Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 160, Issue 1, pp 77–86 | Cite as

Spatial variability in seed predation in Primula farinosa: local population legacy versus patch selection

  • Didrik VanhoenackerEmail author
  • Jon Ågren
  • Johan Ehrlén
Plant-Animal Interactions - Original Paper

Abstract

Spatio-temporal variation in seed predation may strongly influence both plant population dynamics and selection on plant traits. The intensity of seed predation may depend on a number of factors, but the relative importance of previous predator abundance (“local legacy”), spatial distribution of the host plant, environmental factors and plant characteristics has been explored in few species. We monitored seed predation in the perennial herb Primula farinosa, which is dimorphic for scape length, during 5 consecutive years, in a 10-km × 4-km area comprising 79 P. farinosa populations. A transplant experiment showed that the seed predator, the oligophagous tortricid moth Falseuncaria ruficiliana, was not dispersal limited at the spatial scale corresponding to typical distances between P. farinosa populations. Correlations between population characteristics and incidence and intensity of seed predation varied among years. The incidence of the seed predator was positively correlated with host population size and mean number of flowers, while intensity of seed predation in occupied patches was positively related to the frequency of the long-scaped morph in 2 years and negatively related to host population size in 1 year. In both scape morphs, predation tended to increase with increasing frequency of the long morph. There was no evidence of a local legacy; incidence and intensity of seed predation were not related to the abundance of the seed predator in the population in the previous year. Taken together, the results indicate that among-population variation in seed predation intensity is determined largely by patch selection and that the seed predator’s preference for tall and many-flowered inflorescences may not only affect selection on plant traits within host plant populations, but also the overall intensity of seed predation.

Keywords

Floral display Metapopulation Polymorphism Population density Tortricidae 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Christer Wiklund for moth breeding facilities, Bert Gustafsson and Ingvar Svensson for information on moth ecology, Peter Hambäck, Hugo von Zeipel, and two anonymous reviewers for valuable comments on the manuscript, Länsstyrelsen in Kalmar for permission to work in Karlevi nature reserve, and landowners at the study site. The study was based at the Ecological Research Station of Uppsala University in Skogsby, and was financially supported by grants from FORMAS (The Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning; to J. Å. and J. E.).

References

  1. Ågren J, Fortunel C, Ehrlén J (2006) Selection on floral display in insect-pollinated Primula farinosa: effects of vegetation height and litter accumulation. Oecologia 150:225–232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ågren J, Ehrlén J, Solbreck C (2008) Spatio-temporal variation in fruit production and seed predation in a perennial herb influenced by habitat quality and population size. J Ecol 96:334–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrewartha HG, Birch LC (1954) The distribution and abundance of animals. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  4. Arvanitis L, Wiklund C, Ehrlén J (2007) Butterfly seed predation: effects of landscape characteristics, plant ploidy level and population structure. Oecologia 152:275–285PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bates D, Sarkar D (2007) lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.99875-2Google Scholar
  6. Benander P (1950) Svensk insektfauna 10: Lepidoptera, Microlepidoptera, Tortricina. The Entomological Society in Stockholm, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowman J, Cappuccino N, Fahrig L (2002) Patch size and population density: the effect of immigration behavior. Conserv Ecol 6:9. www.ecologyandsociety.org Google Scholar
  8. Ehlers BK, Olesen JM (2003) Flower and fruit herbivory in a population of Centaurea scabiosa (Asteraceae): importance of population size and isolation. Ecoscience 10:45–48Google Scholar
  9. Ehrlén J, Käck S, Ågren J (2002) Pollen limitation, seed predation and scape length in Primula farinosa. Oikos 97:45–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Elzinga JA, Turin H, van Damme JMM, Biere A (2005) Plant population size and isolation affect herbivory of Silene latifolia by the specialist herbivore Hadena bicruris and parasitism of the herbivore by parasitoids. Oecologia 144:416–442PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hambäck PA, Englund G (2005) Patch area, population density and the scaling of migration rates: the resource concentration hypothesis revisited. Ecol Lett 8:1057–1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hambäck PA, Ågren J, Ericson L (2000) Associational resistance: insect damage to purple loosestrife reduced in thickets of sweet gale. Ecology 81:1784–1794Google Scholar
  13. Hambler DJ, Dixon JM (2003) Primula farinosa L. J Ecol 91:694–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hanski I (1994) A practical model of metapopulation dynamics. J Anim Ecol 63:151–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hanski I (1999) Metapopulation ecology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Hanski I, Thomas CD (1994) Metapopulation dynamics and conservation: a spatially explicit model applied to butterflies. Biol Conserv 68:167–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hjältén J, Danell K, Lundberg P (1993) Herbivore avoidance by association: vole and hare utilization of woody plants. Oikos 68:125–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Janz N, Bergström A, Johansson J (2005) Frequency dependence of host plant choice within and between patches: a large cage experiment. Evol Ecol 19:289–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kery M, Matthies D, Fischer M (2001) The effect of plant population size on the interactions between the rare plant Gentiana cruciata and its specialized herbivore Maculinea rebeli. J Ecol 89:418–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lagerberg T (1957) Vilda växter i Norden, 3rd edn. Natur och kultur, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  21. Lehtilä K, Syrjänen K, Leimu R, Garcia MB, Ehrlén J (2006) Habitat change and demography of Primula veris: identification of management targets. Conserv Biol 20(3):833–843Google Scholar
  22. Lienert J, Fischer M (2003) Habitat fragmentation affects the common wetland specialist Primula farinosa in north-east Switzerland. J Ecol 91:587–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lindborg R, Ehrlén J (2002) Evaluating the extinction risk of a perennial herb: demographic data versus historical records. Conserv Biol 16:683–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Moilanen A, Nieminen M (2002) Simple connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Ecology 83:1131–1145Google Scholar
  25. O’Hara RB, Arjas E, Toivonen H, Hanski I (2002) Bayesian analysis of metapopulation data. Ecology 83:2408–2415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Östergård H, Ehrlén J (2005) Among population variation in specialist and generalist seed predation—the importance of host plant distribution, alternative hosts and environmental variation. Oikos 111:39–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pfister CA, Hay ME (1988) Associational plant refuges: convergent patterns in marine and terrestrial communities result from differing mechanisms. Oecologia 77:118–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Quinn GP, Keough MJ (2002) Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Rand TA, Louda SM (2004) Exotic weed invasion increases the susceptibility of native plants to attack by a biocontrol herbivore. Ecology 85:1548–1554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rand TA, Louda SM (2008) Invasive insect abundance varies across the biogeographic distribution of a native host plant. Ecol Appl 16:877–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Razowski J (1970) Microlepidoptera palaearctica Bd 3: Cochylidae. Fromme, WienGoogle Scholar
  32. Rey PJ et al (2006) The geographic mosaic in predispersal interactions and selection on Helleborus foetidus (Ranunculaceae). J Evol Biol 19:21–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Roslin T, Kotze DJ (2005) Preface: insects and plants in space. Ann Zool Fenn 42:291–294Google Scholar
  34. Rossi AM, Stiling P (1998) The interactions of plant clone and abiotic factors on a gall-making midge. Oecologia 116:170–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sillén-Tullberg B, Solbreck C (1990) Population dynamics of a seed feeding bug, Lygaeus equestris. 2. Temporal dynamics. Oikos 58:210–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Singer MC, Wee B (2005) Spatial pattern in checkerspot butterfly-host plant association at local, metapopulation and regional scales. Ann Zool Fenn 42:347–361Google Scholar
  37. Smith MH (1994) A new larval food plant for Falseuncaria ruficiliana (Haw.) (Lep: Tortricidae). Entomol Rec 106:26–28Google Scholar
  38. Solbreck C, Sillén-Tullberg B (1990) Population dynamics of a seed feeding bug, Lygaeus equestris. 1. Habitat patch structure and spatial dynamics. Oikos 58:199–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stenberg JA, Heijari J, Holopainen JK, Ericson L (2007) Presence of Lythrum salicaria enhances the bodyguard effects of the parasitoid Asecodes mento for Filipendula ulmaria. Oikos 116:482–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sterner R, Lundqvist Å (1986) Ölands kärlväxtflora, 2nd edn. Svensk botanisk tidskrift; Forskningsrådens förlagstjänst, Lund & StockholmGoogle Scholar
  41. Stiling P, Bowdish TI (2000) Direct and indirect effects of plant clone and local environment on herbivore abundance. Ecology 81:281–285Google Scholar
  42. The R Development Core Team (2007) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, http://www.R-project.org
  43. Thomas CD, Hanski I (1997) Butterfly metapopulations. In: Hanski I, Gilpin ME (eds) Metapopulation biology: ecology, genetics, and evolution. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  44. Thompson JN (2005) The geographic mosaic of coevolution. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  45. Toräng P, Ehrlén J, Ågren J (2006) Facilitation in an insect-pollinated herb with a floral display dimorphism. Ecology 87:2113–2117PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Toräng P, Ehrlén J, Ågren J (2008) Mutualists and antagonists mediate frequency-dependent selection on floral display. Ecology 89:1564–1572PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tutin TG, Heywood VH, Burges NA, Valentine DH (eds) (1972) Flora Europaea, vol 3. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  48. van Deurs W (1956) Danmarks fauna: Bd 61, Sommerfugle, 8 viklere. Dansk naturhistorisk forening and Gad, KøbenhavnGoogle Scholar
  49. Zabel J, Tscharntke T (1998) Does fragmentation of Urtica habitats affect phytophagous and predatory insects differentially? Oecologia 116:419–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Didrik Vanhoenacker
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jon Ågren
    • 2
  • Johan Ehrlén
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BotanyStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Plant Ecology/Department of Ecology and Evolution, Evolutionary Biology CentreUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations