Oecologia

, Volume 139, Issue 4, pp 503–514 | Cite as

Host-parasitoid extinction and colonization in a fragmented prairie landscape

Population Ecology

Abstract

Few field studies of natural populations have examined the factors influencing local extinctions and colonization of empty habitat patches for a prey species and its predator. In this study, I carried out a census of planthopper (Prokelisia crocea; Hemiptera: Delphacidae) and egg parasitoid (Anagrus columbi; Hymenoptera: Mymaridae) incidence and densities in 147 host-plant patches (Spartina pectinata; Poaceae) over seven planthopper generations in a tall-grass prairie landscape. For both species, the likelihood of going extinct in a patch was related to a number of patch-specific variables: density, temporal variability in density, proportion of hosts parasitized (planthopper only), host-plant density, patch size, patch isolation, and composition of the surrounding matrix. Colonization likelihood was related only to the physical attributes of the patch. There was high patch turnover in this prairie landscape. On average, planthoppers went extinct in 23% of the patches and A. columbi went extinct in 51% of the patches in each generation. For the planthopper, extinction likelihood increased with a decrease in patch size and the proportion of the matrix composed of mudflat. Parasitism of eggs had no effect on the extinction likelihood of local P. crocea populations, suggesting that A. columbi may not play a major role in the patch dynamics of its host. The likelihood of extinction for A. columbi was dependent on factors that spanned three trophic levels. An increase in plant density, decrease in host density and decrease in parasitoid density all increased the likelihood of A. columbi extinction within a patch. The dependency on multiple trophic levels may explain the higher extinction risk for the parasitoid than its host. A. columbi extinction was also affected by the matrix habitat surrounding the patch—the effect was the opposite of that for P. crocea. Finally, vacant patches were colonized at rates of 53% and 34% per generation for the planthopper and parasitoid, respectively. For both species, colonization probabilities decreased with an increase in patch isolation. High host densities in a patch also favored high rates of colonization by A. columbi. I discuss how anthropogenic changes to the prairie landscape can affect the metapopulation dynamics and persistence time of this host-parasitoid interaction.

Keywords

Anagrus columbi Landscape matrix Metapopulation  Prokelisia crocea Spatial correlation 

References

  1. Amarasekare P (2000) Coexistence of competing parasitoids on a patchily distributed host: local vs. spatial mechanisms. Ecology 81:1286–1296Google Scholar
  2. Boulinier T, Nichols JD, Hines JE, Sauer JR, Flather CH, Pollock KH (1998) Higher temporal variability of forest breeding bird communities in fragmented landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:7497–7501CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Boyett WD, Endries MJ, Adler GH (2000) Colonization-extinction dynamics of opossums on small islands in Panama. Can J Zool 78:1972–1979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown JH, Kodric-Brown A (1977) Turnover rates in insular biogeography: effects of immigration on extinction. Ecology 58:445–449Google Scholar
  5. Carlson A, Edenhamn P (2000) Extinction dynamics and the regional persistence of a tree frog metapopulation. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 267:1311–1313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cronin JT (2003a) Movement and spatial population structure of a prairie planthopper. Ecology 84:1179–1188Google Scholar
  7. Cronin JT (2003b) Patch structure, oviposition behavior, and the distribution of parasitism risk. Ecol Monogr 73:283–300Google Scholar
  8. Cronin JT (2003c) Matrix heterogeneity and planthopper-parasitoid interactions in space. Ecology 84:1506–1516Google Scholar
  9. Cronin JT, Strong DR (1993a) Substantially submaximal oviposition rates by a mymarid egg parasitoid in the laboratory and field. Ecology 74:1813–1825Google Scholar
  10. Cronin JT, Strong DR (1993b) Superparasitism and mutual interference in the egg parasitoid Anagrus delicatus (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae). Ecol Entomol 18:293–302Google Scholar
  11. Cronin JT, Strong DR (1996) Genetics of oviposition success of a thelytokous fairyfly parasitoid, Anagrus delicatus. Heredity 76:43–54Google Scholar
  12. Cronin JT, Strong DR (1999) Dispersal-dependent oviposition and the aggregation of parasitism. Am Nat 154:23–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cronin JT, Haynes KJ, Dillemuth F (in press) Spider effects on planthopper mortality, dispersal and spatial population dynamics. EcologyGoogle Scholar
  14. D’Antonio CM, Vitousek PM (1992) Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle, and global change. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 23:63–87Google Scholar
  15. Davies KE, Margules CR, Lawrence JE (2000) Which traits of species predict population declines in experimental forest fragments? Ecology 81:1450–1461Google Scholar
  16. Diamond JM (1984) “Normal” extinctions of isolated populations. In: Nitecki MH (ed) Extinctions. Chicago University Press, Chicago, Ill., pp 191–246Google Scholar
  17. Doak P (2000) Population consequences of restricted dispersal for an insect herbivore in a subdivided habitat. Ecology 81:1828–1841Google Scholar
  18. Drake JA, DiCastri F, Groves RH, Kruger FJ, Mooney HA, Rejmanek M, Williamson MH (1989) Biological Invasions: a global perspective. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Fagan WF, Meir E, Prendergast J, Folarin A, Karieva P (2001) Characterizing population vulnerability for 758 species. Ecol Lett 4:132–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fowler SV, Claridge MF, Morgan JC (1991) Egg mortality of the brown planthopper, Nilaparvata lugens (Homoptera: Delphacidae) and green leafhoppers, Nephotettix spp. (Homoptera: Cicadellidae), on rice in Sri Lanka. Bull Entomol Res 81:161–167Google Scholar
  21. Gomez JM, Zamora R (1994) Top-down effects in a tritrophic system: parasitoid enhanced plant fitness. Ecology 75:1023–1030Google Scholar
  22. Hanski I (1994) A practical model of metapopulation dynamics. J Anim Ecol 63:151–162Google Scholar
  23. Hanski I (1999) Metapopulation ecology. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Hanski I, Kuussaari M (1995) Butterfly metapopulation dynamics. In: Cappuccino N, Price PW (eds) Population dynamics. Academic Press, San Diego, Calif., pp 149–171Google Scholar
  25. Hanski I, Singer MC (2001) Extinction-colonization dynamics and host-plant choice in butterfly metapopulations. Am Nat 158:341–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hanski I, Kuussaari M, Nieminen M (1994) Metapopulation structure and migration in the butterfly Melitaea cinxia. Ecology 75:747–762Google Scholar
  27. Harrison S, Quinn JF (1989) Correlated environments and the persistence of metapopulations. Oikos 56:293–298Google Scholar
  28. Haynes KJ, Cronin JT (2003) Matrix composition affects the spatial ecology of a prairie planthopper. Ecology 84:2856–2866Google Scholar
  29. Holder MW, Wilson SW (1992) Life history and descriptions of the immature stages of the planthopper Prokelisia crocea (Van Duzee) (Homoptera: Delphacidae). J NY Entomol Soc 100:491–497Google Scholar
  30. Holt RD (1996) Food webs in space: an island biogeographic perspective. In: Polis GA, Winemiller KO (eds) Food webs—integration of patterns and dynamics, Chaptman & Hall, New York, pp 313–323Google Scholar
  31. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S (2000) Applied logistic regression, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Huffaker CB (1958) Experimental studies on predation: dispersion factors and predator-prey oscillations. Hilgardia 27:343–383Google Scholar
  33. Kareiva P (1985) Finding and losing host plants by Phyllotreta: patch size and surrounding habitat. Ecology 66:1809–1816Google Scholar
  34. Kindvall O (1996) Habitat heterogeneity and survival in a bush cricket metapopulation. Ecology 77:207–214Google Scholar
  35. Komonen A, Penttilä R, Lindgren M, Hanski I (2000) Forest fragmentation truncates a food chain based on an old-growth forest bracket fungus. Oikos 90:119–126Google Scholar
  36. Kruess A, Tscharntke T (1994) Habitat fragmentation, species loss, and biological control. Science 264:1581–1584Google Scholar
  37. Kuussaari M, Nieminen M, Hanski I (1996) An experimental study of migration in the Glanville fritillary butterfly Melitaea cinxia. J Anim Ecol 65791–801Google Scholar
  38. Larson DL, Anderson PJ, Newton W (2001) Alien plant invasion in mixed-grass prairie: effects of vegetation type and anthropogenic disturbance. Ecol Appl 11:128–141Google Scholar
  39. Lei GC, Hanski I (1997) Metapopulation structure of Cotesia melitaearum, a specialist parasitoid of the butterfly Melitaea cinxia. Oikos 78:91–100Google Scholar
  40. Lei GC, Hanski I (1998) Spatial dynamics of two competing specialist parasitoids in a host metapopulation. J Anim Ecol 67:422–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Levins R (1969) Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental heterogeneity for biological control. Bull Entomol Soc Am 15:237–240Google Scholar
  42. Lill JT, Marquis RJ, Ricklefs RE (2002) Host plants influence parasitism of forest caterpillars. Nature 417:170–173CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. MacArthur RH (1972) Geographical ecology: patterns in the distribution of species, Harper & Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. MacArthur RH, Wilson EO (1967) The theory of island biogeography, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.Google Scholar
  45. McArdle BH, Gaston KJ, Lawton JH (1990) Variation in size of animal populations: patterns, problems, and artefacts. J Anim Ecol 59:439–454Google Scholar
  46. Meyerdirk DE, Moratorio MS (1987) Biology of Anagrus giraulti (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae), an egg parasitoid of the beet leafhopper, Circulifer tenellus (Homoptera: Cicadellidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 80:272–277Google Scholar
  47. Moilanen A, Hanski I (1998) Metapopulation dynamics: effects of habitat quality and landscape structure. Ecology 79:2503–2515Google Scholar
  48. Nieminen M, Singer MC, Fortelius W, Schops K, Hanski I (2001) Experimental confirmation that inbreeding depression increases extinction risk in butterfly populations. Am Nat 157:237–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Palmqvist E, Lundberg P (1998) Population extinctions in correlated environments. Oikos 83:359–367Google Scholar
  50. Pfister CA (1998) Extinction, colonization, and species occupancy in tidepool fishes. Oecologia 114:118–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pimm SL (1991) The balance of nature? Chicago University Press, Chicago, Ill.Google Scholar
  52. Pimm SL, Lawton JH (1977) Number of trophic levels in ecological communities. Nature 268:329–331Google Scholar
  53. Pimm SL, Jones HL, Diamond J (1988) On the risk of extinction. Am Nat 132:757–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Purvis A, Gittleman JL, Cowlishaw G, Mace GM (2000) Predicting extinction risk in declining species. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 267:1947–1952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Roland J, Keyghobadi N, Fownes S (2000) Alpine Parnassius butterfly dispersal: effects of landscape and population size. Ecology 81:1642–1653Google Scholar
  56. Saccheri I, Kuussaari M, Kankare M, Vikman P, Fortelius W, Hanski I (1998) Inbreeding and extinction in a butterfly metapopulation. Nature 392:491–494Google Scholar
  57. Schoener TW (1989) Food webs from the small to the large. Ecology 70:1559–1589Google Scholar
  58. Schoener TW, Spiller DA (1987) High population persistence in a system with high turnover. Nature 330:474–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schoener TW, Spiller DA (1992) Is extinction rate related to temporal variability in population size? An empirical answer for orb spiders. Am Nat 139:1176–1207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schoener TW, Spiller DA, Losos JB (2001) Predators increase the risk of catastrophic extinction of prey populations. Nature 412:183–186CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry, 3rd edn. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  62. Stamps JA, Buechner M, Krishnan VV (1987) The effects of edge permeability and habitat geometry on emigration from patches of habitat. Am Nat 129:533–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Thies C, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2003) Effects of landscape context on herbivore and parasitism at different spatial scales. Oikos 18:18–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tracy CR, George TL (1992) On the determinants of extinction. Am Nat 139:102–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Van Nouhuys S, Hanski I (1999) Host diet affects extinctions and colonizations in a parasitoid metapopulation. J Anim Ecol 68:1248–1258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Van Nouhuys S, Hanski I (2002) Colonization rates and distances of a host butterfly and two specific parasitoids in a fragmented landscape. J Anim Ecol 71:639–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Van Nouhuys S, Tay WT (2001) Causes and consequences of small population size for a specialist parasitoid wasp. Oecologia 128:126–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Vucetich JA, Waite TA, Qvarnemark L, Ibarguen S (2000) Population variability and extinction risk. Conserv Biol 14:1704–1714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Weisser WW (2000) Metapopulation dynamics in an aphid-parasitoid system. Entomol Exp Appl 97:83–92Google Scholar
  70. Williams L, Martinson TE (2000) Colonization of New York vineyards by Anagrus spp. (Hymenoptera : Mymaridae): overwintering biology, within-vineyard distribution of wasps, and parasitism of grape leafhopper, Erythroneura spp. (Homoptera : Cicadellidae), eggs. Biol Contr 18:136–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wilson SD (1989) The suppression of native prarie by alien species introduced for revegetation. Land Urban Plan 17:113–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesLouisiana State UniversityBaton RougeUSA

Personalised recommendations