Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Resource complementation and the response of an insect herbivore to habitat area and fragmentation

  • Population Ecology
  • Published:
Oecologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Few studies have disentangled the effects of the area and fragmentation of a focal habitat type on species that use multiple habitat types within a landscape. We experimentally investigated the effects of habitat area, habitat fragmentation, and matrix composition on the movement and distribution of Melanoplus femurrubrum. Adults of this grasshopper feed preferentially on grasses, but oviposit almost exclusively in soil dominated by forbs. We compared population densities among plots that were made to vary in the area and fragmentation of clover habitat and composition of the matrix (grass or bare ground) within which clover habitat was embedded. In addition, a mark-recapture survey was conducted to examine effects of habitat area, fragmentation, and matrix composition on loss of individuals from a plot’s clover habitat and movement between clover subplots within plots. Overall densities of adult M. femurrubrum (averaged over clover and matrix) were 2.2× higher in plots where the matrix was composed of grass as compared to bare ground, and 1.8× higher in plots with 64 compared to 16 m2 of clover habitat. Overall densities of nymphs were also positively influenced by greater clover area, but were unaffected by matrix composition. Within focal clover habitat embedded in grass matrix, adult densities were 2.1× higher in small clover subplots than large clover subplots. We conclude that the grass matrix had a positive effect on adult densities, but not nymph densities, because grass and forb-dominated habitats likely provide complementary resources only for adults. The aggregation of adults on small clover subplots within grass matrix was mainly attributed to a greater rate of emigration loss per unit area. In addition, this study emphasizes that a species’ response to changes in the area of a focal habitat type can depend significantly on the availability of complementary resources in the surrounding landscape.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1a–b
Fig. 2a–b
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agresti A (1990) Categorical data analysis. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Altieri MA (1999) The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agric Ecosyst Environ 74:19–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrén H (1994) Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat—a review. Oikos 71:355–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beckerman AP (2000) Counterintuitive outcomes of interspecific competition between two grasshopper species along a resource gradient. Ecology 81:948–957

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckerman AP (2002) The distribution of Melanoplus femurrubrum: fear and freezing in Connecticut. Oikos 99:131–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beckerman AP, Uriarte M, Schmitz OJ (1997) Experimental evidence for a behavior-mediated trophic cascade in a terrestrial food chain. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:10735–10738

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernays EA, Bright KL, Gonzalez N, Angel J (1994) Dietary mixing in a generalist herbivore—tests of 2 hypotheses. Ecology 75:1997–2006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brommer JE, Fred MS (1999) Movement of the Apollo butterfly Parnassius apollo related to host plant and nectar sources. Ecol Entomol 24:125–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brotons L, Monkkonen M, Martin JL (2003) Are fragments islands? Landscape context and density-area relationships in boreal forest birds. Am Nat 162:343–357

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brotons L, Herrando S, Martin JL (2004) Bird assemblages in forest fragments within Mediterranean mosaics created by wild fires. Landsc Ecol 19:663–675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clough Y, Kruess A, Kleijn D, Tscharntke T (2005) Spider diversity in cereal fields: comparing factors at local, landscape and regional scales. J Biogeogr 32:2007–2014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corbett A, Rosenheim JA (1996) Impact of a natural enemy overwintering refuge and its interaction with the surrounding landscape. Ecol Entomol 21:155–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronin JT, Haynes KJ, Dillemuth FP (2004) Spider effects on planthopper mortality, dispersal, and spatial population dynamics. Ecology 85:2134–2143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dauber J, Purtauf T, Allspach A, Voigtlander K, Wolters V (2005) Local vs. landscape controls on diversity: a test using surface-dwelling soil macroinvertebrates of differing mobility. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 14:213–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies KF, Gascon K, Margules CR (2001) Habitat fragmentation: consequences, management, and future research priorities. In: Soulé ME, Orians GH (eds) Conservation biology: research priorities for the next decade. Island, Washington, DC, pp 81–98

  • Debinski DM, Holt RD (2000) A survey and overview of habitat fragmentation experiments. Conserv Biol 14:342–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunning JB, Danielson BJ, Pulliam HR (1992) Ecological processes that affect populations in complex landscapes. Oikos 65:169–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Estades CF (2001) The effect of breeding-habitat patch size on bird population density. Landsc Ecol 16:161–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ewers RM, Didham RK (2006) Continuous response functions for quantifying the strength of edge effects. J Appl Ecol 43:527–536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert LE, Singer MC (1973) Dispersal and gene flow in a butterfly species. Am Nat 107:58–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guerry AD, Hunter ML (2002) Amphibian distributions in a landscape of forests and agriculture: an examination of landscape composition and configuration. Conserv Biol 16:745–754

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagler JR, Jackson CG (2001) Methods for marking insects: current techniques and future prospects. Annu Rev Entomol 46:511–543

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson L (1992) Landscape ecology of boreal forests. Trends Ecol Evol 7:299–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haynes KJ, Dillemuth FP, Anderson BJ, Hakes AS, Jackson HB, Jackson SE, Cronin JT (2007) Landscape context outweighs local habitat quality in its effects on herbivore dispersal and distribution. Oecologia 151:431–441

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Holland J, Fahrig L (2000) Effect of woody borders on insect density and diversity in crop fields: a landscape-scale analysis. Agric Ecosyst Environ 78:115–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonsen ID, Fahrig L (1997) Response of generalist and specialist insect herbivores to landscape spatial structure. Landsc Ecol 12:185–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kareiva P (1985) Finding and losing host plants by Phyllotreta—patch size and surrounding habitat. Ecology 66:1809–1816

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kearns CA, Inouye DW, Waser NM (1998) Endangered mutualisms: the conservation of plant-pollinator interactions. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 29:83–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krauss J, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2003) How does landscape context contribute to effects of habitat fragmentation on diversity and population density of butterflies? J Biogeogr 30:889–900

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kremen C, Williams NM, Bugg RL, Fay JP, Thorp RW (2004) The area requirements of an ecosystem service: crop pollination by native bird communities in California. Ecol Lett 7:1109–1119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lam WKF, Pedigo LP (1998) Response of soybean insect communities to row width under crop-residue management systems. Environ Entomol 27:1069–1079

    Google Scholar 

  • Landis DA, Wratten SD, Gurr GM (2000) Habitat management to conserve natural enemies of arthropod pests in agriculture. Annu Rev Entomol 45:175–201

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Law BS, Dickman CR (1998) The use of habitat mosaics by terrestrial vertebrate fauna: implications for conservation and management. Biodivers Conserv 7:323–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence WS, Bach CE (1989) Chrysomelid beetle movements in relation to host–plant size and surrounding non-host vegetation. Ecology 70:1679–1690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milbrath LR, Weiss MJ, Anderson PL, Dipirro M (1998) Suitability of legume cover crops for grasshopper (Orthoptera : Acrididae) development and reproduction. J Econ Entomol 91:1186–1195

    Google Scholar 

  • Oden NL, Sokal RR (1986) Directional autocorrelation—an extension of spatial correlograms to 2 dimensions. Syst Zool 35:608–617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oedekoven MA, Joern A (1998) Stage-based mortality of grassland grasshoppers (Acrididae) from wandering spider (Lycosidae) predation. Acta Oecol 19:507–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onsager JA, Henry JE (1977) A method for estimating the density of rangeland grasshoppers (Orthoptera, Acrididae) in experimental plots. Acrida 6:231–237

    Google Scholar 

  • Orrock JL, Danielson BJ (2005) Patch shape, connectivity, and foraging by oldfield mice (Peromyscus polionotus). J Mammal 86:569–575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostman O, Ekbom B, Bengtsson J, Weibull AC (2001) Landscape complexity and farming practice influence the condition of polyphagous carabid beetles. Ecol Appl 11:480–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennings SC, Nadeau MT, Paul VJ (1993) Selectivity and growth of the generalist herbivore Dolabella auricularia feeding upon complementary resources. Ecology 74:879–890

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pope SE, Fahrig L, Merriam NG (2000) Landscape complementation and metapopulation effects on leopard frog populations. Ecology 81:2498–2508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn GP, Keough MJ (2002) Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Rand TA, Tylianakis JM, Tscharntke T (2006) Spillover edge effects: the dispersal of agriculturally subsidized insect natural enemies into adjacent natural habitats. Ecol Lett 9:603–614

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roschewitz I, Gabriel D, Tscharntke T, Thies C (2005) Contrasting effects of landscape complexity on arable weed diversity in organic and conventional farming. J Appl Ecol 42:873–882

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders DA, Hobbs RJ, Margules CR (1991) Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conserv Biol 5:18–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt MH, Tscharntke T (2005) Landscape context of sheetweb spider (Araneae: Linyphiidae) abundance in cereal fields. J Biogeogr 32:467–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt MH, Roschewitz I, Thies C, Tscharntke T (2005) Differential effects of landscape and management on diversity and density of ground-dwelling farmland spiders. J Appl Ecol 42:281–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siemann E, Haarstad J, Tilman D (1999) Dynamics of plant and arthropod diversity during old field succession. Ecography 22:406–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sisk TD, Haddad NM, Ehrlich PR (1997) Bird assemblages in patchy woodlands: modeling the effects of edge and matrix habitats. Ecol Appl 7:1170–1180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Söderström B, Pärt T (2000) Influence of landscape scale on farmland birds breeding in semi-natural pastures. Conserv Biol 14:522–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sokal RR, Oden NL (1978) Spatial autocorrelation in biology 2. Some biological implications and four applications of evolutionary and ecological interest. Biol J Linn Soc 10:229–249

    Google Scholar 

  • Steffan-Dewenter I, Munzenberg U, Burger C, Thies C, Tscharntke T (2002) Scale-dependent effects of landscape context on three pollinator guilds. Ecology 83:1421–1432

    Google Scholar 

  • Summerville KS, Crist TO (2001) Effects of experimental habitat fragmentation on patch use by butterflies and skippers (Lepidoptera). Ecology 82:1360–1370

    Google Scholar 

  • Summerville KS, Crist TO (2003) Determinants of lepidopteran community composition and species diversity in eastern deciduous forests: roles of season, eco-region and patch size. Oikos 100:134–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thies C, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2003) Effects of landscape context on herbivory and parasitism at different spatial scales. Oikos 101:18–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilman D (1982) Resource competition and community structure. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

  • Tilman D, Cassman KG, Matson PA, Naylor R, Polasky S (2002) Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418:671–677

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tscharntke T, Steffan-Dewenter I, Kruess A, Thies C (2002) Contribution of small habitat fragments to conservation of insect communities of grassland–cropland landscapes. Ecol Appl 12:354–363

    Google Scholar 

  • Tscharntke T, Klein AM, Kruess A, Steffan-Dewenter I, Thies C (2005) Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity—ecosystem service management. Ecol Lett 8:857–874

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ver Hoef JM, Cressie N (1993) Spatial statistics: analysis of field experiments. In: Scheiner SM, Gurevitch J (eds) Design and analysis of ecological experiments. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 319–341

    Google Scholar 

  • Werner EE, Hall DJ (1998) Ontogenetic habitat shifts in bluegill—the foraging rate predation risk tradeoff. Ecology 69:1352–1366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilcove DS, McLellan CH, Dobson AP (1986) Habitat fragmentation in the temperate zone. In: Soulé ME (ed) Conservation biology: the science of scarcity and diversity. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA, pp 237–256

  • Wintle BA, Bardos DC (2006) Modeling species–habitat relationships with spatially autocorrelated observation data. Ecol Appl 16:1945–1958

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • With KA, Crist TO (1995) Critical thresholds in species responses to landscape structure. Ecology 76:2446–2459

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Juanita Constible, Rodney Kolb, Doug Mazeffa, Mark Munier, Ryan Stander, and Dave Stasek for their help in the field. Juanita Constible, Oswald Schmitz, and two anonymous reviewers provided valuable comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript. Funding was provided by Miami University, a Miami University Postdoctoral Research Scholarship, a German Research Foundation (DFG) grant (DI 1207/1-1), and a grant from the National Science Foundation (DEB-0235369).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Zoology, Miami University, Oxford, OH, 45056, USA

    Kyle J. Haynes & Thomas O. Crist

  2. IFZ—Department of Animal Ecology, Justus Liebig University, Heinrich-Buff-Ring 26-32, 35392, Giessen, Germany

    Tim Diekötter

Authors
  1. Kyle J. Haynes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tim Diekötter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thomas O. Crist
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kyle J. Haynes.

Additional information

Communicated by Oswald Schmitz.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM1 (PPT 72 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Haynes, K.J., Diekötter, T. & Crist, T.O. Resource complementation and the response of an insect herbivore to habitat area and fragmentation. Oecologia 153, 511–520 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-007-0749-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-007-0749-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation