologia Evolutiva, Instituto de Ecología A.C., Xalapa, Veracruz 91073, Mexico 3 Laboratorio Nacional de Análisis y Síntesis Ecológica, Escuela Nacional de Estudios Superiores Unidad Morelia, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Morelia 58190 Michoacán, Mexico 4 Instituto de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas y Sustentabilidad, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Morelia 58190 Michoacán, Mexico * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 20 June 2019; Accepted: 9 August 2019; Published: 15 August 2019 Abstract: Insect-aroid interaction studies have focused largely on pollination systems; however, few report trophic interactions with other herbivores. This study features the endophagous insect community in reproductive aroid structures of a tropical rainforest of Mexico, and the shifting that occurs along an altitudinal gradient and among different hosts. In three sites of the Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve in Mexico, we surveyed eight aroid species over a yearly cycle. The insects found were reared in the laboratory, quantified and identified. Data were analyzed through species interaction networks. We recorded 34 endophagous species from 21 families belonging to four insect orders. The community was highly specialized at both network and species levels. Along the altitudinal gradient, there was a reduction in richness and a high turnover of species, while the assemblage among hosts was also highly specific, with different dominant species.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Download
    Popular Article Journal Home: www.bioticainternational.com Article: RT561 How to cite this article? Biotica Nisha and Bose, 2021. Insects Saprophagy. Biotica Research [Research Today 3(5): 279-281. [ Today Abstract nsects provide important ecosystem services like Nutrient cycling, 279 decomposition of animal and plant matter and decomposers Vol 3:5 of corpse. Many insects and other arthropods are important 281 decomposersI especially Coleoptera, Diptera, Blattodae (Termites), 2021 and few Hymenoptera. These insects are largely responsible to create a layer of humus on the soil that provides an ideal environment for Insects Saprophagy various fungi, microorganisms and bacteria. These organisms produce much of the nitrogen, carbon, and minerals that plants need for Nisha Pradeepa K.* and A. Subash growth. Carrion feeders include several beetles, ants, mites, wasps, fly larvae (maggots), and others. These insects occupy the dead Chandra Bose body for a short period of time but rapidly consume and/or bury the S. Thangapazham Agricultural College, Vasudevanallur, carcass. Typically, some species of fly are the first to eat the body, but the order of insects that follows is predictable and known as the Tenkasi, Tamil Nadu (627 760), India faunal procession. Insects help humans in eradicating the dead and the decaying matter from human habitations. Introduction aprophagy refers to the eating of non living organic Open Access material (decomposing dead plant or animal biomass) Corresponding Author Sto obtain their essential nutrients (Price et al., 2011). The activity of animals feeding only on dead wood is called Nisha Pradeepa K. e-mail: [email protected] sapro-xylophagy. Within the ranks of saprophagous insects, entomologists recognize several major groups: • Those that feed on dead or dying plant tissues, • Those that feed on dead animals (carrion), and Keywords Decomposers, Dung rollers, Recyclers, Scavengers • Those that feed on the excrement (feces) of other animals.
    [Show full text]
  • Using Species Traits to Understand the Mechanisms Driving Pollination and Pest Control Ecosystem Services
    Using species traits to understand the mechanisms driving pollination and pest control ecosystem services Arran Greenop (B.Sc., MRes) March 2020 Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Contents Summary ...................................................................................................................... iv List of figures ................................................................................................................. v List of tables .................................................................................................................. vi Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................... viii Declarations ................................................................................................................. viii Statement of authorship ................................................................................................ ix 1. Chapter 1. Thesis introduction ....................................................................................... 1 1.1. Background ............................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Thesis outline ............................................................................................................ 8 2. Chapter 2. Functional diversity positively affects prey suppression by invertebrate predators: a meta-analysis .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 2. Additional Information Supporting an Application to Introduce Exotic Pastoral Dung Beetles Into New Zealand
    Appendix 2. Additional information supporting an application to introduce exotic pastoral dung beetles into New Zealand 1. Scope of the literature used in this appendix 2. Introduction: Native dung beetle diversity 2.1 Reproduction 3. The effect of exotic species on native species: habitat and soil preference 3.1 Habitat Specificity 3.2 Habitat preferences of native dung beetles 3.3 Habitat preferences of pastoral dung beetles in New Zealand 3.4 Soil preference 4. Benefits to the pastoral habitat above and below ground 4.1 Soil Compaction 4.2 Nutrient Cycling 5. Benefits to availability of pasture and calculating dung production 6. Benefits to the health of livestock 6.1 Destruction of nematode eggs 6.2 Dung Beetles and the suppression of nematodes 6.3 Dung beetles aiding in parasitic survival and dispersal 6.4 Dung beetle burial activity reduces pest fly numbers 6.5 Benefits to pest fly control in Australia 6.6 Dung removal and human disease transmission by flies 7. Dung beetle activity increases earthworm populations and depth at which earthworms are found 8. Effect of dung beetles on the rate at which water infiltrates soil 9. Agricultural emissions 9.1 Methane 10. Economic benefits 10.1 Calculating future benefits of dung beetles in New Zealand 10.2 Estimating production increases from dung burial by Bubas bison, a winter active species considered for release in New Zealand 11. References 1. Scope of the literature used in this appendix A literature search of online journals and data bases yielded over 1,720 published articles and reports covering all aspects of dung beetle ecological research.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Characteristics of Mushroom Mite Assemblages in Temperate Deciduous Forests
    Ecological characteristics of mushroom mite assemblages in temperate deciduous forests Dead wood is a resource for many organisms Kimiko Okabe, Motohiro Hasegawa, Tsutomu Hattori, Hiroshi Tanaka & Shun’ichi Makino(FFPRI) Objectives of this study To determine: 1. Effects of habitat diversity (mushroom richness) for inhabitants (mites), 2. Importance of habitat connectivity for mites, To address the question: 3. Can dead wood be an indicator of forest biodiversity, especially for fungi and associated animal communities? Background data 35 30 25 20 15 plantations 10 secondary&natural Species numbers 5 0 0 50 100 150 200 Stand age (years after clear-cut) Hattori et al （unpublished） Materials and Methods : study sites Ogawa Forest Reserve & research sites 5km Fig. 2.A Monitoring mosaic sites andlandscape their ages. The 128of yrplantation, old plot is a part of OFRgawa Research Forest secondary, and primary forests Materials and Methods : mushroom mite sampling Long-last fruiting bodies e.g. bracket fungi Ephemeral fruiting bodies •Line census & sampling of mushrooms on 10x100 m plots in 7 different stands in 2003 & an old growth forest in 2001-04 between April and November. •Hand sorting of mites from samples. Materials and Methods : soil mite sampling ８ｍ 125ml 5cm ８ｍ Quadrate sampling of soil in 7 stands and mite sampling from each soil sample to compare with mushroom samples. Results: mushroom and mite species richness 600 500 precipitation 400 300 mite 50 200 Mushroom 100 0 40 30 20 Species numbers 10 0 May Nov Apr Nov Apr Nov Apr Nov 2001 2002 2003 2004 Sampling time Mite species richness was correlated with mushroom diversity per sampling in the old growth forest (GLM, P = 0.0198).
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Discussion of Trophic Preferences in Dung Beetle Communities
    Miscel.lania Zooloqica 19.1 (1996) 13 A comparative discussion of trophic preferences in dung beetle communities F. Martín-Piera & J. M. Lobo Martín-Piera, F. & Lobo, J. M., 1996. A comparative discussion of trophic preferences in dung beetle communities. Misc. Zool., 19.1: 13-3 1. A cornparative discussion on trophic pre ferences in dung beetle cornrnunities. - Ava i la ble information on trophic preferences of dung beetles (Scarabaeoidea) in different biogeographic regions is reviewed. Trophic resource partitioning in a dung beetle (Coleoptera, Scarabaeoidea) community in the ((Parque Nacional de Doñana)), Spain, was also studied, using nine different kinds of wild and domestic vertebrate excrement as trap bait. Undifferentiated attraction to human and herbivore faeces was noted. Human and domestic ungulate faeces was colonized by a richer fauna than that of wild herbivores, which was not the specialized trophic adaptation of any species. Although polyphagy is the most common feeding behaviour, the excrement of carnivores and other omnivores was hardly colo- nized. This pattern differs from that of other biogeographic regions. Negligible importance of the trophic dimension on the structure of these communities may be due to the early presence of man in the Palaearctic Region. Nevertheless, human interference alone cannot have led to an absence of true polyphagy (undifferentiated attraction to al1 kinds of faeces). Further research is suggested, aimed at determining whether observed resource partitioning in dung beetles communities is a consequence of human colonization or is a pre-Neolithic evolutionary event. Key words: Dung beetles, Coleoptera, Scarabaeoidea, Trophic preferences, Resource par- titioning, Ecological-historical causes. (Rebut: 22 1 96; Acceptació condicional.
    [Show full text]
  • Insects Associated with Droppings of Moose, Alces Alces (L), in Isle Royale National Park, Michigan
    The Great Lakes Entomologist Volume 46 Numbers 3 & 4 - Fall/Winter 2013 Numbers 3 & Article 6 4 - Fall/Winter 2013 October 2013 Insects Associated With Droppings of Moose, Alces Alces (L), in Isle Royale National Park, Michigan Alexander T. Egan University of Minnesota Roger D. Moon University of Minnesota Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle Part of the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation Egan, Alexander T. and Moon, Roger D. 2013. "Insects Associated With Droppings of Moose, Alces Alces (L), in Isle Royale National Park, Michigan," The Great Lakes Entomologist, vol 46 (2) Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle/vol46/iss2/6 This Peer-Review Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Biology at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Great Lakes Entomologist by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]. Egan and Moon: Insects Associated With Droppings of Moose, <i>Alces Alces</i> (L 204 THE GREAT LAKES ENTOMOLOGIST Vol. 46 Nos. 3 - 4 Insects Associated With Droppings of Moose, Alces alces (L), in Isle Royale National Park, Michigan Alexander T. Egan1 and Roger D. Moon1 Abstract Moose (Alces alces [L]) droppings were sampled in June-August, 2007, in Isle Royale National Park, a remote wilderness island in Lake Superior, to characterize biodiversity of the park’s moose dung fauna. Twelve Diptera and nine Coleoptera species were obtained, for a total of 21 insect taxa. Twenty of the taxa are newly recorded colonists or visitors to moose dung.
    [Show full text]
  • Food Web Complexity and Community Dy~~Amics Gary A. Polis
    Food Web Complexity and Community Dy~~amics Gary A. Polis; Donald R. Strong The American Nuturulist, Vol. 147, No. 5 (May, 19961, 8 13-846. Stable URL: ht~p://links.~stor.org/sici?sici=O0O3-0147%2#199605%29 147%3A5%3C# 13%3mCACD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-3 The American Naturalist is currently pubIished by The University of Chicago Press. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, availabIe ac http://www.~s~or.org/aboutl~eims.h~ml.JST0R1s Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in parc, chat unIess you have obtained prior permission, you may not downIoad an entire issue of a journa1 or muItipIe copies of arcicIes, and you may use contenc in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. PIease contacc he pubIisher regarding any furher use of chis work. Publisher contacc information may be obcained at ht~p://www.js~or.org/joui~als/ucpress.h~ml. Each copy of any parc of a JSTOR transmission musc concain the same copyrighc nocice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is an independent not-for-profic organization dedicated to creating and preserving a digita1 archive of scholarly journals. For more information regarding JSTOR, p1eae concact J stor-info @Jscor.org. http://www.js~or.org/ Sat Apr 10 19:03:29 2004 Vol. l47<No. 5 The Amertcan Naturalist May 1996 FOOD WEB COMPLEXITY AND COMMUNITY DYNAMICS 'Department of Biology, Vanderbilt University, Box 93, Nashville, Tennessee 37235: I~odega Marine Laboratory, University aâ California, Box 247, Bodega Bay, California 94923 Suhwit~edMarch 31, 1995; Revised August 19, l995; Accepted Septet nber 7, 1995 Ah.sf~uct.-Food webs in nature have multipIe, reticulate connections between a diversity of consumers and resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Sampling Soil and Roots in Citrus Groves: Principles and Methods
    Sampling Soil and Roots in Citrus Groves: Principles and Methods Larry Duncan UF, IFAS, CREC Lake Alfred Observation Measurement Why sample? How many? When and where? Then what? Observation Never miss opportunities to examine the root systems of trees. Conventional APS, microjet APS, drip Schumann APS trial Auburndale Severely affected by HLB by year 4. Exacerbated by other pests? Measurement What is there? Are there enough to be damaging? How can we know what is there with reasonable certainty at an affordable cost? (sample optimization) . From the APS survey, how confident can we be that pests caused greater damage to roots in the APS plots than in the conventional plots? Confidence interval – if we had sampled this block the same way 100 times, 95% of the 100 mean estimates would be in the range shown by the error bars. P=0.003 If there is actually no difference between these treatments in how much pests damaged the roots, we could expect to find this difference in our sample results just 3 times in one thousand trials. Confidence interval = x ± 2 s / √n P=0.003 Length of error bars depends on the natural variation that occurs among samples and the number of samples taken. This is an example of what we P=0.62 might find if we had sampled just 6 instead of 16 trees in each treatment. Optimizing sample size P=0.003 Standard error = d x = s / √n where d=some proportion of x √n = s / dx n = (s / dx)2 So if we know the likely mean and P=0.62 standard deviation we can estimate an appropriate sample number.
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogeny and Feeding Trait Evolution of the Mega-Diverse Gelechioidea (Lepidoptera: Obtectomera): New Insight from 19 Nuclear Genes
    Systematic Entomology (2016), 41,112–132 DOI:10.1111/syen.12143 Phylogeny and feeding trait evolution of the mega-diverse Gelechioidea (Lepidoptera: Obtectomera): new insight from 19 nuclear genes JAE-CHEON SOHN1,2,3,JEROMEC.REGIER1,CHARLES MITTER1,DAVIDADAMSKI2,JEAN-FRANÇOISLANDRY4, MARIA HEIKKILÄ2,3,KYU-TEKPARK5,TERRYHARRISON6, KIM MITTER1,ANDREASZWICK7,AKITOY.KAWAHARA8, SOOWON CHO9,MICHAELP.CUMMINGS10 and PATRIC SCHMITZ11 1Department of Entomology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, U.S.A., 2Department of Entomology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, U.S.A., 3Department of Paleobiology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, U.S.A., 4Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, C.E.F., Ottawa, Canada, 5National Academy of Sciences, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 6Department of Entomology, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, U.S.A., 7Australian National Insect Collection, CSIRO Ecosystem Science, Canberra, Australia, 8Florida Museum of Natural History/McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, U.S.A., 9Department of Plant Medicine, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Republic of Korea, 10Laboratory of Molecular Evolution, Center for Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, U.S.A. and 11PEPS, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, U.S.A. Abstract. The Gelechioidea (>18 000 species), one of the largest superfamilies of Lepidoptera, are a major element of terrestrial ecosystems and include important pests and biological model species. Despite much recent progress, our understanding of the classi!cation, phylogeny and evolution of Gelechioidea remains limited. Building on recent molecular studies of this superfamily and a recently revised family/subfamily classi!cation, we provide an independent estimate of among-family relationships, with little overlap in gene sample.
    [Show full text]