DOCSLIB.ORG

The Effects of Landscape Structure on Biodiversity, Network Architecture, and Ecosystem Function Brian J

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Effects of Landscape Structure on Biodiversity, Network Architecture, and Ecosystem Function Brian J Florida State University Libraries Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School 2012 The Effects of Landscape Structure on Biodiversity, Network Architecture, and Ecosystem Function Brian J. Spiesman Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES THE EFFECTS OF LANDSCAPE STRUCTURE ON BIODIVERSITY, NETWORK ARCHITECTURE, AND ECOSYSTEM FUNCTION By BRIAN J. SPIESMAN A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Biological Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Degree Awarded: Fall Semester, 2012 Brian Spiesman defended this dissertation on October 19, 2012. The members of the supervisory committee were: Brian D. Inouye Professor Directing Dissertation Mike Mesterton-Gibbons University Representative Austin R. Mast Committee Member Thomas E. Miller Committee Member Nora Underwood 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 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am grateful for the guidance, advice, and support of my advisor, Brian Inouye. I thank Nora Underwood and the rest of the Inouye-Underwood lab group. I thank the rest of my committee, Tom Miller, Austin Mast, and Mike Mesterton-Gibbons for their help in developing my research. I thank Sophie Hyson for her help in the field and Andrés Plata Stapper for his essential help in the lab. Funding for this dissertation was provided by the National Science Foundation (DEB- 1110738), the COFRS program at FSU, the Robert K. Godfrey Endowment, the FSU Dept. of Biological Science, and the FSU Graduate School. I am grateful to my family for their support. Lastly, but most importantly, I thank Tania Kim. This dissertation would not have been possible without her. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. vi List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... vii Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... ix 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................1 2. HABITAT LOSS ALTERS THE ARCHITECTURE OF PLANT-POLLINATOR INTERACTION NETWORKS .......................................................................................................5 2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................7 2.2 Methods..........................................................................................................................9 2.2.1 Study area and sampling ....................................................................................9 2.2.2 Deriving explanatory variables ........................................................................11 2.3 Results ..........................................................................................................................13 2.3.1 SEM analysis ...................................................................................................14 2.4 Discussion ....................................................................................................................15 2.4.1 Conclusions and future directions ....................................................................18 2.5 Tables ...........................................................................................................................20 2.6 Figures..........................................................................................................................28 3. MATRIX HABITAT QUALITY MEDIATES THE EFFECTS OF PATCH SIZE AND ARRANGEMENT ON METACOMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND ECOSYSTEM FUNCTION ...................................................................................................................................36 3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................36 3.1.1 Matrix effects on local communities ................................................................37 3.1.2 Incorporating ecosystem level processes .........................................................38 3.2 Methods........................................................................................................................39 3.2.1 Experimental design.........................................................................................39 3.2.2 Leaf litter decomposition .................................................................................40 3.2.3 A molecular characterization of leaf litter microbial communities .................40 3.2.4 Statistical analysis ............................................................................................41 3.3 Results ..........................................................................................................................42 3.4 Discussion ....................................................................................................................43 3.4.1 Future directions ..............................................................................................45 3.5 Figures..........................................................................................................................46 4. THE CONSEQUENCES OF MULTIPLE INDIRECT PATHWAYS OF INTERACTION FOR SPECIES COEXISTENCE ...................................................................................................52 4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................52 iv 4.2 The Model ....................................................................................................................54 4.2.1 Model analysis .................................................................................................55 4.3 Results and Discussion ................................................................................................57 4.3.1 Community-level effects of mutualism ...........................................................59 4.3.2 Conclusions ......................................................................................................60 4.4 Figures..........................................................................................................................61 5. CONCLUSION .....................................................................................................................67 APPENDICES ...............................................................................................................................69 A. LANDSCAPE STRUCTURE EFFECTS ON OAK COMMUNITY STRUCTURE ...........69 B. LANDSCAPE AND COMMUNITY STRUCTURE EFFECTS ON ECOSYSTEM FUNCTION ...................................................................................................................................70 C. MATRIX QUALITY MEDIATES THE EFFECTS OF PATCH SIZE AND ARRANGEMENT ON OAK LITTER COMMUNITY STRUCTURE .......................................71 REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................73 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .........................................................................................................82 v LIST OF TABLES 2.1 List of plant species ...........................................................................................................20 2.2 List of pollinator morphospecies .......................................................................................22 2.3 Unstandardized/standardized path coefficients and covariance/correlations ....................26 2.4 Matrices of standardized total (A) and indirect (B) effects ...............................................27 A1 Type III summary of linear mixed effects model testing the effect of oak patch size, arrangement, and matrix quality on species composition in oak patches ..................69 A2 Type III summary of linear mixed effects model testing the effect of oak patch size, arrangement, and matrix quality on species richness in oak patches ........................69 B1 Type III summary of linear mixed effects model testing the effect of patch size, arrangement, and matrix quality on the rate of oak leaf litter decomposition ...................70 B2 Type III summary of linear mixed effects model testing the effect of oak species richness and composition on the rate of oak leaf litter decomposition ..............................70 C1 Type III summary of linear mixed effects model testing the effect of a bare ground matrix on species richness in oak patches .............................................................71 C2 Type III summary of linear mixed effects model testing the effect of bare ground matrix on species composition in oak patches ...................................................................71 C3 Type III summary of linear mixed effects model testing the effect of a pine litter matrix and pine species composition on species composition in oak patches ...................71 C4 Type III summary of linear
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Beetle Appreciation Diversity and Classification of Common Beetle Families Christopher E
    Beetle Appreciation Diversity and Classification of Common Beetle Families Christopher E. Carlton Louisiana State Arthropod Museum Coleoptera Families Everyone Should Know (Checklist) Suborder Adephaga Suborder Polyphaga, cont. •Carabidae Superfamily Scarabaeoidea •Dytiscidae •Lucanidae •Gyrinidae •Passalidae Suborder Polyphaga •Scarabaeidae Superfamily Staphylinoidea Superfamily Buprestoidea •Ptiliidae •Buprestidae •Silphidae Superfamily Byrroidea •Staphylinidae •Heteroceridae Superfamily Hydrophiloidea •Dryopidae •Hydrophilidae •Elmidae •Histeridae Superfamily Elateroidea •Elateridae Coleoptera Families Everyone Should Know (Checklist, cont.) Suborder Polyphaga, cont. Suborder Polyphaga, cont. Superfamily Cantharoidea Superfamily Cucujoidea •Lycidae •Nitidulidae •Cantharidae •Silvanidae •Lampyridae •Cucujidae Superfamily Bostrichoidea •Erotylidae •Dermestidae •Coccinellidae Bostrichidae Superfamily Tenebrionoidea •Anobiidae •Tenebrionidae Superfamily Cleroidea •Mordellidae •Cleridae •Meloidae •Anthicidae Coleoptera Families Everyone Should Know (Checklist, cont.) Suborder Polyphaga, cont. Superfamily Chrysomeloidea •Chrysomelidae •Cerambycidae Superfamily Curculionoidea •Brentidae •Curculionidae Total: 35 families of 131 in the U.S. Suborder Adephaga Family Carabidae “Ground and Tiger Beetles” Terrestrial predators or herbivores (few). 2600 N. A. spp. Suborder Adephaga Family Dytiscidae “Predacious diving beetles” Adults and larvae aquatic predators. 500 N. A. spp. Suborder Adephaga Family Gyrindae “Whirligig beetles” Aquatic, on water
    [Show full text]
  • A Catalogue of Coleoptera Specimens with Potential Forensic Interest in the Goulandris Natural History Museum Collection
    ENTOMOLOGIA HELLENICA Vol. 25, 2016 A catalogue of Coleoptera specimens with potential forensic interest in the Goulandris Natural History Museum collection Dimaki Maria Goulandris Natural History Museum, 100 Othonos St. 14562 Kifissia, Greece Anagnou-Veroniki Maria Makariou 13, 15343 Aghia Paraskevi (Athens), Greece Tylianakis Jason Zoology Department, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand http://dx.doi.org/10.12681/eh.11549 Copyright © 2017 Maria Dimaki, Maria Anagnou- Veroniki, Jason Tylianakis To cite this article: Dimaki, M., Anagnou-Veroniki, M., & Tylianakis, J. (2016). A catalogue of Coleoptera specimens with potential forensic interest in the Goulandris Natural History Museum collection. ENTOMOLOGIA HELLENICA, 25(2), 31-38. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.12681/eh.11549 http://epublishing.ekt.gr | e-Publisher: EKT | Downloaded at 27/12/2018 06:22:38 | ENTOMOLOGIA HELLENICA 25 (2016): 31-38 Received 15 March 2016 Accepted 12 December 2016 Available online 3 February 2017 A catalogue of Coleoptera specimens with potential forensic interest in the Goulandris Natural History Museum collection MARIA DIMAKI1’*, MARIA ANAGNOU-VERONIKI2 AND JASON TYLIANAKIS3 1Goulandris Natural History Museum, 100 Othonos St. 14562 Kifissia, Greece 2Makariou 13, 15343 Aghia Paraskevi (Athens), Greece 3Zoology Department, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand ABSTRACT This paper presents a catalogue of the Coleoptera specimens in the Goulandris Natural History Museum collection that have potential forensic interest. Forensic entomology can help to estimate the time elapsed since death by studying the necrophagous insects collected on a cadaver and its surroundings. In this paper forty eight species (369 specimens) are listed that belong to seven families: Silphidae (3 species), Staphylinidae (6 species), Histeridae (11 species), Anobiidae (4 species), Cleridae (6 species), Dermestidae (14 species), and Nitidulidae (4 species).
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of Sampling and Monitoring Methods for Beneficial Arthropods
    insects Review A Review of Sampling and Monitoring Methods for Beneficial Arthropods in Agroecosystems Kenneth W. McCravy Department of Biological Sciences, Western Illinois University, 1 University Circle, Macomb, IL 61455, USA; [email protected]; Tel.: +1-309-298-2160 Received: 12 September 2018; Accepted: 19 November 2018; Published: 23 November 2018 Abstract: Beneficial arthropods provide many important ecosystem services. In agroecosystems, pollination and control of crop pests provide benefits worth billions of dollars annually. Effective sampling and monitoring of these beneficial arthropods is essential for ensuring their short- and long-term viability and effectiveness. There are numerous methods available for sampling beneficial arthropods in a variety of habitats, and these methods can vary in efficiency and effectiveness. In this paper I review active and passive sampling methods for non-Apis bees and arthropod natural enemies of agricultural pests, including methods for sampling flying insects, arthropods on vegetation and in soil and litter environments, and estimation of predation and parasitism rates. Sample sizes, lethal sampling, and the potential usefulness of bycatch are also discussed. Keywords: sampling methodology; bee monitoring; beneficial arthropods; natural enemy monitoring; vane traps; Malaise traps; bowl traps; pitfall traps; insect netting; epigeic arthropod sampling 1. Introduction To sustainably use the Earth’s resources for our benefit, it is essential that we understand the ecology of human-altered systems and the organisms that inhabit them. Agroecosystems include agricultural activities plus living and nonliving components that interact with these activities in a variety of ways. Beneficial arthropods, such as pollinators of crops and natural enemies of arthropod pests and weeds, play important roles in the economic and ecological success of agroecosystems.
    [Show full text]
  • A Preliminary Detective Survey of Hymenopteran Insects at Jazan Lake Dam Region, Southwest of Saudi Arabia
    Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences 28 (2021) 2342–2351 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com Original article A preliminary detective survey of hymenopteran insects at Jazan Lake Dam Region, Southwest of Saudi Arabia Hanan Abo El-Kassem Bosly 1 Biology Department - Faculty of Science - Jazan University, Saudi Arabia article info abstract Article history: A preliminary detective survey for the hymenopteran insect fauna of Jazan Lake dam region, Southwest Received 16 November 2020 Saudi Arabia, was carried out for one year from January 2018 to January 2019 using mainly sweep nets Revised 6 January 2021 and Malaise traps. The survey revealed the presence of three hymenopteran Superfamilies (Apoidea, Accepted 12 January 2021 Vespoidea and Evanioidea) representing 15 species belonging to 10 genera of 6 families (Apidae, Available online 28 January 2021 Crabronidae, Sphecidae, Vespidae, Mutillidae, and Evaniidae). The largest number of species has belonged to the family Crabronidae is represented by 6 species under 2 genera. While the family Apidae, is repre- Keywords: sented by 2 species under 2 genera. Family Vespidae is represented by 2 species of one genus. While, the Survey rest of the families Sphecidae, Mutillida, and Evaniidae each is represented by only one species and one Insect fauna Hymenoptera genus each. Eleven species are predators, two species are pollinators and two species are parasitics. Note Jazan for each family was provided, and species was provided with synonyms and general and taxonomic Saudi Arabia remarks and their worldwide geographic distribution and information about their economic importance are also included.
    [Show full text]
  • Changes in Arthropod Abundance and Diversity with Invasive
    CHANGES IN ARTHROPOD ABUNDANCE AND DIVERSITY WITH INVASIVE GRASSES A Thesis by ERIN E. CORD Submitted to the College of Graduate Studies Texas A&M University-Kingsville in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE August 2011 Major Subject: Range and Wildlife Management CHANGES IN ARTHROPOD ABUNDANCE AND DIVERSITY WITH INVASIVE GRASSES A Thesis by ERIN E. CORD Approved as to style and content by: ______________________________ Andrea R. Litt, Ph.D. (Chairman of Committee) ___________________________ ___________________________ Timothy E. Fulbright, Ph.D. Greta L. Schuster, Ph.D. (Member) (Member) _____________________________ Scott E. Henke, Ph.D. (Chair of Department) _________________________________ Ambrose Anoruo, Ph.D. (Associate VP for Research & Dean, College of Graduate Studies) August 2011 ABSTRACT Changes in Arthropod Abundance and Diversity with Invasive Grasses (August 2011) Erin E. Cord, B.S., University Of Delaware Chairman of Committee: Dr. Andrea R. Litt Invasive grasses can alter plant communities and can potentially affect arthropods due to specialized relationships with certain plants as food resources and reproduction sites. Kleberg bluestem (Dichanthium annulatum) is a non-native grass and tanglehead (Heteropogon contortus) is native to the United States, but recently has become dominant in south Texas. I sought to: 1) quantify changes in plant and arthropod communities in invasive grasses compared to native grasses, and 2) determine if grass origin would alter effects. I sampled vegetation and arthropods on 90 grass patches in July and September 2009 and 2010 on the King Ranch in southern Texas. Arthropod communities in invasive grasses were less diverse and abundant, compared to native grasses; I also documented differences in presence and abundance of certain orders and families.
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity, Evolution and Ecological Specialization of Baculoviruses: A
    Biodiversity, Evolution and Ecological Specialization of Baculoviruses: A Treasure Trove for Future Applied Research Julien Thézé, Carlos Lopez-Vaamonde, Jenny Cory, Elisabeth Herniou To cite this version: Julien Thézé, Carlos Lopez-Vaamonde, Jenny Cory, Elisabeth Herniou. Biodiversity, Evolution and Ecological Specialization of Baculoviruses: A Treasure Trove for Future Applied Research. Viruses, MDPI, 2018, 10 (7), pp.366. 10.3390/v10070366. hal-02140538 HAL Id: hal-02140538 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02140538 Submitted on 26 May 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution| 4.0 International License viruses Article Biodiversity, Evolution and Ecological Specialization of Baculoviruses: A Treasure Trove for Future Applied Research Julien Thézé 1,2, Carlos Lopez-Vaamonde 1,3 ID , Jenny S. Cory 4 and Elisabeth A. Herniou 1,* ID 1 Institut de Recherche sur la Biologie de l’Insecte, UMR 7261, CNRS—Université de Tours, 37200 Tours, France; [email protected] (J.T.); [email protected]
    [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]
  • Alfalfa Leafcutter
    Pest Profile Alfalfa leafcutter bee adult Alfalfa leafcutter bee adult on alfalfa Photo credit: Arlo Pelegrin; bugguide.net Photo credit: www.ars.usda.gov Common Name: Alfalfa leafcutter bee Scientific Name: Megachile rotundata Order and Family: Hymenoptera: Megachilidae Size and Appearance: Length (mm) Appearance Egg Larva Overwinter as mature larvae with approx. 4 larval instars Pupa Females are dark gray with light yellow bands across the abdomen and a gray ventral side. The body has special white Adult 6-9 (Females) hairs for carrying pollen (called scopa). Males are much smaller and have cream-colored, white to yellow spots on the abdomen. Type of feeder: Adults feed on and gather pollen and nectar for provision of individual nest cells, but do not feed on vegetation. Female alfalfa leafcutter bees are very effective pollinators of alfalfa, canola, legumes, flowers, berries, and some vegetables and fruits. Adult female leafcutter bees will cut smooth, semicircular pieces from leaves to use in the formation of nests in which eggs will be laid. Lifecycle: This solitary bee, which was introduced from Europe in the late 1930s, has a short life span with females living a few weeks during the summer, and males dying soon after mating. Most leafcutter bees only have a single generation each year. Female alfalfa leafcutter bees will construct tube-like tunnels from leaf material and within each approx. 8-inch long tube may build up to 2 dozen individual nest cells in which the female will lay a single egg. Each nest cell is provisioned with nectar and pollen for the larvae to feed after hatching.
    [Show full text]
  • Wasps (Hymenoptera, Vespidae) of Warsaw and Mazovia
    POLISH ACADEMY OF SCIENCES • INSTITUTE OF ZOOLOGY MEMORABILIA ZOOLOGICA MEMORABILIA ZOOL. 36 91— 102 1982 EWA SKIBIŃSKA WASPS (HYMENOPTERA, VESPIDAE) OF WARSAW AND MAZOVIA ABSTRACT In the Vespidae of Mazovia 42 species have been recorded, including 11 social and 31 solitary wasps. In Warsaw only 14 species have been recorded, which account for 33.3",, of the wasps of Mazovia. They include 7 solitary species (22.5% of the wasps of Mazovia) and 7 social species (63.6°0). In the areas subject to extremely high urban pressure, two social species are almost the only wasps. These ars V. (V.J vulgaris and V. ( V.) germanica. A zoogeographical analysis shows that the proportion of the species with large ranges increased in the town. Wasps occurring in urban green areas mostly include ubiquitous social species and solitary species without specific requirements for nest sites. INTRODUCTION The family of wasps have been studied by few workers in Poland. They mostly prepared faunal lists of wasps or inserted fragmentary data on them in general lists of the Aculeata of a given area. Relatively best known wasps are those living in western Poland, that is, in Silesia, due to the studies carried out by Dittrich [5], in Pomerania, due to the studies by Paul [15], and also in southern Poland, mostly in Little Poland and the Tatra mountains, due to the studies conducted by Wierzejski [22], Niezabitowski [13], Niesiołowski [12], and Drogoszewski [6—8]. The earliest data from Mazovia are given by Nasonov [11], who lists Vespidae from Warsaw and some near localities like Otwock and Gałachy.
    [Show full text]
  • The Earliest Record of Fossil Solid-Wood-Borer Larvae—Immature Beetles in 99 Million-Year-Old Myanmar Amber
    Palaeoentomology 004 (4): 390–404 ISSN 2624-2826 (print edition) https://www.mapress.com/j/pe/ PALAEOENTOMOLOGY Copyright © 2021 Magnolia Press Article ISSN 2624-2834 (online edition) PE https://doi.org/10.11646/palaeoentomology.4.4.14 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:9F96DA9A-E2F3-466A-A623-0D1D6689D345 The earliest record of fossil solid-wood-borer larvae—immature beetles in 99 million-year-old Myanmar amber CAROLIN HAUG1, 2, *, GIDEON T. HAUG1, ANA ZIPPEL1, SERITA VAN DER WAL1 & JOACHIM T. HAUG1, 2 1Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Biocenter, Großhaderner Str. 2, 82152 Planegg-Martinsried, Germany 2GeoBio-Center at LMU, Richard-Wagner-Str. 10, 80333 München, Germany �[email protected]; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9208-4229 �[email protected]; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6963-5982 �[email protected]; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6509-4445 �[email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7426-8777 �[email protected]; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8254-8472 *Corresponding author Abstract different plants, including agriculturally important ones (e.g., Potts et al., 2010; Powney et al., 2019). On the Interactions between animals and plants represent an other hand, many representatives exploit different parts of important driver of evolution. Especially the group Insecta plants, often causing severe damage up to the loss of entire has an enormous impact on plants, e.g., by consuming them. crops (e.g., Metcalf, 1996; Evans et al., 2007; Oliveira et Among beetles, the larvae of different groups (Buprestidae, Cerambycidae, partly Eucnemidae) bore into wood and are al., 2014).
    [Show full text]
  • Plant-Derived Pyrrolizidine Alkaloid Protects Eggs of a Moth (Utetheisa Ornatrix) Against a Parasitoid Wasp (Trichogramma Ostriniae)
    Plant-derived pyrrolizidine alkaloid protects eggs of a moth (Utetheisa ornatrix) against a parasitoid wasp (Trichogramma ostriniae) Alexander Bezzerides*, Tze-Hei Yong†, Julie Bezzerides*, Jad Husseini*, Joshua Ladau*, Maria Eisner*, and Thomas Eisner*‡ Departments of *Neurobiology and Behavior and †Entomology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853 Contributed by Thomas Eisner, April 13, 2004 Pyrrolizidine alkaloid (PA), sequestered by the moth Utetheisa ornatrix from its larval food plant, is transmitted by both males and females to the eggs. Males confer PA on the female by seminal infusion, and females pass this gift, together with PA that they themselves procured as larvae, to the eggs. Here we show that PA protects the eggs against parasitization by the chalcidoid wasp, Trichogramma ostriniae. Eggs laid subsequent to a first mating of an Utetheisa female receive most of their PA from the female. The amount they receive from the male is insufficient to provide for full protection. However, female Utetheisa are promiscuous and there- fore likely to receive PA on a cumulative basis from their male partners. chemical defense ͉ parasitism ͉ Arctiidae ͉ Trichogrammatidae he moth Utetheisa ornatrix (henceforth called Utetheisa), a Tmember of the tiger moth family (Arctiidae), is distasteful at all stages of development. As a larva, it feeds on plants of the genus Crotalaria (Fabaceae), from which it sequesters toxic, intensely bitter, pyrrolizidine alkaloids (PAs). The compounds are retained systemically through metamorphosis by both sexes and eventually are allocated in part to the eggs. Both sexes Fig. 1. Trichogramma on an egg of Utetheisa. The specimen was abruptly contribute to the egg endowment.
    [Show full text]
  • Bees and Wasps of the East Sussex South Downs
    A SURVEY OF THE BEES AND WASPS OF FIFTEEN CHALK GRASSLAND AND CHALK HEATH SITES WITHIN THE EAST SUSSEX SOUTH DOWNS Steven Falk, 2011 A SURVEY OF THE BEES AND WASPS OF FIFTEEN CHALK GRASSLAND AND CHALK HEATH SITES WITHIN THE EAST SUSSEX SOUTH DOWNS Steven Falk, 2011 Abstract For six years between 2003 and 2008, over 100 site visits were made to fifteen chalk grassland and chalk heath sites within the South Downs of Vice-county 14 (East Sussex). This produced a list of 227 bee and wasp species and revealed the comparative frequency of different species, the comparative richness of different sites and provided a basic insight into how many of the species interact with the South Downs at a site and landscape level. The study revealed that, in addition to the character of the semi-natural grasslands present, the bee and wasp fauna is also influenced by the more intensively-managed agricultural landscapes of the Downs, with many species taking advantage of blossoming hedge shrubs, flowery fallow fields, flowery arable field margins, flowering crops such as Rape, plus plants such as buttercups, thistles and dandelions within relatively improved pasture. Some very rare species were encountered, notably the bee Halictus eurygnathus Blüthgen which had not been seen in Britain since 1946. This was eventually recorded at seven sites and was associated with an abundance of Greater Knapweed. The very rare bees Anthophora retusa (Linnaeus) and Andrena niveata Friese were also observed foraging on several dates during their flight periods, providing a better insight into their ecology and conservation requirements.
    [Show full text]