, Volume 173, Issue 4, pp 1237–1247 | Cite as

Mechanisms driving the density–area relationship in a saproxylic beetle

  • Heather B. Jackson
  • Amanuel Zeccarias
  • James T. Cronin
Population ecology - Original research


Mechanisms underlying density–area relationships (correlations between population density and patch size) have rarely been tested experimentally. It is often assumed that higher density on large patches is evidence that large patches are high quality (i.e. have greater survival and reproduction), but the same pattern could result from disproportionate movement from small to large patches. Movement-based and within-patch processes must be experimentally separated to show that large patches are indeed of higher quality, but few studies have done so. We experimentally tested movement-based and within-patch hypotheses to explain the positive density–area relationship observed for a saproxylic (decayed wood-dependent) beetle, Odontotaenius disjunctus Illiger (Coleoptera: Passalidae). In separate experiments we quantified (1) immigration into and (2) finite growth rate within logs (=patches) that varied in size and density of conspecific beetles. A log was 11.7-fold [95 % confidence interval (CI) 3.4–40.8) and 10.5-fold (95 % CI 2.7–40.9) more likely to contain a new immigrant if it was large or contained a conspecific pair of beetles, respectively. Neither log size nor conspecific density was associated with changes in finite growth rate that would lead to higher density: decreased log size and increased conspecific density reduced finite growth rate in direct proportion to the loss in available resources per mating pair. We conclude that movement behavior rather than habitat quality is responsible for the positive density–area relationship for O. disjunctus. An important implication of our results is that population density is an imperfect indicator of habitat quality.


Patch size effect Habitat selection Allee effect Aggregation Social information 



We would like to thank Amanda K. Accamando, Forrest Dillemuth, and Erick Reitschier for valuable field assistance. We are indebted to Louisiana State University for the use of its property. This work was supported by the Louisiana State University and National Science Foundation Grants DEB-0211359 and DEB-0515764 (and three REU Supplements) to J.T.C., a Louisiana State University Board of Regents Fellowship, two Louisiana State University BioGrads Awards, two Sigma Xi Grants-in-Aid of Research, and the American Natural History Museum’s Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Fund to H.B.J.

Supplementary material

442_2013_2697_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (260 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 260 kb)


  1. Ahlering MA, Arlt D, Betts MG, Fletcher RJ, Nocera JJ, Ward MP (2010) Research needs and recommendations for the use of conspecific-attraction methods in conservation of migratory songbirds. Condor 112:252–264. doi: 10.1525/cond.2010.090239 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allee WC (1927) Animal aggregations. Q Rev Biol 2:367–398. doi: 10.1086/394281 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Batch CE (1984) Plant spatial pattern and herbivore population dynamics: plant factors affecting the movement patterns of a tropical cucurbit specialist (Acalymma innubum). Ecology 65:175–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bender DJ, Contreras TA, Fahrig L (1998) Habitat loss and population decline: a meta-analysis of the patch size effect. Ecology 79:517–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bolger DT, Beard KH, Suarez AV, Case TJ (2008) Increased abundance of native and non-native spiders with habitat fragmentation. Divers Distrib 14:655–665. doi: 10.1111/j.1472-4642.2008.00470.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowers MA, Matter SF (1997) Landscape ecology of mammals: relationships between density and patch size. J Mammal 78:999–1013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowman J, Cappuccino N, Fahrig L (2002) Patch size and population density: the effect of immigration behavior. Conserv Ecol 6:9Google Scholar
  8. Brown JH (2004) Challenges in estimating size and conservation of black bear in west-central Florida. Masters thesis. College of Agriculture, University of Kentucky, LexingtonGoogle Scholar
  9. Buchler ER, Wright TB, Brown ED (1981) On the functions of stridulation by the passalid beetle Odontotaenius disjunctus (Coleoptera, Passalidae). Anim Behav 29:483–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burgess SC, Treml EA, Marshall DJ (2012) How do dispersal costs and habitat selection influence realized population connectivity? Ecology 93:1378–1387PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Calabuig G, Ortego J, Aparicio JM, Cordero PJ (2008) Public information in selection of nesting colony by lesser kestrels: which cues are used and when are they obtained? Anim Behav 75:1611–1617. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.10.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Connor EF, Courtney AC, Yoder JM (2000) Individuals–area relationships: the relationship between animal population density and area. Ecology 81:734–748Google Scholar
  13. Cronin JT (2003) Movement and spatial population structure of a prairie planthopper. Ecology 84:1179–1188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cronin JT, Haynes KJ, Dillemuth F (2004) Spider effects on planthopper mortality, dispersal, and spatial population dynamics. Ecology 85:2134–2143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dahlberg A, Stokland JN (2004) Vedlevande arters krav pá substrat. Rapport Number 7. Skogsstyrelsen, JönköpingGoogle Scholar
  16. Danchin E, Giraldeau LA, Valone TJ, Wagner RH (2004) Public information: from nosy neighbors to cultural evolution. Science 305:487–491PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Daniels SJ, Walters JR (2000) Between-year breeding dispersal in red-cockaded woodpeckers: multiple causes and estimated cost. Ecology 81:2473–2484. doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2000)081[2473:bybdir];2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Donovan TM, Lamberson RH (2001) Area-sensitive distributions counteract negative effects of habitat fragmentation on breeding birds. Ecology 82:1170–1179. doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2001)082[1170:asdcne];2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Emlen DJ (1997) Alternative reproductive tactics and male-dimorphism in the horned beetle Onthophagus acuminatus (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 41:335–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Finn JA, Giller PS (2000) Patch size and colonisation patterns: an experimental analysis using north temperate coprophagous dung beetles. Ecography 23:315–327. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2000.tb00287.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fletcher RJ (2006) Emergent properties of conspecific attraction in fragmented landscapes. Am Nat 168:207–219PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fletcher RJ (2009) Does attraction to conspecifics explain the patch-size effect? An experimental test. Oikos 118:1139–1147. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2009.17342.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fretwell SD, Lucas HL (1969) On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. Acta Biotheor 19:16–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gossner MM et al (2013) Current near-to-nature forest management effects on functional trait composition of saproxylic beetles in beech forests. Conserv Biol Adv Online Publ. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12023 Google Scholar
  26. Gray IE (1946) Observations on the life history of the horned passalus. Am Midl Nat 35:728–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Griffith SC, Owens IPF, Thuman KA (2002) Extra pair paternity in birds: a review of interspecific variation and adaptive function. Mol Ecol 11:2195–2212. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-294X.2002.01613.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hambäck PA, Summerville KS, Steffan-Dewenter I, Krauss J, Englund G, Crist TO (2007) Habitat specialization, body size, and family identity explain lepidopteran density–area relationships in a cross-continental comparison. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:8368–8373. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0611462104 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hedin J, Ranius T, Nilsson SG, Smith HG (2008) Restricted dispersal in a flying beetle assessed by telemetry. Biodivers Conserv 17:675–684. doi: 10.1007/s10531-007-9299-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hernandez-Martinez G, Castillo ML (2003) Modified logs as a means for rearing and observing sapwood/heartwood dwelling passalids (Coleoptera : Passalidae) in the laboratory. Coleopter Bull 57:243–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jackson HB (2010) Connections between individual dispersal behavior and the multi-scale distribution of a saproxylic beetle. PhD thesis. Department of Biological Sciences, Louisiana State University, Baton RougeGoogle Scholar
  32. Jackson HB, Baum K, Robert T, Cronin JT (2009) Habitat-specific and edge-mediated dispersal behavior of a saproxylic insect, Odontotaenius disjunctus Illiger (Coleoptera: Passalidae). Environ Entomol 38:1411–1422PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jackson HB, Baum KA, Cronin JT (2012) From logs to landscapes: determining the scale of ecological processes affecting the incidence of a saproxylic beetle. Ecol Entomol 37:233–243. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2311.2012.01355.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kareiva P (1985) Finding and losing host plants by Phyllotreta: patch size and surrounding habitat. Ecology 66:1809–1816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kausrud KL et al (2011) Trees wanted—dead or alive! Host selection and population dynamics in tree-killing bark beetles. PLoS ONE 6:e18274. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0018274 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Larsson MC, Hedin J, Svensson GP, Tolasch T, Francke W (2003) Characteristic odor of Osmoderma eremita identified as a male-released pheromone. J Chem Ecol 29:575–587. doi: 10.1023/a:1022850704500 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lindberg R, Binamu A, Teikari M (2004) Five-year data of measured weather, energy consumption, and time-dependent temperature variations within different exterior wall structures. Energy Build 36:495–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Matter SF (1997) Population density and area: the role of between- and within-patch processes. Oecologia 110:533–538. doi: 10.1007/s004420050191 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mayhew PJ (1997) Adaptive patterns of host-plant selection by phytophagous insects. Oikos 79:417–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Murlis J, Elkinton JS, Carde RT (1992) Odor plumes and how insects use them. Annu Rev Entomol 37:505–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nagelkerke NJD (1991) A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination. Biometrica 78:691–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nelson XJ, Jackson RR (2008) Anti-predator creches and aggregations of ant-mimicking jumping spiders (Araneae: Salticidae). Biol J Linn Soc 94:475–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Olsson J, Johansson T, Jonsson BG, Hjalten J, Edman M, Ericson L (2012) Landscape and substrate properties affect species richness and community composition of saproxylic beetles. For Ecol Manage 286:108–120. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2012.08.033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Östman O, Mellbrand K, Hambäck PA (2009) Edge or dispersal effects: their relative importance on arthropod densities on small islands. Basic Appl Ecol 10:475–484. doi: 10.1016/j.baae.2008.09.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pearse AS, Patterson MT, Rankin JS, Wharton GW (1936) The ecology of Passalus cornutus Fabricius, a beetle which lives in rotting logs. Ecol Monogr 6:455–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ramsay SM, Otter K, Ratcliffe LM (1999) Nest-site selection by female black-capped chickadees: settlement based on conspecific attraction? Auk 116:604–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Robins GL, Reid ML (1997) Effects of density on the reproductive success of pine engravers: is aggregation in dead trees beneficial? Ecol Entomol 22:329–334. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2311.1997.00068.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Roff D (1977) Dispersal in dipterans: its costs and consequences. J Anim Ecol 46:443–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schuster JC (1978) Biogeographical and ecological limits of new world Passalidae (Coleoptera). Coleopt Bull 32:21–28Google Scholar
  50. Schuster JC (1983) Acoustical signals of passalid beetles: complex repertoires. Fla Entomol 66:486–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schuster JC, Schuster LB (1985) Social behavior in passalid beetles (Coleoptera, Passalidae): cooperative brood care. Fla Entomol 68:266–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stamps JA (1988) Conspecific attraction and aggregation in territorial species. Am Nat 131:329–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stamps JA (2001) Habitat selection by dispersers: integrating proximate and ultimate approaches. In: Clobert J, Wolff JO, Nichols JD, Danchin E, Dhondt A (eds) Dispersal. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 230–242Google Scholar
  54. Turchin P (1987) The role of aggregation in the response of Mexican bean beetles to host-plant density. Oecologia 71:577–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Turchin P (1998) Quantitative analysis of movement: measuring and modeling population redistribution in animals and plants. Sinauer Assoc, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  56. Valenzuela-González J (1986) Territorial behavior of the subsocial beetle Heliscus tropicus under laboratory conditions (Coleoptera: Passalidae). Folia Entomol Mexicana 70:53–63Google Scholar
  57. Valenzuela-González J (1993) Pupal cell-building behavior in passalid beetles (Coleoptera, Passalidae). J Insect Behav 6:33–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Valone TJ (2007) From eavesdropping on performance to copying the behavior of others: a review of public information use. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:1–14. doi: 10.1007/s00265-007-0439-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Van Horne B (1983) Density as a misleading indicator of habitat quality. J Wildlife Manage 47:893–901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Weslien J, Djupstrom LB, Schroeder M, Widenfalk O (2011) Long-term priority effects among insects and fungi colonizing decaying wood. J Anim Ecol 80:1155–1162. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2011.01860.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wicknick JA, Miskelly SA (2009) Behavioral interactions between non-cohabiting Bess beetles, Odontotaenius disjunctus (Illiger) (Coleoptera: Passalidae). Coleopter Bull 63:108–116. doi: 10.1649/0010-065X-63.1.108 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wood SN (2006) Generalized additive models: an introduction with R. Chapman and Hall/CRC Press, London/Baton RougeGoogle Scholar
  63. Woodall C, Williams MS (2005) Sampling protocol, estimation, and analysis procedures for the down woody materials indicator of the FIA Program. General Technical Report NC-256. USDA Forest Service North Central Research StationGoogle Scholar
  64. Zell J, Kändler G, Hanewinkel M (2009) Predicting constant decay rates of coarse woody debris: a meta-analysis approach with a mixed model. Ecol Model 220:904–912CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heather B. Jackson
    • 1
    • 2
  • Amanuel Zeccarias
    • 1
  • James T. Cronin
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesLouisiana State UniversityBaton RougeUSA
  2. 2.Geomatics and Landscape Ecology LaboratoryCarleton UniversityOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations