Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 181, Issue 4, pp 985–996 | Cite as

Consequences of exotic host use: impacts on Lepidoptera and a test of the ecological trap hypothesis

  • Su’ad Yoon
  • Quentin Read
Highlighted Student Research

Abstract

Investigating the effects of invasive species on native biodiversity is one of the most pressing challenges in ecology. Our goal in this study was to quantify the effects of invasive plants on butterfly and moth communities. In addition, we sought to elucidate the fitness consequences of non-native hosts on lepidopterans. We conducted a meta-analysis on a total of 76 studies which provided data on larval performance, survival, oviposition preference, abundance, and species richness of Lepidoptera on native and exotic plants. Overwhelmingly, we found that performance and survival were reduced for larvae developing on exotic hosts, relative to native hosts. At the community level, alien plant invasion was associated with a reduction in the overall abundance and richness of lepidopteran communities. We found that lepidopterans did not show strong oviposition preference for native hosts. This result suggests that many invasive plant species may decrease lepidopteran abundance by providing a target for oviposition where larvae have a relatively poor chance of survival. Among studies that tested both survival and preference on exotic hosts, 37.5 % found evidence for novel hosts that could function as ecological traps (the figure was 18 % when considering studies that only assayed larval performance). Thus, although the majority of novel hosts included in our analyses are not likely to act as ecological traps, the potential clearly exists for this effect, and the role of ecological traps should be considered along with other aspects of global change impacting natural communities.

Keywords

Invasive plants Oviposition preference Performance Survival Ecological traps 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Matthew Forister and Angela Smilanich for their many helpful comments throughout the preparation of this manuscript. This work was supported by a National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship (DGE-1447692) to S. Y. and the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Tennessee Knoxville to Q. R.

Author contribution statement

S. Y. did the literature review, extracted the data, and was responsible for preparing the manuscript. Q. R. performed the statistical analyses, wrote the Materials and methods and Results sections, and made the graphs. S. Y. wrote the first draft of the manuscript, with subsequent revisions by both S. Y. and Q. R.

Supplementary material

442_2016_3560_MOESM1_ESM.docx (113 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 112 kb)
442_2016_3560_MOESM2_ESM.docx (56 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 56 kb)
442_2016_3560_MOESM3_ESM.docx (108 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 108 kb)

References

  1. Agosta SJ (2006) On ecological fitting, plant–insect associations, herbivore host shifts, and host plant selection. Oikos 114:556–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Battin J (2004) When good animals love bad habitats: ecological traps and the conservation of animal populations. Conserv Biol 18:1482–1491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Begg CB, Mazumdar M (1994) Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 50:1088–1101CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bertheau C, Brockerhoff EG, Roux-Morabito G, Lieutier F, Jactel H (2010) Novel insect–tree associations resulting from accidental and intentional biological ‘invasions’: a meta-analysis of effects on insect fitness. Ecol Lett 13:506–515CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bezemer TM, Harvey JA, Cronin JT (2014) Response of native insect communities to invasive plants. Annu Rev Entomol 59:119–141CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowers DM, Stamp NE, Collinge SK (1992) Early stage of host range expansion by a specialist herbivore, Euphydryas phaeton (Nymphalidae). Ecology 73:526–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burghardt KT, Tallamy DW, Shriver GW (2009) Impact of native plants on bird and butterfly biodiversity in suburban landscapes. Conserv Biol 23:219–224CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Burghardt KT, Tallamy DW, Phillips C, Shropshire KJ (2010) Non-native plants reduce abundance, richness, and host specialization in lepidopteran communities. Ecosphere 1:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carroll SP, Boyd C (1992) Host race radiation in the soapberry bug: natural history with the history. Evolution 46:1052–1069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cogni R (2010) Resistance to plant invasion? A native specialist herbivore shows preference for and higher fitness on an introduced host. Biotropica 42:188–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davis MA, Chew MK, Hobbs RJ, Lugo AE, Ewel JJ, Vermeij GJ, Brown JH, Rosenzweig ML, Gardener MR, Carroll SP, Thompson K, Pickett ST, Stromberg JC, Tredici PD, Suding KN, Ehrenfeld JG, Grime JP, Mascaro J, Briggs JC (2011) Don’t judge species on their origins. Nature 474:153–154CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. DiTommaso A, Losey JE (2003) Oviposition preference and larval performance of monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus) on two invasive swallow-wort species. Entomol Exp Appl 108:205–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dowell RV, Scriber JM, Lederhouse RC (1990) Survival of Papilio rutulus Lucas (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae) larvae on 42 potential host plants. Pan-Pac Entomol 66:140–146Google Scholar
  14. Erhardt A (1985) Diurnal Lepidoptera: sensitive indicators of cultivated and abandoned grassland. J Appl Ecol 22:849–861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Florens FBV, Mauremootoo JR, Fowler SV, Winder L, Baider C (2010) Recovery of indigenous butterfly community following control of invasive alien plants in a tropical island’s wet forests. Biodivers Conserv 19:3835–3848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Forister ML, Wilson JS (2013) The population ecology of novel plant–herbivore interactions. Oikos 122:657–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Forister ML, Nice CC, Fordyce JA, Gompert Z (2009) Host range evolution is not driven by the optimization of larval performance: the case of Lycaeides melissa (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) and the colonization of alfalfa. Oecologia 160:551–561CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Fortuna TM, Woelke JB, Hordijk CA, Jansen JJ, Dam NM, Vet LEM, Harvey JA (2013) A tritrophic approach to the preference–performance hypothesis involving an exotic and a native plant. Biol Invasions 15:2387–2401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gerber E, Krebs C, Murrell C, Moretti M, Rocklin R, Schaffner U (2008) Exotic invasive knotweeds (Fallopia spp.) negatively affect native plant and invertebrate assemblages in European riparian habitats. Biol Conserv 141:646–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gillespie M, Wratten SD (2011) Oviposition preference of Lycaena salustius for, and larval performance on, a novel host plant: an example of ecological fitting. Ecol Entomol 36:616–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gratton C (2006) Interactions between a native silkmoth Hemileuca sp. and an invasive wetland plant, Lythrum salicaria. Ann Entomol Soc Am 99:1182–1190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Graves SD, Shapiro AM (2003) Exotics as host plants of the California butterfly fauna. Biol Conserv 110:413–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gripenberg S, Mayhew PJ, Parnell M, Roslin T (2010) A meta-analysis of preference–performance relationships in phytophagous insects. Ecol Lett 13:383–393CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Hanula JL, Horn S (2011) Removing an exotic shrub from riparian forests increases butterfly abundance and diversity. For Ecol Manage 262:674–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harris RJ, Toft RJ, Dugdale JS, Williams PA, Rees JA (2004) Insect assemblages in a native (kanuka-Kunzea ericoides) and an invasive (gorse-Ulex europaeus) shrubland. N Z J Ecol 28:35–47Google Scholar
  26. Harvey JA, Biere A, Fortuna TM, Vet LEM, Engelkes T, Morrien E, Gols R, Verhoeven K, Vogel H, Macel M, Heidel-Fischer HM, Schramm K, Van Der Putten WH (2010) Ecological fits, mis-fits and lotteries involving insect herbivores on the invasive plant, Bunias orientalis. Biol Invasions 12:3045–3059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hobbs RJ, Arico S, Aronson J, Baron JS, Bridgewater P, Cramer VA, Epstein PR, Ewel JJ, Klink CA, Lugo AE, Norton D, Ojima D, Richardson DM, Sanderson EW, Valladares F, Vila M, Zamora R, Zobel M (2006) Novel ecosystems: theoretical and management aspects of the new ecological world order. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 15:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Keeler MS, Chew FS (2008) Escaping an evolutionary trap: preference and performance of a native insect on an exotic invasive host. Oecologia 156:559–568CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Kicinski M (2013) Publication bias in recent meta-analyses. PLoS One 8:e81823CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Knerl A, Bowers DM (2013) Incorporation of an introduced weed into the diet of a native butterfly: consequences for preference, performance and chemical defense. J Chem Ecol 39:1313–1321CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Kolar CS, Lodge DM (2001) Progress in invasion biology: predicting invaders. Trends Ecol Evol 16:199–204CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Koricheva J, Gurevitch J, Mengersen K (2013) Handbook of meta-analysis in ecology and evolution. Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mattila HR, Otis GW (2003) A comparison of the host preference of monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus) for milkweed (Asclepias syriaca) over dog-strangler vine (Vincetoxicum rossicum). Entomol Exp Appl 107:193–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Messina FJ (2004) How labile are the egg-laying preferences of seed beetles? Ecol Entomol 29:318–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Moroń D, Lenda M, Skorka P, Szentgyorgyi H, Settele J, Woyciechowski M (2009) Wild pollinator communities are negatively affected by invasion of alien goldenrods in grassland landscapes. Biol Conserv 142:1322–1332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nelson MS, Wydoski R (2008) Riparian butterfly (Papilionoidea and Hesperioidea) assemblages associated with tamarix-dominated, native vegetation-dominated, and tamarix removal sites along the Arkansas River, Colorado, USA. Restor Ecol 16:168–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. New TR (1997) Are Lepidoptera an effective ‘umbrella group’ for biodiversity conservation? J Insect Conserv 1:5–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Philips CR (2010) Why some plants host more species of Lepidoptera than others: how natural enemies and native lineage influence lepidopteran use of native and alien plants. Master’s thesis, Department of Entomology and Wildlife Ecology, University of Delaware, NewarkGoogle Scholar
  39. Plummer M (2016) rjags: Bayesian Graphical Models using MCMC. R package version 4–5. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rjags
  40. R Development Core Team (2010). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
  41. Reed E (2010) Bottom-up effect on top-down control in a suburban landscape. Master’s thesis, Department of Wildlife Ecology, University of Delaware, NewarkGoogle Scholar
  42. Robertson BA, Hutto RL (2006) A framework for understanding ecological traps and an evaluation of existing evidence. Ecology 87:1075–1085CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Ryall KL (2010) Effects of larval host plant species on fecundity of the generalist insect herbivore Ennomos subsignarius (Lepidoptera: Geometridae). Environ Entomol 39:121–126CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Schlaepfer MA, Sherman PW, Blossey B, Runge MC (2005) Introduced species as evolutionary traps. Ecol Lett 8:241–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schooler SS, McEvoy PB, Hammond P, Coombs EM (2009) Negative per capita effects of two invasive plants, Lythrum salicaria and Phalaris arundinacea, on the moth diversity of wetland communities. Bull Entomol Res 99:229–243CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Shackelford N, Hobbs RJ, Heller NE, Hallett LM, Seastedt TR (2013) Finding a middle-ground: the native/non-native debate. Biol Conserv 158:55–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shapiro AM (2002) The Californian urban butterfly fauna is dependent on alien plants. Divers Distrib 8:31–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Simberloff D (2011) Non-natives: 141 scientists object. Nature 475:36–36CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Singer MC (2008) Rapid natural and anthropogenic diet evolution: three examples from checkerspot butterflies. Specialization, speciation, and radiation: the evolutionary biology of herbivorous insects. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 311–324Google Scholar
  50. Stefanescu C, Jubany J, Dantart J (2006) Egg-laying by the butterfly Iphiclides podalirius (Lepidoptera, Papilionidae) on alien plants: a broadening of host range or oviposition mistakes? Anim Biodivers Conserv 29:83–90Google Scholar
  51. Tallamy DW (2004) Do alien plants reduce insect biomass? Conserv Biol 18:1689–1692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tallamy DW, Ballard M, D’Amico V (2010) Can alien plants support generalist insect herbivores? Biol Invasions 12:2285–2292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Valtonen A, Jantunen J, Saarinen K (2006) Flora and lepidoptera fauna adversely affected by invasive Lupinus polyphyllus along road verges. Biol Conserv 133:389–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. White EM, Sims NM, Clarke AR (2008) Test of the enemy release hypothesis: the native magpie moth prefers a native fireweed (Senecio pinnatifolius) to its introduced congener (S. madagascariensis). Aust Ecol 33:110–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecology, Evolution, and ConservationUniversity of NevadaRenoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA
  3. 3.RenoUSA

Personalised recommendations