Advertisement

Manipulating the frequency of intra-plant parts influences the foraging behaviour of a facultatively florivorous grasshopper

  • Ming Kai TanEmail author
  • Hugh Tiang Wah Tan
Original Paper

Abstract

Studying density- (total available resources) and frequency-dependent (relative abundance of resources) foraging by herbivores can shed light on our understanding of insect–plant interaction. However, these concepts are rarely investigated on different resources within an individual plant, such as flowers and leaves, even though this can be informative on how each plant individual allocates different resources and defends against florivory and folivory. We performed manipulative experiments in an insectary on the facultatively florivorous grasshoppers (Xenocatantops humilis) and flowering twigs of the tropical dogwood (Mussaenda erythrophylla). The tropical dogwood was used because each plant has both typical leaves and modified calyx lobes of the flowers which function as attractive flags. By manipulating the densities and frequencies, in terms of biomass, of leaves and flag calyx lobes, we aimed to investigate the following questions: (1) Do the grasshoppers exhibit density- and/or frequency-dependent foraging of the intra-plant structures? (2) Do the grasshoppers show a dietary preference for the intra-plant structures? (3) Do relative and/or total biomasses of the intra-plant structures affect the intensity of corolla feeding? Our results provide support for frequency-, but not density-dependent foraging. We found that relative consumption and total herbivory increase with the relative biomass of the preferred flag calyx lobes, whereas a larger corolla diameter increases the intensity of corolla feeding. Our findings suggest that the colourful flag calyx lobes attract unwanted herbivores but could potentially be a decoy against folivory.

Keywords

Florivory Frequency-dependent foraging Herbivory Insect–plant interaction Orthoptera 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank L Roman Carrasco and Rachel SK Lee for providing constructive comments on the manuscript, the National University of Singapore Department of Biological Sciences for use of facilities in its Insectary. Permission for the collection of grasshoppers and plants was granted by the National Parks Board of Singapore and the Singapore Land Authority (Permit No. NP/RP16-002). The work of MKT was supported by the Lady Yuen Peng McNeice Graduate Fellowship of the National University of Singapore.

References

  1. Agrawal AA, Fishbein M (2006) Plant defence syndromes. Ecology 87:S132–S149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersson P, Löfstedt C, Hambäck PA (2013) Insect density–plant density relationships: a modified view of insect responses to resource concentrations. Oecologia 173:1333–1344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Armbruster WS (1997) Exaptations link evolution of plant–herbivore and plant–pollinator interactions: a phylogenetic inquiry. Ecology 78(6):1661–1672Google Scholar
  4. Armbruster WS, Howard JJ, Clausen TP, Debevec EM, Loquvam JC, Matsuki M, Cerendolo B, Andel F (1997) Do biochemical exaptations link evolution of plant defence and pollination systems? Historical hypotheses and experimental tests with Dalechampia vines. Am Nat 149(3):461–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Behmer ST, Raubenheimer D, Simpson SJ (2001) Frequency-dependent food selection in locusts: a geometric analysis of the role of nutrient balancing. Anim Behav 61(5):995–1005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bergvall UA, Leimar O (2017) Directional associational plant defence from Red deer (Cervus elaphus) foraging decisions. Ecosphere 8(3):e01714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bernays EA, Bright KL (1993) Mechanisms of dietary mixing in grasshoppers: a review. Comp Biochem Physiol A 104(1):125–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bernays EA, Chapman RF (1970) Experiments to determine the basis of food selection by Chorthippus parallelus (Zetterstedt) (Orthoptera: Acrididae) in the field. J Anim Ecol 39(3):761–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bernays EA, Chapman RF (1994) Behaviour: the process of host-plant selection. In: Bernays EA, Chapman RF (eds) Host-plant selection by phytophagous insects, pp. 95–165. Chapman and Hall, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bernays EA, Weiss MR (1996) Induced food preferences in caterpillars: the need to identify mechanisms. Entomol Exp Appl 78(1):1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Borges RM, Gowda V, Zacharias M (2003) Butterfly pollination and high-contrast visual signals in a low-density distylous plant. Oecologia 136(4):571–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brody AK, Mitchell RJ (1997) Effects of experimental manipulation of inflorescence size on pollination and pre-dispersal seed predation in the hummingbird-pollinated plant Ipomopsis aggregata. Oecologia 110(1):86–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brown JM, Abrahamson WG, Packer RA, Way PA (1995) The role of natural-enemy escape in a gallmaker host-plant shift. Oecologia 104(1):52–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burgess KH (1991) Florivory: the ecology of flower feeding insects and their host plants. PhD dissertation, Harvard UniversityGoogle Scholar
  15. Caldwell E, Read J, Sanson GD (2015) Which leaf mechanical traits correlate with insect herbivory among feeding guilds? Ann Bot 117(2):349–361PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Chandra S, Williams G (1983) Frequency-dependent selection in the grazing behaviour of the desert locust Schistocerca gregaria. Ecol Entomol 8(1):13–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chesson PL (1984) Variable predators and switching behaviour. Theor Popul Biol 26(1):1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cohen J (1962) The statistical power of abnormal–social psychological research: a review. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 65:145–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences, 2nd edn. Erlbaum, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  20. Cornelissen JHC, Lavorel S, Garnier E, Diaz S, Buchmann N, Gurvich DE, Reich PB, Steege H, Morgan HD, van der Heidjden MGA, Pausas JG, Poorter H (2003) A handbook of protocols for standardised and easy measurement of plant functional traits worldwide. Aust J Bot 51(4):335–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cottam DA (1985) Frequency-dependent grazing by slugs and grasshoppers. J Ecol 73(3):925–933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cunningham SA (1995) Ecological constraints on fruit initiation by Calyptrogyne ghiesberghtiana (Arecaceae): Floral herbivory, pollen availability, and visitation by pollinating bats. Am J Bot 82(12):1527–1536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fagerstrom T, Larsson S, Tenow O (1987) On optimal defence in plants. Funct Ecol 1(2):73–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gerchman Y, Dodek I, Petichov R, Yerushalmi Y, Lerner A, Keasar T (2012) Beyond pollinator attraction: extra-floral displays deter herbivores in a Mediterranean annual plant. Evol Ecol 26(3):499–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hambäck PA, Beckerman AP (2003) Herbivory and plant resource competition: a review of two interacting interactions. Oikos 101(1):26–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Held DW, Potter DA (2004) Floral affinity and benefits of dietary mixing with flowers for a polyphagous scarab, Popillia japonica Newman. Oecologia 140(2):312–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Herrera J (1997) The role of coloured accessory bracts in the reproductive biology of Lavandula stoechas. Ecology 78(2):494–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Higginson AD, Gilbert FS, Reader T, Barnard CJ (2007) Reduction of visitation rates by honeybees (Apis mellifera) to individual inflorescences of lavender (Lavandula stoechas) upon removal of coloured accessory bracts (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Entomol Gener 29:165–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Higginson AD, Speed MP, Ruxton GD (2015) Florivory as an opportunity benefit of aposematism. Am Nat 186(6):728–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Keasar T, Sadeh A, Gerchman T, Shmida A (2009) The signalling function of an extra-floral display: what selects for signal development? Oikos 118(11):1752–1759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Landa K, Rabinowitz D (1983) Relative preference of Arphia sulphurea (Orthoptera: Acrididae) for sparse and common prairie grasses. Ecology 64(2):392–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McCall AC, Fordyce JA (2010) Can optimal defence theory be used to predict the distribution of plant chemical defences? J Ecol 98(5):985–992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McCall AC, Irwin RE (2006) Florivory: the intersection of pollination and herbivory. Ecol Lett 9(12):1351–1365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Merwin AC, Parrella MP (2014) Preference induction and the benefits of floral resources for a facultative florivore. Ecol Entomol 39(4):405–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Murdoch WW (1969) Switching in general predators: experiments on predator specificity and stability of prey populations. Ecol monogr 39(4):335–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Otway SJ, Hector A, Lawton JH (2005) Resource dilution effects on specialist insect herbivores in a grassland biodiversity experiment. J Anim Ecol 74(2):234–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pavia H, Toth GB, Åberg P (2002) Optimal defence theory: elasticity analysis as a tool to predict intraplant variation in defenses. Ecology 83(4):891–897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pérez-Harguindeguy N, Díaz S, Vendramini F, Cornelissen JH, Gurvich DE, Cabido M (2003) Leaf traits and herbivore selection in the field and in cafeteria experiments. Aust Ecol 28(6):642–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. R Development Core Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  40. Rhainds M, English-Loeb G (2003) Testing the resource concentration hypothesis with tarnished plant bug on strawberry: density of hosts and patch size influence the interaction between abundance of nymphs and bout of damage. Ecol Entomol 28:348–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Root RB (1973) Organization of a plant-arthropod association in simple and diverse habitats: the fauna of collards (Brassica oleracea). Ecol Monogr 43(1):95–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sato Y, Kawagoe T, Sawada Y, Hirai MY, Kudoh H (2014) Frequency-dependent herbivory by a leaf beetle, Phaedon brassicae, on hairy and glabrous plants of Arabidopsis halleri subsp. gemmifera. Evol Ecol 28(3):545–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schaal BA (1978) Density dependent foraging on Liatris pycnostachya. Evolution 32(2):452–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schädler M, Jung G, Auge H, Brandl R (2003) Palatability, decomposition and insect herbivory: patterns in a successional old-field plant community. Oikos 103(1):121–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sherratt TN, Harvey IF (1993) Frequency-dependent food selection by arthropods: a review. Biol J Lin Soc 48(2):167–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sutter L, Albrecht M (2016) Synergistic interactions of ecosystem services: florivorous pest control boosts crop yield increase through insect pollination. Proc R Soc B 283(1824):2015–2529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Takahashi Y, Kawata M (2013) A comprehensive test for negative frequency-dependent selection. Popul Ecol 55(3):499–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tan MK (2012) Orthoptera in the Bukit Timah and Central Catchment Nature Reserves (Part 1): suborder Caelifera. Raffles Museum of Biodiversity Research, National University Singapore, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  49. Tan MK, Tan HTW (2017) Between florivory and herbivory: Inefficacy of decision-making by generalist floriphilic katydids. Ecol Entomol 42(2):137–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tan MK, Tan HTW (2018) Asterid ray floret traits predict the likelihood of florivory by the polyphagous katydid, Phaneroptera brevis (Orthoptera: Phaneropterinae). J Econ Entomol 111(5):2172–2181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tan MK, Artchawakom T, Wahab RA, Lee C-Y, Belabut DM, Tan HTW (2017a) Overlooked flower visiting Orthoptera in Southeast Asia. J Orthop Res 26(2):143–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tan MK, Leem CJM, Tan HTW (2017b) High floral resource density leads to neural constraint in the generalist, floriphilic katydid, Phaneroptera brevis (Orthoptera: Phaneropterinae). Ecol Entomol 42(5):535–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Teixido AL, Méndez M, Valladares F (2011) Flower size and longevity influence florivory in the large-flowered shrub Cistus ladanifer. Acta Oecol 37(5):418–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Thompson JN (1983) Selection pressures on phytophagous insects feeding on small host plants. Oikos 40(3):438–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tiambeng B, Ramirez DA, Espiritu LG (1970) Histochemical determination of pigments in the Mussaenda bract. Philipp Agric 52:547–552Google Scholar
  56. Umbanhowar J, Maron J, Harrison S (2003) Density-dependent foraging behaviours in a parasitoid lead to density-dependent parasitism of its host. Oecologia 137(1):123–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Underwood N, Inouye BD, Hambäck PA (2014) A conceptual framework for associational effects: when do neighbours matter and how would we know? Q Rev Biol 89(1):1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wardhaugh CW (2015) How many species of arthropods visit flowers? Arthropod Plant Interact 9(6):547–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wiggins NL, McArthur C, Davies NW (2006) Diet switching in a generalist mammalian folivore: fundamental to maximising intake. Oecologia 147(4):650–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesNational University of SingaporeSingaporeRepublic of Singapore

Personalised recommendations