Advertisement

Arthropod-Plant Interactions

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 405–413 | Cite as

Aspen leaf miner (Phyllocnistis populiella) oviposition site selection mediated by aspen (Populus tremuloides) extrafloral nectaries

  • Russell Dennis
  • Patricia DoakEmail author
  • Diane Wagner
Original Paper

Abstract

By impacting performance of individual offspring, oviposition site choice can have a large influence on female fitness; however, a female’s fitness is also impacted by her own survival and future reproductive potential. Factors influencing oviposition site selection include a female’s own predation risk and nutritional needs, as well as the performance of offspring. Trade-offs may occur when oviposition sites differ in their favorability for these fitness-related functions. Adults of the leaf-mining moth, Phyllocnistis populiella, forage at the extrafloral nectaries (EFNs) of quaking aspen, Populus tremuloides. Females are synovigenic and likely rely on adult nutrition for egg production; however, proximity to EFNs may be associated with reduced offspring survival. In a controlled experiment, when given the choice of oviposition on either a leaf with or without EFNs, P. populiella preferred leaves lacking EFNs. Seven years of field survey data revealed significantly higher oviposition and lower egg predation on leaves lacking EFNs. Aspen shoots with a higher proportion of leaves expressing EFNs experienced higher oviposition but no difference in egg predation. At the leaf level, eggs were overdispersed when at low to moderate densities, likely to decrease interference competition. Females mated multiply, and the acquisition of spermatophores through repeated matings may decrease P. populiella’s reliance on EF nectar for egg production. P. populiella appears to balance the trade-off between resource rich and high offspring performance sites by ovipositing in neighborhoods with a high proportion of leaves bearing EFNs, while preferring leaves lacking EFNs which experience lower egg predation.

Keywords

Egg dispersion Egg load Extrafloral nectaries Preference–performance hypothesis Spermatophore 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Funding was provided by a National Science Foundation award (DEB 0543632) to DW and PD and by the 2010 Institute of Arctic Biology Graduate Student Summer Research Fellowship to RD. UAF Life Science Informatics provided computer and software support. We acknowledge those who assisted with data collection and compilation: B. Carlson, A. Cushing, S. Fischer, T. Fristoe, Z. Meyers, B. Parks, and S. Wilbur. D. Sikes provided comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.

Supplementary material

11829_2015_9380_MOESM1_ESM.docx (67 kb)
Figure S1 Total oviposition by Phyllocnistis populiella on Populus tremuloides leaves with (gray bars) and without (open bars) extrafloral nectaries (EFNs) leaves displayed by site and year. Points are backtransformed estimates (±1 SE) from the Poisson generalized linear mixed model (GLMM). (DOCX 66 kb)

References

  1. Chew FS, Robbins K (1984) Egg-laying in butterflies. In: Vane-Wright RI, Ackery PR (eds) The biology of butterflies. Academic Press, London, pp 65–79Google Scholar
  2. Condrashoff S (1964) Bionomics of the aspen leaf miner, Phyllocnistis populiella Cham. (Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae). Can Entomol 96:857–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cordero C (1999) Is spermatophore number a good measure of mating frequency in female Callophrys xami (Lycaenidae)? J Lepid Soc 53:169–170Google Scholar
  4. Courtney SP, Kibota TT (1990) Mother doesn’t know best: selection of hosts by ovipositing insects. In: Bernays EA (ed) Insect–plant interactions, vol 96. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 161–188Google Scholar
  5. Craig TP, Itami JK (2008) Evolution of preference and performance relationships. In: Tilmon K (ed) Specialization, speciation, and radiation. The evolutionary biology of herbivorous insects. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 20–28Google Scholar
  6. Doak P, Wagner D, Watson A (2007) Variable extrafloral nectary expression and its consequences in quaking aspen. Can J Bot 85:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Doak P, Wagner D (2015) The role of interference competition in a sustained population outbreak of the aspen leaf miner in Alaska. Basic Appl Ecol. doi: 10.1016/j.baae.2015.04.001
  8. Dong JW, Pan HS, Lu YH, Yang YZ (2013) Nymphal performance correlated with adult preference for flowering host plants in a polyphagous mirid bug, Apolygus lucorum (Heteroptera: Miridae). Arthropod Plant Interact 7:83–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gripenberg S, Mayhew PJ, Parnell M, Roslin T (2010) A meta-analysis of preference-performance relationships in phytophagous insects. Ecol Lett 13:383–393PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jaenike J (1978) On optimal oviposition behavior in phytophagous insects. Theor Popul Biol 14:350–356PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jervis MA, Boggs CL, Ferns PN (2005) Egg maturation strategy and its associated trade-offs: a synthesis focusing on Lepidoptera. Ecol Entomol 30:359–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mangel M (1987) Oviposition site selection and clutch size in insects. J Math Biol 25:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Marshall DJ, Uller T (2007) When is a maternal effect adaptive? Oikos 116:1957–1963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mayhew PJ (1997) Adaptive patterns of host-plant selection by phytophagous insects. Oikos 79:417–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mortensen B, Wagner D, Doak P (2011) Defensive effects of extrafloral nectaries in quaking aspen differ with scale. Oecologia 165:983–993PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mortensen B, Wagner D, Doak P (2013) Parental resource and offspring liability: the influence of extrafloral nectar on oviposition by a leaf mining moth. Oecologia 172:767–777PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Poirier LM, Borden JH (1991) Recognition and avoidance of previously laid egg masses by the oblique-banded leafroller (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). J Insect Behav 4:501–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Renwick JAA, Chew FS (1994) Oviposition behavior in Lepidoptera. Annu Rev Entomol 39:377–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ruhren S, Handel SN (1999) Jumping spiders (Salticidae) enhance the seed production of a plant with extrafloral nectaries. Oecologia 119:227–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Scheirs J, De Bruyn L (2002) Temporal variability of top-down forces and their role in host choice evolution of phytophagous arthropods. Oikos 97:139–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Scheirs J, Bruyn LD, Verhagen R (2000) Optimization of adult performance determines host choice in a grass miner. Proc R Soc B 267:2065–2069PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Scheirs J, Zoebisch TG, Schuster DJ, De Bruyn L (2004) Optimal foraging shapes host preference of a polyphagous leafminer. Ecol Entomol 29:375–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sisterson MS (2012) Host selection by Homalodisca vitripennis: the interplay between feeding, egg maturation, egg load, and oviposition. Arthropod Plant Interact 6:351–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sugiura S, Yamazaki K, Yamaura Y (2007) Intraspecific competition as a selective pressure on the choice of oviposition site in a phytophagous insect. Biol J Linn Soc 92:641–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Taylor RM, Pfannenstiel RS (2008) Nectar feeding by wandering spiders on cotton plants. Environ Entomol 37:996–1002PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Thompson JN, Pellmyr O (1991) Evolution of oviposition behavior and host preference in Lepidoptera. Annu Rev Entomol 36:65–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ulmer B, Gillott C, Erlandson M (2003) Conspecific eggs and bertha armyworm, Mamestra configurata (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), oviposition site selection. Environ Entomol 32:529–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vasconcellos-Neto J, Monteiro RF (1993) Inspection and evaluation of host plant by the butterfly Mechanitis lysimnia (Nymph., Ithomiinae) before laying eggs: a mechanism to reduce intraspecific competition. Oecologia 95:431–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wertheim B, van Baalen EJA, Dicke M, Vet LE (2005) Pheromone-mediated aggregation in nonsocial arthropods: an evolutionary ecological perspective. Annu Rev Entomol 50:321–346PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. West SA, Cunningham JP (2002) A general model for host plant selection in phytophagous insects. J Theor Biol 214:499–513PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wooley SC, Donaldson JR, Stevens MT, Gusse AC, Lindroth RL (2007) Extrafloral nectaries in aspen (Populus tremuloides): heritable genetic variation and herbivore-induced expression. Ann Bot 100:1337–1346PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Young B, Wagner D, Doak P, Clausen T (2010) Induction of phenolic glycosides by quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) leaves in relation to extrafloral nectaries and epidermal leaf mining. J Chem Ecol 36:369–377PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biology and WildlifeUniversity of Alaska FairbanksFairbanksUSA
  2. 2.Institute of Arctic BiologyUniversity of Alaska FairbanksFairbanksUSA

Personalised recommendations