Find research datasets worth reusing

opencc-zeroAug 2020View details →

Data from: Experimental reduction of plant abundance changes interaction frequency of a tri-trophic micro-food web: contrasting responses of generalists and specialists

1. Species abundance is vulnerable to climate change and anthropogenic impact. Although numerous studies have examined the food web response to species loss, their response (e.g. in network topology and interaction frequency) to changes in species abundance has received little attention. 2. We experimentally reduced the abundance (by ca. 60%) of one host plant species (Saussurea nigrescens) in a tri-trophic micro-food web consisting of two common Asteraceae species (S. nigrescens and Anaphalis flavescens), their pre-dispersal seed predators (tephritid flies), and the parasitoid wasps that feed on these seed predators. 3. The neutral process hypothesis posits that network topology and interaction frequency are determined by the relative abundances of the participating species. Accordingly, we hypothesized that interaction frequency (indicated by the rate of flies infesting plants and of parasitoid wasps parasitizing flies) would decrease with decreasing abundance of host plant abundance. 4. Consistent with the neutral process hypothesis, abundance reduction significantly decreased the rate of generalist flies infesting the manipulated plant host species, but increased the rate on unmanipulated plant species. In contrast, abundance reduction significantly increased the rate of specialist flies infesting the manipulated species, but it had no demonstrable effect on the specialists on the unmanipulated plant host. 5. Moreover, abundance reduction significantly increased the rate of parasitoid wasps (as a species group) parasitizing flies in the manipulated species but decreased the rate of the unmanipulated species. These results were not attributable to neutral processes, but can be explained only by adaptive foraging theory. In addition, experimental manipulation did not shift the qualitative presence/absence of the linkages in the micro-food web, and the change in the abundance of both fly and wasp species was smaller than the abundance changes of the manipulated plant species. 6. These observations are interpreted to indicate that both neutral process and/or adaptive foraging likely contributed to food web stability in responses to changes in species abundance. Because species abundance is vulnerable to abiotic and biotic environmental changes, we suggest more research should be conducted to understand how food webs respond to climate change and anthropogenic disturbance.

opencc-zeroDec 2021View details →

Food plant shifts drive the diversification of Sack-bearer moths

Lepidoptera are a highly diverse group of herbivorous insects, however some superfamilies have relatively few species. Two alternative hypotheses for drivers of Lepidoptera diversity are shifts in food plant use or shifts from concealed to external feeding as larvae. Many studies address the former hypothesis, but with bias towards externally feeding taxa. One of the most striking examples of species disparity between sister lineages in Lepidoptera is between the concealed feeding Sack-bearer Moths (Mimallonoidea), which contain about 300 species, and externally feeding Macroheterocera, which have over 74,000 species. We provide the first dated tree of Mimallonidae to understand the diversification dynamics of these moths in order to fill a knowledge gap pertaining to drivers of diversity within an important concealed feeding clade. We find that Mimallonidae is an ancient Lepidoptera lineage that originated in the Cretaceous ca. 105 million years ago and has had a close association with the plant order Myrtales for the past 40 million years. Diversification dynamics are tightly linked with food plant usage in this group. Reliance on Myrtales may have influenced diversification of Mimallonidae because clades that shifted away from the ancestral condition of feeding on Myrtales have the highest speciation rates in the family.

opencc-zeroDec 2014View details →

Data from: Out-of-sample predictions from plant–insect food webs: robustness to missing and erroneous trophic interaction records

With increasing biotic introductions, there is a great need for predictive tools to anticipate which new trophic interactions will develop and which will not. Phylogenetic constraint of interactions in both native and novel food webs can make some novel interactions predictable. However, many food webs are sparsely sampled, or may include inaccurate interactions. In such cases, it is unclear whether modeling methods are still useful to anticipate novel interactions. We ran bootstrap simulations of host-use models on a Lepidoptera–plant data set to remove native trophic records or add erroneous records in order to observe the effect of missing or erroneous data on the prediction of interactions with novel plants. We found that the model was robust to a large amount of missing interaction records, but lost predictive power with the addition of relatively few erroneous interaction records. The loss of predictive power with missing records was due to inaccuracy in estimating phylogenetic distance between native and novel hosts. Removal of interaction records proportionally to their encounter frequency in the field had little effect on the loss of predictive power. Host-use models may have immediate value for predicting novel interactions from large, but sparsely sampled databases of trophic interactions.

opencc-zeroDec 2011View details →

Data from: Genetic factors affecting food-plant specialization of an oligophagous seed predator

Several ecological and genetic factors affect the diet specialization of insect herbivores. The evolution of specialization may be constrained by lack of genetic variation in herbivore performance on different food plant species. By traditional view, trade-offs, i.e., negative genetic correlations between the performance of the herbivores on different food-plant species favour the evolution of specialization. To investigate whether there is genetic variation or trade-offs in herbivore performance between different food plants that may influence specialization of the oligophagous seed-eating herbivore, Lygaeus equestris (Heteroptera), we conducted a feeding trial in laboratory using four food-plant species. Although L. equestris is specialized on Vincetoxicum hirundinaria (Apocynaceae) to some degree, it occasionally feeds on alternative food-plant species. We did not find significant negative genetic correlations between mortality, developmental time, and adult biomass of L. equestris on the different food-plant species. We found genetic variation in mortality and developmental time of L. equestris on some of the food plants, but not in adult biomass. Our results suggest that trade-offs do not affect adaptation and specialization of L. equestris to current and novel food-plant species, but the lack of genetic variation may restrict food-plant utilization. Since food-plant specialization of herbivores may have wide-ranging effects for instance on coevolving plant-herbivore interactions and speciation, it is essential to thoroughly understand the factors behind the specialization process. Our findings provide valuable information about the role of genetic factors in food-plant specialization of this oligophagous herbivore.

opencc-zeroDec 2015View details →

Data from: Genetic specificity of a plant-insect food web: implications for linking genetic variation to network complexity

Theory predicts that intraspecific genetic variation can increase the complexity of an ecological network. To date, however, we are lacking empirical knowledge of the extent to which genetic variation determines the assembly of ecological networks, as well as how the gain or loss of genetic variation will affect network structure. To address this knowledge gap, we used a common garden experiment to quantify the extent to which heritable trait variation in a host plant determines the assembly of its associated insect food web (network of trophic interactions). We then used a resampling procedure to simulate the additive effects of genetic variation on overall food-web complexity. We found that trait variation among host-plant genotypes was associated with resistance to insect herbivores, which indirectly affected interactions between herbivores and their insect parasitoids. Direct and indirect genetic effects resulted in distinct compositions of trophic interactions associated with each host-plant genotype. Moreover, our simulations suggest that food-web complexity would increase by 20% over the range of genetic variation in the experimental population of host plants. Taken together, our results indicate that intraspecific genetic variation can play a key role in structuring ecological networks, which may in turn affect network persistence.

opennotspecifiedJul 2015View details →

FIGURE 1. Dracaena spp. food plants. 1, D in Observations on the Biology of Afrotropical Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera). Part 8. Hesperiinae incertae sedis: Dracaena Feeders

FIGURE 1. Dracaena spp. food plants. 1, D. steudneri (or near), Misuku Forest, north Malawi, 20 May 2004; 2, typical D. laxissima, in cultivation; 3, D. camerooniana, in cultivation; 4, D. afromontana in cultivation.

opennotspecifiedSep 2011View details →

FIGURE 28. Celaenorrhinus galenus biseriata food plants. 1 in Observations on the biology of Afrotropical Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera) principally from Kenya. Part 3. Pyrginae: Celaenorrhinini

FIGURE 28. Celaenorrhinus galenus biseriata food plants. 1, Hypoestes forskaolii (identified as H. verticillaris white flower form), Shimba Hills (transplanted to Nairobi) 91.10.9. 2, H. forskaolii (identified as H. sp.?verticillaris pink flower form), Marere waterworks, Shimba Hills, 13 Dec 1990.

opencc-zeroMay 2022View details →

Phylogenetic relatedness of food plants reveals highest insect herbivore specialization at intermediate temperatures along a broad climatic gradient

Phytophagous insects differ in their degree of specialisation, biased by resource availability. The composition and richness of herbivore and plant assemblages change along climatic gradients, but knowledge about associated shifts in specialisation is scarce and lacks controlling for abundance and phylogeny of interaction partners. Thus, we aimed to test whether the specialisation of herbivores in insect- plant – interaction networks decreases towards cold habitats as predicted by the 'altitude niche-breadth hypothesis' to forecast possible consequences of interaction rewiring under climate change. We used a non-invasive, standardized metabarcoding approach to reconstruct dietary relationships of Orthoptera species as a major insect herbivore taxon along a broad temperature gradient (~12 °C) in southern Germany. Based on orthopteran surveys, direct feeding observations in field, collection of faecal pellets from > 3,000 individuals of 54 species, and parallel vegetation surveys on 41 grassland sites, we quantified plant resource availability and its use by herbivores. Faecal samples were pooled for each species per site.

opennotspecifiedNov 2017View details →

Distribution. Now restricted to the Channel Country of SW Queensland and the Lake Eyre Basin in NE South Australia. Descriptive notes. Head-body 95-120 mm, tail 105-160 mm, ear 23-29 mm, hindfoot 32-37 mm; weight 30-50 g. The Fawn Hopping Mouse has body form typical of hopping mice, with very long hindfeet, long tail with distal brush of longer hairs, very long ears, and large protruberant eyes. Dorsal fur is of variable color, from pale pinkish fawn to gray; ventral fur white. Unlike most other hopping mice, it has no throat pouch, but males have a glandular area of naked skin on the chest. Habitat. Occurs in low shrublands and tussock grasslands on stony ("gibber") plains and claypans. Shows marked habitat segregation from the Dusky Hopping Mouse (N. fuscus), which is closely associated with sandy substrates. Food and Feeding. The Fawn Hopping Mouse is mostly granivorous, but also eats other plant material (stems, leaves) and occasionally invertebrates. It uses succulent, salt-adapted plants around edges of claypans as a source of water. Breeding. Reproduction is probably largely opportunistic and aseasonal, with high reproductive output from near-continuous breeding after periods of high rainfall; reported littersize is 1-5, most commonly three; gestation period 38-43 days for nonlactating females. Females may mature later than other hopping mice, with reproductive maturity reached at about six months. Activity patterns. Terrestrial and nocturnal. Fawn Hopping Mice shelter during day in burrow systems that are typically simpler and shallower than those of other hopping mice. Movements, Home range and Social organization. Fawn Hopping Mice generally live singly or in small groups; typically uncommon within range, but population density may increase by an order of magnitude following periods of high rainfall. Status and Conservation. Classified as Near Threatened on The IUCN Red List. The Fawn Hopping Mouse has shown marked decline in range (estimated at greater than 50%), and presumably population size, since European settlement of Australia. This is mostlikely due to predation by the introduced house cat and Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes), and to habitat degradation associated with pastoralism. Bibliography. Brazenor (1934), Burbidge et al. (2008), Finlayson (1939), Gould (1853), Jackson & Groves (2015), Murray et al. (1999), Ogilby (1892), Thomas (1921h), Van Dyck & Strahan (2008), Waite (1898), Watts & Aslin (1981), Woinarski et al. (2014), Wood Jones (1925). in Muridae

Distribution. Now restricted to the Channel Country of SW Queensland and the Lake Eyre Basin in NE South Australia. Descriptive notes. Head-body 95-120 mm, tail 105-160 mm, ear 23-29 mm, hindfoot 32-37 mm; weight 30-50 g. The Fawn Hopping Mouse has body form typical of hopping mice, with very long hindfeet, long tail with distal brush of longer hairs, very long ears, and large protruberant eyes. Dorsal fur is of variable color, from pale pinkish fawn to gray; ventral fur white. Unlike most other hopping mice, it has no throat pouch, but males have a glandular area of naked skin on the chest. Habitat. Occurs in low shrublands and tussock grasslands on stony ("gibber") plains and claypans. Shows marked habitat segregation from the Dusky Hopping Mouse (N. fuscus), which is closely associated with sandy substrates. Food and Feeding. The Fawn Hopping Mouse is mostly granivorous, but also eats other plant material (stems, leaves) and occasionally invertebrates. It uses succulent, salt-adapted plants around edges of claypans as a source of water. Breeding. Reproduction is probably largely opportunistic and aseasonal, with high reproductive output from near-continuous breeding after periods of high rainfall; reported littersize is 1-5, most commonly three; gestation period 38-43 days for nonlactating females. Females may mature later than other hopping mice, with reproductive maturity reached at about six months. Activity patterns. Terrestrial and nocturnal. Fawn Hopping Mice shelter during day in burrow systems that are typically simpler and shallower than those of other hopping mice. Movements, Home range and Social organization. Fawn Hopping Mice generally live singly or in small groups; typically uncommon within range, but population density may increase by an order of magnitude following periods of high rainfall. Status and Conservation. Classified as Near Threatened on The IUCN Red List. The Fawn Hopping Mouse has shown marked decline in range (estimated at greater than 50%), and presumably population size, since European settlement of Australia. This is mostlikely due to predation by the introduced house cat and Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes), and to habitat degradation associated with pastoralism. Bibliography. Brazenor (1934), Burbidge et al. (2008), Finlayson (1939), Gould (1853), Jackson & Groves (2015), Murray et al. (1999), Ogilby (1892), Thomas (1921h), Van Dyck & Strahan (2008), Waite (1898), Watts & Aslin (1981), Woinarski et al. (2014), Wood Jones (1925).

opencc-by-4.0Aug 2017View details →

Supplementary material 2 from: Cheng S, Chan K-M, Ishak S-F, Khoo V, Chew MY (2017) Elucidating food plants of the aggregative, synchronously flashing Southeast Asian firefly, Pteroptyx tener Olivier (Coleoptera, Lampyridae). BioRisk 12: 25-39. https://doi.org/10.3897/biorisk.12.14061

Supporting Information S2. Cytochrome oxidase subunit 1 sequence alignment : Data type: molecular data

opencc-zeroDec 2018View details →

Supplementary material 1 from: Zhang Z, Zang R (2018) Diversity and distribution of food plants: Implications for conservation of the critically endangered Hainan gibbon. Nature Conservation 31: 17-33. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.31.27407

Table S1 : Explanation note: Species list, abundances and characteristics of food woody plant species for Hainan gibbon sampled in young natural secondary forests (YSF, < 25 yr since disturbance), middle-aged natural secondary forests (MSF, 25–60 yr since disturbance), old natural forests (OGF, > 60 yr since disturbance) and plantation forests (PF, 20–35 yr) of tropical forest area in BNNR, Hainan Island, China. Tot fts: total number of forest types in which the species occurs.

Figures 236–251 in The immature stages, larval food plants and biology of Neotropical mistletoe butterflies (Lepidoptera: Pieridae). II. The Catasticta group (Pierini: Aporiina)

Figures 236–251. Pupae of the Aporiina from the Old World, showing dorsal and lateral views. (236–247) Delias from Australia; (236–237) D. ennia; (238–239) D. harpalyce; (240–241) D. nigrina; (242–243) D. aganippe; (244–245) D. argenthona; (246–247) D. nysa; (248–249) Aporia crataegi from Europe; (250–251) Mylothris agathina from Africa.

Figures 182–198 in The immature stages, larval food plants and biology of Neotropical mistletoe butterflies (Lepidoptera: Pieridae). II. The Catasticta group (Pierini: Aporiina)

Figures 182–198. Catasticta flisa immature stages on Phoradendron undulatum, Monteverde (1500 m), Puntarenas Province, Costa Rica. (182–184) Eggs, showing cohort (182), lateral view (183), and colour several days after deposition, dorsolateral view (184); (185–186) larval instar I, showing newly emerged (185), and dorsolateral view (186); (187) larval instar II, cohort feeding; (188) larval instar III, cohort; (189) larval instar IV; (190–193) larva instar V, showing dorsolateral view (190), dorsal view (191), anterolateral view of head capsule (192), and posterior view (193); (194) prepupa, dorsolateral view; (195–198) pupa, showing lateral view (195), dorsal view (196), anterolateral view of projection of head (197), and posterior view of last abdominal segments (198).

Figures 162–181 in The immature stages, larval food plants and biology of Neotropical mistletoe butterflies (Lepidoptera: Pieridae). II. The Catasticta group (Pierini: Aporiina)

Figures 162–181. Catasticta hegemon immature stages on Antidaphne viscoidea, Monteverde (1400 m), Puntarenas Province, Costa Rica. (162–164) Eggs, showing cohort (162), dorsolateral view (163), and lateral view (164); (165–166) larval instar I, showing newly emerged (165), and cohort after feeding (166); (167–168) larval instar II, showing cohort (167), and dorsolateral view (168); (169) larval instar III, cohort moulting; (170–171) larval instar IV, showing cohort (170), and anterior view (171); (172–175) larva instar V, showing lateral view after moulting (172), dorsolateral view (173), anterolateral view of head capsule (174), and posterolateral view (175); (176–177) prepupa, showing lateral view (176), and dorsal view (177); (178– 181) pupa, showing lateral view (178), dorsal view (179), anterolateral view of projection of head (180), and posterior view of last abdominal segments (181).

Figures 81–91. Pereute charops and P in The immature stages, larval food plants and biology of Neotropical mistletoe butterflies (Lepidoptera: Pieridae). II. The Catasticta group (Pierini: Aporiina)

Figures 81–91. Pereute charops and P. cheops immature stages, Costa Rica. (81–88) P. charops, Río Macho near Orosi (1150 m) and Cachí (1300 m), Cartago Province: (81–84) larval instar V, showing procession of cohort on host tree (81), diurnal aggregation of cohort on host tree together with cohort of instar III (82), cohort on Phoradendron undulatum (83), and tachinid fly parasitoid Trichophora (84); (85) prepupae, lateral view; (86–88) pupae, showing cohort on trunk of host tree (86), lateral view (87), and dorsal view (88); (89–91) P. cheops, Copey (1850 m), San José Province: larval instar V, showing dorsolateral view (89), diurnal aggregation of cohort in leaf litter (90), and diurnal aggregation of cohort at base of host tree (91).

Figures 109–125 in The immature stages, larval food plants and biology of Neotropical mistletoe butterflies (Lepidoptera: Pieridae). II. The Catasticta group (Pierini: Aporiina)

Figures 109–125. Catasticta cerberus immature stages on Dendrophthora costaricensis, Cerro de la Muerte (3100 m), San José Province, Costa Rica. (109–111) Eggs, showing cohort (109), dorsolateral view (110), and lateral view (111); (112–113) larval instar I, showing newly emerged (112), and cohort (113); (114) larval instar II, cohort; (115) larval instar III, cohort moulting; (116) larval instar IV; (117–120) larval instar V, showing lateral view (117), dorsal view (118), anterior view of head capsule (119), and posterior view (120); (121) prepupa, lateral view; (122–125) pupa, showing dorsal view (122), lateral view (123), anterolateral view of projection of head (124), and posterolateral view of last abdominal segments (125).

Figures 64–80 in The immature stages, larval food plants and biology of Neotropical mistletoe butterflies (Lepidoptera: Pieridae). II. The Catasticta group (Pierini: Aporiina)

Figures 64–80. Pereute charops immature stages on Phoradendron undulatum, Río Macho near Orosi (1150 m), Cartago Province, Costa Rica. (64–67) Eggs, showing cohort (64), dorsolateral view (65), lateral view (66), and hatching (67); (68–69) larval instar I, showing newly emerged cohort (68), and lateral view (69); (70–72) larval instar II, showing cohort (70–71), and dorsolateral view (72); (73–74) larval instar III, showing cohort (73), and lateral view (74); (75–76) larval instar IV, showing cohort (75), and dorsal view (76); (77–80) larva instar V, showing lateral view (77), dorsal view (78), anterior view of head capsule (79), and posterior view (80).