Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 177, Issue 2, pp 423–430 | Cite as

Weaker resource diffusion effect at coarser spatial scales observed for egg distribution of cabbage white butterflies

  • Marc Hasenbank
  • Stephen Hartley
Population ecology - Original research

Abstract

Mobile organisms frequently forage for patchy resources; e.g. herbivorous insects searching for host plants. The resource diffusion hypothesis predicts that insect herbivores, such as Pieris rapae butterflies, are disproportionally attracted to more isolated, or ‘diffused’, host plants. Surprisingly little is known about how this response to variation in resource density manifests itself at different spatial scales. We measured the outcome of oviposition by P. rapae butterflies foraging among groups of host plants, with plant density experimentally varied to achieve comparability between three nested scales: fine (1 × 1 m), medium (6 × 6 m), and coarse (36 × 36 m). Hierarchical linear models were used to measure density-dependent responses in the number of eggs laid per plant, with plant density measured at nested spatial scales. At a fine scale, isolated plants received significantly more eggs, while at medium and coarse scales the differences were less pronounced, and tended towards a neutral distribution of eggs across plants. Larger plants also tended to receive more eggs. Since multiple processes, acting at multiple scales, are likely to be the rule rather than the exception in ecology, methods for detecting and characterising multi-scale responses are important to ensure a robust transfer of ecological models from one situation to another.

Keywords

Area-restricted search Pieris rapae Hierarchical models 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Robert Madsen, AgResearch, and John Clarke, Woodhaven Gardens for access and logistical support at the study site; the Royal Society of New Zealand Marsden Fund (grant no. VUW305) and the Victoria University of Wellington for financial support; Cornelia Blaga, Heather Collie, Catherine Duthie, Yvonne Fabia, Jim Barritt for help in the field; Bill Kunin, Phil Lester, Heiko Wittmer, members of the Victoria University bug club, and Merijn Kant (handling editor) as well as four anonymous reviewers for commenting on the manuscript.

Supplementary material

442_2014_3103_MOESM1_ESM.docx (13 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 12 kb)

References

  1. Barritt J (2008) Simulation of the effects of movement patterns and resource density on the egg distribution of Pieris rapae (Lepidoptera) at multiple spatial scales. Masters thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernays EA, Chapman RF (1994) Host-plant selection by phytophagous insects. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  3. Bukovinszky T, Potting RPJ, Clough Y, van Lenteren JC, Vet LEM (2005) The role of pre- and post-alighting detection mechanisms in the responses to patch size by specialist herbivores. Oikos 109:435–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cadotte MW, Fukami T (2005) Dispersal, spatial scale, and species diversity in a hierarchically structured experimental landscape. Ecol Lett 8:548–557PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cain ML (1985) Random search by herbivorous insects: a simulation model. Ecology 66:876–888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen MS (2008) Inducible direct plant defense against insect herbivores: a review. Insect Sci 15:101–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crawley MJ, Pattrasudhi R (1988) Interspecific competition between insect herbivores: asymmetric competition between cinnabar moth and ragwort seed-head fly. Ecol Entomol 13:243–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cromatie WJ (1975) The effect of stand size and vegetational background on the colonization of cruciferous plants by herbivorous insects. J Appl Ecol 12:517–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dempster JP (1969) Some effects of weed control on the numbers of the small cabbage white (Pieris rapae L.) on Brussels sprouts. J Appl Ecol 6:339–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Denny MW, Helmuth B, Leonard GH, Harley CDG, Hunt LJH, Nelson EK (2004) Quantifying scale in ecology: lessons from a wave-swept shore. Ecol Monogr 74:513–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gelman A, Hill J (2007) Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Gunton RM, Kunin WE (2007) Density effects at multiple scales in an experimental plant population. J Ecol 95:435–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gunton RM, Kunin WE (2009) Density-dependence at multiple scales in experimental and natural plant populations. J Ecol 97:567–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hartley S, Shorrocks B (2002) A general framework for the aggregation model of coexistence. J Anim Ecol 71:651–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hern A, McKinlay RG, Edwards J G (1996) Effect of host plant volatiles on the flight behaviour of Pieris rapae. In: Proceedings of Brighton Crop Protection Conference: Pests and Diseases. British Crop Protection Council, Bracknell pp. 431–432Google Scholar
  16. Ihaka R, Gentleman R (1996) R: a language for data analysis and graphics. J Comput Gr Stat 5:299–314Google Scholar
  17. Jones RE (1977a) Movement patterns and egg distribution in cabbage butterflies. J Anim Ecol 46:195–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jones RE (1977b) Search behavior: study of 3 caterpillar species. Behav 60:236–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jones RE, Gilbert N, Guppy M, Nealis V (1980) Long-distance movement of Pieris rapae. J Anim Ecol 49:629–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kunin WE (1999) Patterns of herbivore incidence on experimental arrays and field populations of ragwort, Senecio jacobaea. Oikos 84:515–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Levin SA (1992) The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73:1943–1967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McMahon SM, Diez JM (2007) Scales of association: hierarchical linear models and the measurement of ecological systems. Ecol Lett 10:437–452PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Myers JH (1985) Effect of physiological condition of the host plant on the ovipositional choice of the cabbage white butterfly, Pieris rapae. J Anim Ecol 54:193–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Quian SS, Cuffney TF, Alameddine I, McMahon G, Reckhow KH (2010) On the application of multilevel modeling in environmental and ecological studies. Ecol 91:355–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. R Development Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. http://www.R-project.org
  26. Rabasa SG, Gutierrez D, Escudero A (2005) Egg laying by a butterfly on a fragmented host plant: a multi-level approach. Ecogr 28:629–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS (2002) Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis methods. Advanced quantitative techniques in the social sciences. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  28. Renwick JAA, Radke CD (1983) Chemical recognition of host plants for oviposition by the cabbage butterfly, Pieris rapae (Lepidoptera, Pieridae). Environ Entomol 12:446–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Root RB, Kareiva PM (1984) The search for resources by cabbage butterflies (Pieris rapae): ecological consequences and adaptive significance of Markovian movements in a patchy environment. Ecology 65:147–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Roslin T (2000) Dung beetle movements at two spatial scales. Oikos 91:323–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sandel B, Smith AB (2009) Scale as a lurking factor: incorporating scale-dependence in experimental ecology. Oikos 118:1284–1291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Thomas CD (1984) Oviposition and egg load assessment by Anthocharis cardamines (L.) (Lepidoptera: Pieridae). Entomol Gaz 35:145–148Google Scholar
  33. Traynier RMM (1979) Long-term changes in the oviposition behavior of the cabbage butterfly, Pieris rapae, induced by contact with plants. Physiol Entomol 4:87–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wiens JA (1989) Spatial scaling in ecology. Funct Ecol 3:385–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yamamura K (1999) Relation between plant density and arthropod density in cabbage fields. Res Popul Ecol 41:177–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Biodiversity and Restoration Biology, School of Biological SciencesVictoria University of WellingtonWellingtonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations