Advertisement

Journal of Insect Conservation

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 559–566 | Cite as

Predation of larval Lepidoptera in habitat fragments varies spatially and temporally but is not affected by light pollution

  • Kylee Grenis
  • Bergen Tjossem
  • Shannon M. Murphy
ORIGINAL PAPER

Abstract

As human populations continue to expand, many more species are affected by habitat fragmentation and urbanization. One of the most common themes in studies of fragmented habitats is finding higher rates of predation along habitat edges. However, field studies supporting this pattern are heavily influenced by avian literature and may not apply similarly to other organisms, such as invertebrates. Field studies of predation are typically performed during the day or do not distinguish between day and night; these studies therefore overlook daily fluctuations in predation and may miss important effects that occur solely at night, such as light pollution from streetlights. We tested whether predation of larval Lepidoptera differed between edge and core habitats and also whether predation along the habitat edge varied in response to light pollution from streetlights. We placed larvae in the core of suburban habitat patches and along the habitat edge, both under streetlights as well as between streetlights where it was dark. We found that predation rate increased in both edge and core habitats over the summer. Early season, we found daily fluctuations in predation dynamics with greater predation along the habitat edge than in the habitat core during the day, but not at night. Additionally, we found that streetlights did not affect predation rate along the habitat edge. Our results suggest that increased predation along habitat edges may be a diurnal effect.

Keywords

Anthropogenic disturbance Arthropods Conservation of Lepidoptera Edge effects Light pollution Temporal variation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for funding from the University of Denver’s Undergraduate Research Center Partners in Scholarship grant awarded to Bergen Tjossem for this project. We would like to thank the City and County of Broomfield, the City of Lakewood, the City of Louisville, and the South Suburban Parks and Recreation District for use of field sites. This project could not have been executed without the field help of Marianne Berge, Quyncie Grenis, Claudia Hallagan, Cheryl Harris, and Amanda Keil; Marianne Berge and Cheryl Harris were supported by a National Science Foundation Research Experience for Teachers supplement awarded to S.M.M. (Grant Number NSF-DEB 1026000). We appreciate the help of Anna Sher and Gina Wimp with statistical analyses. We would also like to thank César Nufio, the University of Denver’s Organismal Biology Group and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on previous drafts.

Conflict of interest

Kylee Grenis: Dieter Hochuli, John Lill; Bergen Tjossem: n/a; Shannon M. Murphy: Yan Linhart, Paul Feeny, John Lill, Gina Wimp, Danny Lewis.

Supplementary material

10841_2015_9777_MOESM1_ESM.docx (779 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 780 kb)

References

  1. Andren H (1994) Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitats: a review. Oikos 71:355–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Batary P, Baldi A (2004) Evidence of an edge effect on avian nest success. Conserv Biol 18:389–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernays EA (1997) Feeding by lepidopteran larvae is dangerous. Ecol Entomol 22:121–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bird BL, Branch LC, Miller DL (2004) Effects of coastal lighting on foraging behavior of beach mice. Conserv Biol 18:1435–1439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bolger DT, Suarez AV, Crooks KR et al (2000) Arthropods in urban habitat fragments in Southern California: area, age, and edge effects. Ecol Appl 10:1230–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chalfoun A, Thompson FR, Ratnaswamy MJ (2002) Nest predators and fragmentation: a review and meta-analysis. Conserv Biol 16:306–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cinzano P, Falchi F, Elvidge CD (2001) The first World Atlas of the artificial night sky brightness. Mon Not R Astron Soc 328:689–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Daily GC, Ehrlich PR (1996) Nocturnality and species survival. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93:11709–11712PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davies TW, Bennie J, Gaston KJ (2012) Street lighting changes the composition of invertebrate communites. Biol Lett 144:2274–2276Google Scholar
  10. Didham RK, Ghazoul J, Stork NE, Davis AJ (1996) Insects in fragmented forests: a functional approach. Trends Ecol Evol 11:255–260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frank KD (1988) Impact of outdoor lighting on moths: an assessment. J Lepid Soc 42:63–93Google Scholar
  13. Frank SD, Shrewsbury PM (2004) Effect of conservation strips on the abundance and distribution of natural enemies and predation of Agrotis ipsilon (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on golf course fairways. Environ Entomol 33:1662–1672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fuentes-Montemayor E, Goulson D, Cavin L et al (2012) Factors influencing moth assemblages in woodland fragments on farmland: implications for woodland management and creation schemes. Biol Conserv 153:265–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gates JE, Gysel LW (1978) Avian nest dispersion and fledgling succes in field-forest ecotones. Ecology 59:871–883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gibb H, Hochuli DF (2006) Habitat fragmentation in an urban environment: large and small fragments support different arthropod assemblages. Biol Conserv 106:91–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heiling AM (1999) Why do nocturnal orb-web spiders (Araneidae) search for light? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 46:43–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hinners SJ, Kearns CA, Wessman CA (2012) Roles of scale, matrix, and native habitat in supporting a diverse suburban pollinator assemblage. Ecol Appl 22:1923–1935PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kriska G, Bernáth B, Farkas R, Horváth G (2009) Degrees of polarization of reflected light eliciting polarotaxis in dragonflies (Odonata), mayflies (Ephemeroptera) and tabanid flies (Tabanidae). J Insect Physiol 55:1167–1173PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kyba CCM, Ruhtz T, Fischer J, Hölker F (2011) Cloud coverage acts as an amplifier for ecological light pollution in urban ecosystems. PLoS ONE 6:e17307PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lindenmayer DB, Fischer J (2006) Habitat fragmentation and landscape change: an ecological and conservation synthesis. Island Press, Washington, p 328 Google Scholar
  22. Nufio CR, McClenahan JL, Deane Bowers M (2010) Grasshopper response to reductions in habitat area as mediated by subfamily classification and life history traits. J Insect Conserv 15:409–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Quinn JF, Harrison SP (1988) Effects of habitat fragmentation and isolation on species richness: evidence from biogeographic patterns. Oecologia 75:132–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rich C, Longcore T (2006) Ecological consequences of artificial night lighting. Island Press, Washington, p 458Google Scholar
  25. Ricketts TH, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR et al (2001) Countryside biogeography of moths in a fragmented landscape: biodiversity in native and agricultural habitats. Conserv Biol 15:378–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ries L, Fagan WF (2003) Habitat edges as a potential ecological trap for an insect predator. Ecol Entomol 28:567–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ries L, Sisk TD (2004) A predictive model of edge effects. Ecology 85:2917–2926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Robinson N, Armstead S, Bowers MD (2012) Butterfly community ecology: the influences of habitat type, weather patterns, and dominant species in a temperate ecosystem. Entomol Exp Appl 145:50–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rotics S, Dayan T, Kronfeld-Schor N (2011) Effect of artificial night lighting on temporally partitioned spiny mice. J Mammal 92:159–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rydell J (2006) Bats and their insect prey at streetlights. In: Rich C, Longcore T (eds) Ecol. Consequences Artif. Night Light. Island Press, Washington, pp 43–60Google Scholar
  31. Santos CD, Miranda AC, Granadeiro JP et al (2010) Effects of artificial illumination on the nocturnal foraging of waders. Acta Oecol 36:166–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Saunders DA, Hobbs RJ, Margules CR (1991) Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conserv Biol 5:18–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schmidt ABC, Roland J (2006) Moth diversity in a fragmented habitat: importance of functional groups and landscape scale in the boreal forest moth diversity in a fragmented habitat. Ann Entomol Soc Am 99:1110–1120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schoonhoven LM, van Loon JA, Dicke M (2005) Insect-plant biology, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 421Google Scholar
  35. Summerville KS, Crist TO (2004) Contrasting effects of habitat quantity and quality on moth communities in fragmented landscapes. Ecography (Cop) 27:3–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tuxbury SM, Salmon M (2005) Competitive interactions between artificial lighting and natural cues during seafinding by hatchling marine turtles. Biol Conserv 121:311–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Warton DI, Hui FKC (2011) The arcsine is asinine: the analysis of proportions in ecology. Ecology 92:3–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wimp GM, Murphy SM, Lewis D, Ries L (2011) Do edge responses cascade up or down a multi-trophic food web? Ecol Lett 14:863–870PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wimp, GM, Murphy SM, Lewis D, Ries L (in review) Do generalists always like edges? Habitat structure influences generalist predator responses to habitat edges. EcologyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kylee Grenis
    • 1
  • Bergen Tjossem
    • 1
  • Shannon M. Murphy
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of DenverDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations