Oecologia

, Volume 153, Issue 3, pp 511–520 | Cite as

Resource complementation and the response of an insect herbivore to habitat area and fragmentation

  • Kyle J. Haynes
  • Tim Diekötter
  • Thomas O. Crist
Population Ecology

Abstract

Few studies have disentangled the effects of the area and fragmentation of a focal habitat type on species that use multiple habitat types within a landscape. We experimentally investigated the effects of habitat area, habitat fragmentation, and matrix composition on the movement and distribution of Melanoplus femurrubrum. Adults of this grasshopper feed preferentially on grasses, but oviposit almost exclusively in soil dominated by forbs. We compared population densities among plots that were made to vary in the area and fragmentation of clover habitat and composition of the matrix (grass or bare ground) within which clover habitat was embedded. In addition, a mark-recapture survey was conducted to examine effects of habitat area, fragmentation, and matrix composition on loss of individuals from a plot’s clover habitat and movement between clover subplots within plots. Overall densities of adult M. femurrubrum (averaged over clover and matrix) were 2.2× higher in plots where the matrix was composed of grass as compared to bare ground, and 1.8× higher in plots with 64 compared to 16 m2 of clover habitat. Overall densities of nymphs were also positively influenced by greater clover area, but were unaffected by matrix composition. Within focal clover habitat embedded in grass matrix, adult densities were 2.1× higher in small clover subplots than large clover subplots. We conclude that the grass matrix had a positive effect on adult densities, but not nymph densities, because grass and forb-dominated habitats likely provide complementary resources only for adults. The aggregation of adults on small clover subplots within grass matrix was mainly attributed to a greater rate of emigration loss per unit area. In addition, this study emphasizes that a species’ response to changes in the area of a focal habitat type can depend significantly on the availability of complementary resources in the surrounding landscape.

Keywords

Agroecosystem Habitat loss Landscape matrix 

Supplementary material

442_2007_749_MOESM1_ESM.ppt (72 kb)
ESM1 (PPT 72 kb)

References

  1. Agresti A (1990) Categorical data analysis. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Altieri MA (1999) The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agric Ecosyst Environ 74:19–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrén H (1994) Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat—a review. Oikos 71:355–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beckerman AP (2000) Counterintuitive outcomes of interspecific competition between two grasshopper species along a resource gradient. Ecology 81:948–957Google Scholar
  5. Beckerman AP (2002) The distribution of Melanoplus femurrubrum: fear and freezing in Connecticut. Oikos 99:131–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beckerman AP, Uriarte M, Schmitz OJ (1997) Experimental evidence for a behavior-mediated trophic cascade in a terrestrial food chain. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:10735–10738Google Scholar
  7. Bernays EA, Bright KL, Gonzalez N, Angel J (1994) Dietary mixing in a generalist herbivore—tests of 2 hypotheses. Ecology 75:1997–2006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brommer JE, Fred MS (1999) Movement of the Apollo butterfly Parnassius apollo related to host plant and nectar sources. Ecol Entomol 24:125–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brotons L, Monkkonen M, Martin JL (2003) Are fragments islands? Landscape context and density-area relationships in boreal forest birds. Am Nat 162:343–357PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brotons L, Herrando S, Martin JL (2004) Bird assemblages in forest fragments within Mediterranean mosaics created by wild fires. Landsc Ecol 19:663–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clough Y, Kruess A, Kleijn D, Tscharntke T (2005) Spider diversity in cereal fields: comparing factors at local, landscape and regional scales. J Biogeogr 32:2007–2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Corbett A, Rosenheim JA (1996) Impact of a natural enemy overwintering refuge and its interaction with the surrounding landscape. Ecol Entomol 21:155–164Google Scholar
  13. Cronin JT, Haynes KJ, Dillemuth FP (2004) Spider effects on planthopper mortality, dispersal, and spatial population dynamics. Ecology 85:2134–2143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dauber J, Purtauf T, Allspach A, Voigtlander K, Wolters V (2005) Local vs. landscape controls on diversity: a test using surface-dwelling soil macroinvertebrates of differing mobility. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 14:213–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davies KF, Gascon K, Margules CR (2001) Habitat fragmentation: consequences, management, and future research priorities. In: Soulé ME, Orians GH (eds) Conservation biology: research priorities for the next decade. Island, Washington, DC, pp 81–98Google Scholar
  16. Debinski DM, Holt RD (2000) A survey and overview of habitat fragmentation experiments. Conserv Biol 14:342–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dunning JB, Danielson BJ, Pulliam HR (1992) Ecological processes that affect populations in complex landscapes. Oikos 65:169–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Estades CF (2001) The effect of breeding-habitat patch size on bird population density. Landsc Ecol 16:161–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ewers RM, Didham RK (2006) Continuous response functions for quantifying the strength of edge effects. J Appl Ecol 43:527–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gilbert LE, Singer MC (1973) Dispersal and gene flow in a butterfly species. Am Nat 107:58–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Guerry AD, Hunter ML (2002) Amphibian distributions in a landscape of forests and agriculture: an examination of landscape composition and configuration. Conserv Biol 16:745–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hagler JR, Jackson CG (2001) Methods for marking insects: current techniques and future prospects. Annu Rev Entomol 46:511–543PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hansson L (1992) Landscape ecology of boreal forests. Trends Ecol Evol 7:299–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haynes KJ, Dillemuth FP, Anderson BJ, Hakes AS, Jackson HB, Jackson SE, Cronin JT (2007) Landscape context outweighs local habitat quality in its effects on herbivore dispersal and distribution. Oecologia 151:431–441PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Holland J, Fahrig L (2000) Effect of woody borders on insect density and diversity in crop fields: a landscape-scale analysis. Agric Ecosyst Environ 78:115–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jonsen ID, Fahrig L (1997) Response of generalist and specialist insect herbivores to landscape spatial structure. Landsc Ecol 12:185–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kareiva P (1985) Finding and losing host plants by Phyllotreta—patch size and surrounding habitat. Ecology 66:1809–1816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kearns CA, Inouye DW, Waser NM (1998) Endangered mutualisms: the conservation of plant-pollinator interactions. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 29:83–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Krauss J, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2003) How does landscape context contribute to effects of habitat fragmentation on diversity and population density of butterflies? J Biogeogr 30:889–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kremen C, Williams NM, Bugg RL, Fay JP, Thorp RW (2004) The area requirements of an ecosystem service: crop pollination by native bird communities in California. Ecol Lett 7:1109–1119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lam WKF, Pedigo LP (1998) Response of soybean insect communities to row width under crop-residue management systems. Environ Entomol 27:1069–1079Google Scholar
  33. Landis DA, Wratten SD, Gurr GM (2000) Habitat management to conserve natural enemies of arthropod pests in agriculture. Annu Rev Entomol 45:175–201PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Law BS, Dickman CR (1998) The use of habitat mosaics by terrestrial vertebrate fauna: implications for conservation and management. Biodivers Conserv 7:323–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lawrence WS, Bach CE (1989) Chrysomelid beetle movements in relation to host–plant size and surrounding non-host vegetation. Ecology 70:1679–1690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Milbrath LR, Weiss MJ, Anderson PL, Dipirro M (1998) Suitability of legume cover crops for grasshopper (Orthoptera : Acrididae) development and reproduction. J Econ Entomol 91:1186–1195Google Scholar
  37. Oden NL, Sokal RR (1986) Directional autocorrelation—an extension of spatial correlograms to 2 dimensions. Syst Zool 35:608–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Oedekoven MA, Joern A (1998) Stage-based mortality of grassland grasshoppers (Acrididae) from wandering spider (Lycosidae) predation. Acta Oecol 19:507–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Onsager JA, Henry JE (1977) A method for estimating the density of rangeland grasshoppers (Orthoptera, Acrididae) in experimental plots. Acrida 6:231–237Google Scholar
  40. Orrock JL, Danielson BJ (2005) Patch shape, connectivity, and foraging by oldfield mice (Peromyscus polionotus). J Mammal 86:569–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ostman O, Ekbom B, Bengtsson J, Weibull AC (2001) Landscape complexity and farming practice influence the condition of polyphagous carabid beetles. Ecol Appl 11:480–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pennings SC, Nadeau MT, Paul VJ (1993) Selectivity and growth of the generalist herbivore Dolabella auricularia feeding upon complementary resources. Ecology 74:879–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pope SE, Fahrig L, Merriam NG (2000) Landscape complementation and metapopulation effects on leopard frog populations. Ecology 81:2498–2508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Quinn GP, Keough MJ (2002) Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  45. Rand TA, Tylianakis JM, Tscharntke T (2006) Spillover edge effects: the dispersal of agriculturally subsidized insect natural enemies into adjacent natural habitats. Ecol Lett 9:603–614PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Roschewitz I, Gabriel D, Tscharntke T, Thies C (2005) Contrasting effects of landscape complexity on arable weed diversity in organic and conventional farming. J Appl Ecol 42:873–882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Saunders DA, Hobbs RJ, Margules CR (1991) Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conserv Biol 5:18–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schmidt MH, Tscharntke T (2005) Landscape context of sheetweb spider (Araneae: Linyphiidae) abundance in cereal fields. J Biogeogr 32:467–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schmidt MH, Roschewitz I, Thies C, Tscharntke T (2005) Differential effects of landscape and management on diversity and density of ground-dwelling farmland spiders. J Appl Ecol 42:281–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Siemann E, Haarstad J, Tilman D (1999) Dynamics of plant and arthropod diversity during old field succession. Ecography 22:406–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sisk TD, Haddad NM, Ehrlich PR (1997) Bird assemblages in patchy woodlands: modeling the effects of edge and matrix habitats. Ecol Appl 7:1170–1180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Söderström B, Pärt T (2000) Influence of landscape scale on farmland birds breeding in semi-natural pastures. Conserv Biol 14:522–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sokal RR, Oden NL (1978) Spatial autocorrelation in biology 2. Some biological implications and four applications of evolutionary and ecological interest. Biol J Linn Soc 10:229–249Google Scholar
  54. Steffan-Dewenter I, Munzenberg U, Burger C, Thies C, Tscharntke T (2002) Scale-dependent effects of landscape context on three pollinator guilds. Ecology 83:1421–1432Google Scholar
  55. Summerville KS, Crist TO (2001) Effects of experimental habitat fragmentation on patch use by butterflies and skippers (Lepidoptera). Ecology 82:1360–1370Google Scholar
  56. Summerville KS, Crist TO (2003) Determinants of lepidopteran community composition and species diversity in eastern deciduous forests: roles of season, eco-region and patch size. Oikos 100:134–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Thies C, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2003) Effects of landscape context on herbivory and parasitism at different spatial scales. Oikos 101:18–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tilman D (1982) Resource competition and community structure. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  59. Tilman D, Cassman KG, Matson PA, Naylor R, Polasky S (2002) Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418:671–677PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tscharntke T, Steffan-Dewenter I, Kruess A, Thies C (2002) Contribution of small habitat fragments to conservation of insect communities of grassland–cropland landscapes. Ecol Appl 12:354–363Google Scholar
  61. Tscharntke T, Klein AM, Kruess A, Steffan-Dewenter I, Thies C (2005) Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity—ecosystem service management. Ecol Lett 8:857–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ver Hoef JM, Cressie N (1993) Spatial statistics: analysis of field experiments. In: Scheiner SM, Gurevitch J (eds) Design and analysis of ecological experiments. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 319–341Google Scholar
  63. Werner EE, Hall DJ (1998) Ontogenetic habitat shifts in bluegill—the foraging rate predation risk tradeoff. Ecology 69:1352–1366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wilcove DS, McLellan CH, Dobson AP (1986) Habitat fragmentation in the temperate zone. In: Soulé ME (ed) Conservation biology: the science of scarcity and diversity. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA, pp 237–256Google Scholar
  65. Wintle BA, Bardos DC (2006) Modeling species–habitat relationships with spatially autocorrelated observation data. Ecol Appl 16:1945–1958PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. With KA, Crist TO (1995) Critical thresholds in species responses to landscape structure. Ecology 76:2446–2459CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kyle J. Haynes
    • 1
  • Tim Diekötter
    • 2
  • Thomas O. Crist
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyMiami UniversityOxfordUSA
  2. 2.IFZ—Department of Animal EcologyJustus Liebig UniversityGiessenGermany

Personalised recommendations