Diel activity of arboreal arthropods associated with a rainforest tree

Basset, Yves; Springate, Neil D.

doi:10.1080/00222939200770571

Cited by 14 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A similar conclusion can be drawn for the effect of natural enemies on insect distribution patterns, where there is inconsistency in the role of predators in modifying herbivore distribution patterns (e.g. Buckley, 1990;Basset & Springate, 1992;Freeland & Boulton, 1992;Gauld et al, 1992;Power, 1992;Hawkins et al, 1997;Novotny et al, 1999;Ode, 2006).…”

Section: Evolutionary Forces Driving Distribution Patternsmentioning

confidence: 63%

“…Enemy-induced mortality in a particular time or place may be comparatively low because natural enemy abundances are lower, insects are better able to avoid detection by natural enemies (through crypsis or the use of refuges), or in the special case of host-specific herbivores, because they can sequester secondary chemicals that act as deterrents to natural enemies. There is increasing support for this hypothesis among the literature to explain not only host specificity (Bernays & Graham, 1988), but also vertical stratification (Schulze, Linsenmair & Fiedler, 2001;Koike & Nagamitsu, 2003) and diel activity (Basset & Springate, 1992). While support for the importance of natural enemies for structuring the spatial and temporal distributions of insect assemblages is well founded, it is unlikely to operate in isolation.…”

Section: (2) Enemy-free Space Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 93%

“…There are a number of reasons for this, including minimising competitor interactions (Morris, Lewis & Godfray, 2004), predator avoidance (enemy-free space) (Basset & Springate, 1992), avoiding adverse environmental conditions (physiological efficiency) (Springate & Basset, 1996;Basset et al, 2001Basset et al, , 2003a and maximising resource quality and/or quantity (resource availability) (Herrera, 1990;Armstrong, 1997;Hernández-Conrique et al, 2007). However, there is a general lack of consensus among studies as to the strength of selective forces driving diel activity patterns (Springate & Basset, 1996), and therefore, the identity of the appropriate hypothesis or hypotheses.…”

Section: (2) Diel Activitymentioning

confidence: 96%

“…However, there is a general lack of consensus among studies as to the strength of selective forces driving diel activity patterns (Springate & Basset, 1996), and therefore, the identity of the appropriate hypothesis or hypotheses. In particularly, the role of predator avoidance remains controversial due to the contrasting results that have been found in different locations (Buckley, 1990;Basset & Springate, 1992;Novotny et al, 1999).…”

Section: (2) Diel Activitymentioning

confidence: 97%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The spatial and temporal distributions of arthropods in forest canopies: uniting disparate patterns with hypotheses for specialisation

Wardhaugh

2014

Biological Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Arguably the majority of species on Earth utilise tropical rainforest canopies, and much progress has been made in describing arboreal assemblages, especially for arthropods. The most commonly described patterns for tropical rainforest insect communities are host specificity, spatial specialisation (predominantly vertical stratification), and temporal changes in abundance (seasonality and circadian rhythms). Here I review the recurrent results with respect to each of these patterns and discuss the evolutionary selective forces that have generated them in an attempt to unite these patterns in a holistic evolutionary framework. I propose that species can be quantified along a generalist-specialist scale not only with respect to host specificity, but also other spatial and temporal distribution patterns, where specialisation is a function of the extent of activity across space and time for particular species. When all of these distribution patterns are viewed through the paradigm of specialisation, hypotheses that have been proposed to explain the evolution of host specificity can also be applied to explain the generation and maintenance of other spatial and temporal distribution patterns. The main driver for most spatial and temporal distribution patterns is resource availability. Generally, the distribution of insects follows that of the resources they exploit, which are spatially stratified and vary temporally in availability. Physiological adaptations are primarily important for host specificity, where nutritional and chemical variation among host plants in particular, but also certain prey species and fungi, influence host range. Physiological tolerances of abiotic conditions are also important for explaining the spatial and temporal distributions of some insect species, especially in drier forest environments where desiccation is an ever-present threat. However, it is likely that for most species in moist tropical rainforests, abiotic conditions are valuable indicators of resource availability, rather than physiologically limiting factors. Overall, each distribution pattern is influenced by the same evolutionary forces, but at differing intensities. Consequently, each pattern is linked and not mutually exclusive of the other distribution patterns. Most studies have examined each of these patterns in isolation. Future work should focus on examining the evolutionary drivers of these patterns in concert. Only then can the relative strength of resource availability and distribution, host defensive phenotypes, and biotic and abiotic interactions on insect distribution patterns be determined.

show abstract

Section: Evolutionary Forces Driving Distribution Patternsmentioning

confidence: 63%

Section: (2) Enemy-free Space Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: (2) Diel Activitymentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: (2) Diel Activitymentioning

confidence: 97%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The spatial and temporal distributions of arthropods in forest canopies: uniting disparate patterns with hypotheses for specialisation

Wardhaugh

2014

Biological Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Curculionidae); others show no difference between day and night (e.g. Chrysomelidae, Cicadellidae, Psylloidea; Basset and Springate 1992). Phytophagous taxa that show the reverse pattern (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The value of targeted reforestations for local insect diversity: a case study from the Ecuadorian Andes

Adams

Fiedler

2015

Biodivers Conserv

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We surveyed insect communities (Coleoptera, Hemiptera, Lepidoptera) on native treelets (Cedrela montana, Heliocarpus americanus, Tabebuia chrysantha) planted among anthropogenic land cover types (pasture, secondary shrub, and a pine plantation), comparing them among one another and to those found on conspecific treelets in adjacent montane rainforest. Between 2010 and 2012, we sampled 160 treelets (Pasture: 47, Shrub: 26, Pine: 44, Forest: 43). Habitability of reforestations for forest insects was quantified by examining species richness, diversity partitioning and community composition on reforestations relative to natural forest. Species richness was high (phytophagous Coleoptera: 185 spp., predatory Coleoptera: 101 spp., phytoph. Hemiptera: 174 spp., phytoph. Lepidoptera: 147 spp.) with values being highest in natural forest, and significantly lower in all reforestations. Phytophagous Coleoptera and Lepidoptera communities showed a trend toward higher species richness in pine than in pasture or shrub. Predatory Coleoptera showed higher values in pasture and pine compared to shrub. These findings suggest that microclimatic effects of surrounding vegetation may affect species richness. Given high habitat heterogeneity and prevalence of rare species, tree-level a-diversity and turn-over between individual sample treelets emerged as the strongest contributors to overall diversity. Coleoptera community composition was mainly a function of habitat, but colonization of reforestations by forest species was restricted to phytophagous taxa and contingent on the presence of canopy cover. For Hemiptera and Lepidoptera, community composition was similar across habitats and determined mainly by host species. In summary, young reforestations maintain less diverse insect communities compared to natural Communicated by Kwek Yan Chong.Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (forest but still harbor a considerable number of species, particularly if canopy cover is present.

show abstract

Seasonal and diel variations in the activity of canopy insect herbivores differ between deciduous and evergreen plant species in a tropical dry forest

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Diel activity of arboreal arthropods associated with a rainforest tree

Cited by 14 publications

References 17 publications

The spatial and temporal distributions of arthropods in forest canopies: uniting disparate patterns with hypotheses for specialisation

The spatial and temporal distributions of arthropods in forest canopies: uniting disparate patterns with hypotheses for specialisation

The value of targeted reforestations for local insect diversity: a case study from the Ecuadorian Andes

Seasonal and diel variations in the activity of canopy insect herbivores differ between deciduous and evergreen plant species in a tropical dry forest

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About