Oecologia

, Volume 172, Issue 3, pp 767–777 | Cite as

Parental resource and offspring liability: the influence of extrafloral nectar on oviposition by a leaf-mining moth

Plant-animal interactions - Original research

Abstract

For many insect herbivores, maternal host selection is a critical determinant of offspring survival; however, maternal fitness is also affected by adult resources such as food availability. Consequently, adult resources may promote oviposition in sub-optimal locations when measured in terms of offspring performance. We tested whether oviposition site preference is primarily shaped by proximity to adult food resources or offspring performance in the aspen leaf miner (Phyllocnistis populiella). Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) produce extrafloral nectaries (EFNs) on a subset of their leaves. EFN expression on leaves is associated with decreased P. populiella damage and larval performance; however, P. populiella adults feed from EFNs. We reduced extrafloral nectar availability on entire aspen ramets and excluded crawling predators in a full factorial experiment at two sites in interior Alaska, USA. Patterns of egg deposition by P. populiella appeared to be primarily affected by offspring survival rather than adult resource availability. While oviposition was unaffected by nectar availability, adult moths laid fewer eggs on leaves with than without EFNs. By avoiding leaves with EFNs, moths increased offspring survival. Both moths and predators distinguished between leaves with and without EFNs even when nectar and visual cues were obscured, and therefore may respond to chemical cues associated with EFN expression.

Keywords

Indirect defense Tritrophic interactions Biotic defense Ant–plant protection Plant–animal interactions 

References

  1. Atanassov A, Shearer PW (2005) Peach extrafloral nectar impacts life span and reproduction of adult Grapholita molesta (Busck) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). J Agric Urban Entomol 22:41–47Google Scholar
  2. Beach RM, Todd JW, Baker SH (1985) Nectaried and nectariless cotton cultivars as nectar sources for the adult soybean looper. J Entomol Sci 20:233–236Google Scholar
  3. Bentley BL (1977) Extrafloral nectaries and protection by pugnacious bodyguards. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 8:407–427. doi:10.1146/annurev.es.08.110177.002203 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernays EA (1988) Host specificity in phytophagous insects: selection pressure from generalist predators. Entomol Exp Appl 49:131–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernays EA, Graham M (1988) On the evolution of host specificity in phytophagous arthropods. Ecology 69:886–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bestelmeyer BT (2005) Does desertification diminish biodiversity? Enhancement of ant diversity by shrub invasion in south-western USA. Divers Distrib 11:45–55. doi:10.1111/j.1366-9516.2005.00122.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bronstein JL, Alarcon R, Geber M (2006) The evolution of plant-insect mutualisms. New Phytol 172:412–428. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2006.01864.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chamberlain SA, Holland JN (2008) Density-mediated, context-dependent consumer resource interactions between ants and extrafloral nectar plants. Ecology 89:1364–1374. doi:10.1890/07-1139.1 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Condrashoff SF (1962) A description of the immature stages of Phyllocnistis populiella Chambers (Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae). Can Entomol 94:902–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Condrashoff SF (1964) Bionomics of the aspen leaf miner, Phyllocnistis populiella Cham. (Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae). Can Entomol 96:857–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Doak P, Wagner D, Watson A (2007) Variable extrafloral nectary expression and its consequences in quaking aspen. Can J Bot 85:1–9. doi:10.1139/b06-137 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Finch S, Collier RH (2000) Host-plant selection by insects—a theory based on ‘appropriate/inappropriate landings’ by pest insects of cruciferous plants. Entomol Exp Appl 96:91–102. doi:10.1046/j.1570-7458.2000.00684.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heil M (2004) Induction of two indirect defences benefits Lima bean (Phaseolus lunatus, Fabaceae) in nature. J Ecol 92:527–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heil M (2008) Indirect defence via tritrophic interactions. New Phytol 178:41–61. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02330.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hering M (1951) Biology of the leaf miners. Junk, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  16. Honda K (1995) Chemical basis of differential oviposition by lepidopterous insects. Arch Insect Biochem Physiol 30:1–23Google Scholar
  17. Jaenike J (1986) Feeding behavior and future fecundity in Drosophila. Am Nat 127:118–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Janz N, Bergström A, Sjögren A (2005) The role of nectar sources for oviposition decisions of the common blue butterfly Polyommatus icarus. Oikos 109:535–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kenward MG, Roger JH (1997) Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Biometrics 53:983–997PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kolehmainen J, Roininen H, Julkunentiitto R, Tahvanainen J (1994) Importance of phenolic glucosodes in host selection of shoot galling sawfly, Euura amerinae, on Salix pentandra. J Chem Ecol 20:2455–2466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kost C, Heil M (2005) Increased availability of extrafloral nectar reduces herbivory in Lima bean plants (Phaseolus lunatus, Fabaceae). Basic Appl Ecol 6:237–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lukefahr MJ (1960) Effects of nectariless cottons on populations of three lepidopterous insects. J Econ Entomol 53:242–244Google Scholar
  23. Maafo IKA (1983) Factors affecting the relative abundance of arthropods on nectaried and nectariless cotton. Environ Entomol 12:349–352Google Scholar
  24. Mathews CR, Brown MW, Bottrell DG (2007) Leaf extrafloral nectaries enhance biological control of a key economic pest, Grapholita molesta (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), in peach (Rosales: Rosaceae). Environ Entomol 36:383–389. doi:10.1603/0046-225x(2007)36[383:lenebc]2.0.co;2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mayhew PJ (1997) Adaptive patterns of host-plant selection by phytophagous insects. Oikos 79:417–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mortensen B, Wagner D, Doak P (2011) Defensive effects of extrafloral nectaries in quaking aspen differ with scale. Oecologia 165:983–993. doi:10.1007/s00442-010-1799-6 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Otto SB, Berlow EL, Rank NE, Smiley J, Brose U (2008) Predator diversity and identity drive interaction strength and trophic cascades in a food web. Ecology 89:134–144PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Patt JM, Pfannenstiel RS (2008) Odor-based recognition of nectar in cursorial spiders. Entomol Exp Appl 127:64–71. doi:10.1111/j.1570-7458.2008.00669.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Piovia-Scott J (2011) The effect of disturbance on an ant-plant mutualism. Oecologia 166:411–420PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Radhika V, Kost C, Bartram S, Heil M, Boland W (2008) Testing the optimal defence hypothesis for two indirect defences: extrafloral nectar and volatile organic compounds. Planta 228:449–457PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rudgers JA (2004) Enemies of herbivores can shape plant traits: selection in a facultative ant-plant mutualism. Ecology 85:192–205. doi:10.1890/02-0625 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ruhren S, Handel SN (1999) Jumping spiders (Salticidae) enhance the seed production of a plant with extrafloral nectaries. Oecologia 119:227–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Scheirs J, De Bruyn L (2002) Integrating optimal foraging and optimal oviposition theory in plant–insect research. Oikos 96:187-191. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2002.960121.x Google Scholar
  34. Scheirs J, Bruyn LD, Verhagen R (2000) Optimization of adult performance determines host choice in a grass miner. Proc Biol Sci 267:2065–2069PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Scheirs J, Zoebisch TG, Schuster DJ, De Bruyn L (2004) Optimal foraging shapes host preference of a polyphagous leafminer. Ecol Entomol 29:375–379. doi:10.1111/j.0307-6946.2004.00600.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Taylor RM, Pfannenstiel RS (2008) Nectar feeding by wandering spiders on cotton plants. Environ Entomol 37:996–1002PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Thompson JN (1988) Evolutionary ecology of the relationship between oviposition preference and performance of offspring in phytophagous insects. Entomol Exp Appl 47:3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. U.S. Forest Service (2003) Forest health protection report: Forest insect and disease conditions in Alaska—2002. U.S. Forest Service, Alaska Region R10-TP-113Google Scholar
  39. U.S. Forest Service (2010) Forest health conditions in Alaska—2009: A forest health protection report. U.S. Forest Service, Alaska Region R10-PR-21Google Scholar
  40. Wäckers FL, van Rijn PCJ, Bruin J (2005) Plant-provided food for carnivorous insects: a protective mutualism and its applications. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  41. Wäckers FL, Romeis J, van Rijn P (2007) Nectar and pollen feeding by insect herbivores and implications for multitrophic interactions. Annu Rev Entomol 52:301–323. doi:10.1146/annurev.ento.52.110405.091352 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wagner D, Nicklen EF (2010) Ant nest location, soil nutrients, and nutrient uptake by ant-associated plants: does extrafloral nectar attract ant nests and thereby enhance plant nutrition? J Ecol 98:614–624. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2745.2010.01640.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wagner D, DeFoliart L, Doak P, Schneiderheinze J (2008) Impact of epidermal leaf mining by the aspen leaf miner (Phyllocnistis populiella) on the growth, physiology, and leaf longevity of quaking aspen. Oecologia 157:259–267. doi:10.1007/s00442-008-1067-1 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wagner D, Doak P, Sformo T, Steiner PM, Carlson B (2012) Overwintering physiology and microhabitat use of Phyllocnistis populiella (Lepidoptera: Gracilliariidae) in Interior Alaska. Environ Entomol 41:180-187. doi:10.1603/en11193 Google Scholar
  45. Wooley SC, Donaldson JR, Gusse AC, Lindroth RL, Stevens MT (2007) Extrafloral nectaries in aspen (Populus tremuloides): heritable genetic variation and herbivore-induced expression. Ann Bot 100:1337–1346. doi:10.1093/aob/mcm220 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Young B, Wagner D, Doak P, Clausen T (2010) Within-plant distribution of phenolic glycosides and extrafloral nectaries in trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides; Salicaceae). Am J Bot 97:601–610. doi:10.3732/ajb.0900281 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yukon Forest Management (2011) 2010 Forest health report. Government of Yukon, Whitehorse CanadaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biology and Wildlife, Institute of Arctic BiologyUniversity of Alaska FairbanksFairbanksUSA
  2. 2.Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal BiologyIowa State UniversityAmesUSA

Personalised recommendations