Oecologia

, Volume 75, Issue 1, pp 44–53

Competition and niche relationships among Eriosoma aphids occurring on the Japanese elm

  • S. Akimoto
Original Papers

Summary

Galls of more than one species of Eriosoma (Aphidoidea) are found sympatrically even on single trees. Incipient galls are frequently invaded by conspecific and/or allospecific fundatrices. Eriosoma yangi, a component of Eriosoma communities, does not form its own galls but obligatorily usurps those of other species. There were interspecific differences in the timing of gall formation and the spatial distribution of galls. Nevertheless E. yangi fundatrices randomly invaded galls of any Eriosoma species and occupied 33%–41% of galls of each species. When more than one E. yangi fundatrix invaded one gall, mortal fights sometimes occurred. Fundatrices of gall-forming species also seemed to take part in such fights. Fundatrices of gall-forming species had a significant tendency to invade galls of a particular species. However, taking account of niche differences among species, invaders apparently entered available galls at random. Apparently E. yangi fundatrices search an extensive range within a branch for galls, while invaders of gall-forming species search a restricted speciesspecific range. The niche relation of gall-forming species in a northern community containing E. yangi were compared with those in a southern community lacking E. yangi. No obvious difference was found between them, suggesting that parasitism by E. yangi has not influenced niche divergence within the Eriosoma community.

Key words

Competition Niche relations Community Gall Aphid 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Addicott JF (1978) Niche relationships among species of aphids feeding on fireweed Can J Zool 56:1837–1841Google Scholar
  2. Akimoto S (1981) Gall formation by Eriosoma fundatrices and gall parasitism in Eriosoma yangi (Homoptera, Pemphigidae). Kontyu, Tokyo, 49:426–436Google Scholar
  3. Akimoto S (1983) A revision of the genus Eriosoma and its allied genera in Japan (Homoptera: Aphidoidea). Ins Matsum, N S 27:37–106Google Scholar
  4. Atkinson WD, Shorrocks B (1981) Competition on a divided and ephemeral resource: A simulation model. J Anim Ecol 50:461–471Google Scholar
  5. Atkinson WD, Shorrocks B (1984) Aggregation of larval Diptera over discrete and ephemeral breeding sites: The implications for coexistence. Am Nat 124:336–351Google Scholar
  6. Bultman TL, Faeth SH (1985) Patterns of intra-and interspecific association in leaf-mining insects on three oak host species. Ecol Entomol 10:121–129Google Scholar
  7. Caswell H (1978) Predator mediated coexistence: A nonequilibrium model. Am Nat 112:127–154Google Scholar
  8. Cody ML (1974) Competition and the Structure of Bird Communities. Princeton University Press, Princeton NJGoogle Scholar
  9. Colwell RK (1973) Competition and coexistence in a simple tropical community. Am Nat 107:737–760Google Scholar
  10. Connell JH (1980) Diversity and the coevolution of competitors, or the ghost of competition past. Oikos 35:131–138Google Scholar
  11. Connell JH (1983) On the prevalence and relative importance of interspecific competition: Evidence from field experiments. Am Nat 122:661–696Google Scholar
  12. Denno RF (1980) Ecotope differentiation in a guild of sap-feeding insects on the salt marsh grass, Spartina patens. Ecology 61:702–714Google Scholar
  13. Diamond JM (1978) Niche shifts and the rediscovery of interspecific competition. Am Sci 66:322–331Google Scholar
  14. Diamond J, Case TJ (1986) Overview: Introductions, extinctions, exterminations, and invasions. In: Diamond J, Case TJ (eds) Community Ecology. Harper and Row, New York, pp 65–79Google Scholar
  15. Eastop VF, Emden HF van (1972) The insect material. In: Emden HF van (ed) Aphid Technology. Academic Press, London-New York, pp 1–45Google Scholar
  16. Gibson L, Visser M (1982) Interspecific competition between two field populations of grass-feeding bugs. Ecol Entomol 7:61–67Google Scholar
  17. Hairston MG, Smith FE, Slobodkin LB (1960) Community structure, population control, and competition. Am Nat 94:421–425Google Scholar
  18. Hassel MP (1980) Some consequences of habitat heterogeneity for population dynamics. Oikos 35:150–160Google Scholar
  19. Iwao S (1968) A new regression method for analyzing the aggregation pattern of animal populations. Res Pop Ecol 10:1–20Google Scholar
  20. Jermy T (1985) Is there competition between phytophagousinsects? Z Zool Syst Evolutionsforsch 23:275–285Google Scholar
  21. Kareiva P (1982) Exclusion experiments and the competitive release of insects feeding on collards. Ecology 63:696–704Google Scholar
  22. Lack D (1971) Ecological Isolation in Birds. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  23. Lawton JH (1982) Vacant niches and unsaturated communities: A comparison of bracken herbivores at sites on two continents. J Anim Ecol 51:573–595Google Scholar
  24. Lawton JH, Strong DR (1981) Community patterns and competition in folivorous insects. Am Nat 118:317–338Google Scholar
  25. Levin SA (1976) Population dynamic models in heterogeneous environments. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 7:287–310Google Scholar
  26. Lloyd M (1967) “Mean crowding” J Anim Ecol 36:1–30Google Scholar
  27. MacArthur RH (1972) Geographical Ecology. Harper and Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. McClure MS, Price PW (1975) Competition among sympatric Erythroneura leaf hoppers (Homoptera: Cicadellidae) on American sycamore. Ecology 56:1388–1397Google Scholar
  29. Morisita M (1959) Measuring of the dispersion of individuals and analysis of the distributional patterns. Mem Facul Sci Kyushu Univ Ser E 2:215–235Google Scholar
  30. Pearson DL, Mury EJ (1979) Character divergence and convergence among tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindellidae). Ecology 60:557–566Google Scholar
  31. Pianka ER (1975) Niche relations of desert lizards. In: Cody M, Diamond JM (eds) Ecology and Evolution of Communities. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass, pp 292–314Google Scholar
  32. Rathcke BJ (1976) Competition and coexistence within a guild of herbivorous insects. Ecology 57:76–87Google Scholar
  33. Schoener TW (1974) Resource partitioning in ecological communities. Science 185:27–39Google Scholar
  34. Schoener TW (1983) Field experiments on interspecific competition. Am Nat 122:240–285Google Scholar
  35. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1969) Biometry. Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  36. Sota T (1985) Activity patterns, diets and interspecific interactions of coexisting spring and autumn breeding carabids: Carabus yaconinus and Leptocarabus kumagaii (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Ecol Entomol 10:315–324Google Scholar
  37. Stiling PD (1980) Competition and coexistence among Eupteryx leafhoppers (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae) occurring on stinging nettles (Urtica dioica L.). J Anim Ecol 49:793–805Google Scholar
  38. Stiling PD, Strong DR (1983) Weak competition among Spartina stem borers, by means of murder. Ecology 64:770–778Google Scholar
  39. Strong DR (1982a) Potential interspecific competition and host specificity: hispine beetles on Heliconia. Ecol Entomol 7:217–220Google Scholar
  40. Strong DR (1982b) Harmonious coexistence of hispine beetles on Heliconia in experimental and natural communities. Ecology 63:1039–1049Google Scholar
  41. Strong DR (1984) Exorcising the ghost of competition past: Phytophagous insects. In: Strong DR, Simberloff D, Abele LG, Thistle AB (eds) Ecological Communities: Conceptual Issues and the Evidence. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, pp 28–41Google Scholar
  42. Strong DR, Lawton JH, Southwood TRE (1984) Insects on Plants. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  43. Thornhill R (1980) Competition and coexistence among Panorpa scorpionflies (Mecoptera: Panorpidae). Ecol Monogr 50:179–197Google Scholar
  44. Wise DH (1981) A removal experiment with darkling beetles: lack of evidence for interspecific competition. Ecology 62:1107–1120Google Scholar
  45. Wyllie I (1981) The Cuckoo. BT Batsford LimitedGoogle Scholar
  46. Yamane SK, Ikudome S, Tomiyama K (1983) Xylocopa amamensis and X. appendiculata in the northern Ryukyus with notes on the distribution pattern of the Ryukyu carpenter bees. Kontyu, Tokyo, 51:435–440Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Akimoto
    • 1
  1. 1.Entomological Institute, Faculty of AgricultureHokkaido UniversitySapporoJapan

Personalised recommendations