Impacts of insect herbivores on rare plant populations

Ancheta, Justin; Heard, Stephen B.

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2011.06.019

Cited by 51 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This selective predation translates to an annual consumption of between 9–13·5% of the standing biomass of tabular acroporid colonies in reef crest habitats. These total consumption estimates are within the range observed in terrestrial systems where herbivores typically consume between 3–30% of the total leaf area in an ecosystem annually (Crawley 1983, 1997; Lowman 1992; Coley & Barone 1996; Ancheta & Heard 2011). In terrestrial systems, even relatively low levels of defoliation can have significant effects on the fitness of certain plant species.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 68%

“…In terrestrial systems, herbivores are often highly selective in the range of plant species that they consume and, generally, the smaller the herbivore the higher the level of dietary specialization (Crawley 1989, 1997; Bigger & Marvier 1998; Ancheta & Heard 2011). Similarly, coral‐feeding fishes are highly selective in their feeding behaviour and consume preferred coral prey disproportionately to their abundance (Irons 1989; Berumen, Pratchett & McCormick 2005; Pratchett 2005, 2007; Lawton et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With these limitations in mind, if the corallivore guild is considered as a whole, the total biomass consumed will be considerably larger than the amount estimated here, calling into question the assumption that chronic tissue loss will have only minor impacts on coral populations. In terrestrial systems, herbivores are often highly selective in the range of plant species that they consume and, generally, the smaller the herbivore the higher the level of dietary specialization (Crawley 1989(Crawley , 1997Bigger & Marvier 1998;Ancheta & Heard 2011). Similarly, coral-feeding fishes are highly selective in their feeding behaviour and consume preferred coral prey disproportionately to their abundance (Irons 1989;Berumen, Pratchett & McCormick 2005;Pratchett 2005Pratchett , 2007Lawton et al in press).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Plants represent a nutritionally poor but widely available, renewable food resource that is rarely consumed in its entirety by herbivores but rather only small proportions are consumed at any one time (Crawley 1983;Huntly 1991;Coley & Barone 1996). Understanding plantherbivore interactions has been a major research focus of terrestrial ecologists, and there is a general acceptance that grazing herbivores consume a significant proportion of the edible plant biomass within an ecosystem (Crawley 1997;Maron & Crone 2006;Engelkes et al 2008;Ancheta & Heard 2011). For example, annual defoliation rates typically range between 3-30% of the total leaf biomass which equates to an average consumption of between 10-20% of the annual primary productivity of plant communities (Crawley 1989(Crawley , 1997Huntly 1991;Bigger & Marvier 1998).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Consumption of tabular acroporid corals by reef fishes: a comparison with plant–herbivore interactions

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary 1.Interactions between primary producers and consumers (i.e. grazers) are of fundamental importance to the successful functioning of ecological communities. Plant-herbivore interactions have been extensively studied, and herbivory has been accepted as an important process contributing to the structure of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. In contrast, the functional importance of the ecologically equivalent interaction between scleractinian reef corals and polyp-feeding fishes is largely untested, but has generally been dismissed as unimportant. 2. This study quantified the amount of tabular acroporid coral tissue biomass consumed at the population level by corallivorous butterflyfishes and determined the proportion of both the standing biomass and productivity that is consumed annually at three exposed reef crest sites at Lizard Island, Great Barrier Reef and Australia. 3. Total daily coral consumption ranged from 18AE6 (±1AE6) to 27AE4 (±1AE5) g 200 m )2 day )1 with 61-68% of this consumption directed towards tabular acroporid corals. This selective feeding resulted in an annual consumption of between 8AE9-13AE5% of the total available tissue biomass and between 52-79% of the annual productivity of these tabular acroporid corals. 4. The proportion of standing coral tissue biomass removed by corallivorous butterflyfishes is similar to that removed from terrestrial plants by herbivores. However, the proportion of primary productivity consumed is considerably greater on coral reefs for both corallivorous and herbivorous fishes compared with terrestrial systems. 5. In terrestrial systems, even relatively low levels of defoliation can have significant effects on plant growth rates, seed production and overall fitness. Considering the high proportion of productivity that is consumed by polyp-feeding fishes, it would seem incongruous that these grazing fishes do not have similar effects on coral community structure and population dynamics. Our findings highlight the need to revisit previously held assumptions regarding the functional importance of corallivorous fishes to coral reef ecosystems.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 68%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Consumption of tabular acroporid corals by reef fishes: a comparison with plant–herbivore interactions

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These tradeoffs provide a commonly cited mechanism by which herbivores can maintain or increase plant diversity as they limit dominance by fast-growing (Lind et al 2013, Borer et al 2014 or competitively dominant species (Viola et al 2010; see also Chase et al 2002, Hillebrand et al 2007; however, herbivores do not always affect species diversity as predicted. Although herbivores do increase diversity when they consume dominant species (Hillebrand et al 2007, Viola et al 2010, Borer et al 2014, they can also preferentially consume subdominant or rare species (Howe and Brown 1999, Hillebrand et al 2007, Viola et al 2010, Ancheta and Heard 2011. Indeed, interspecific tradeoffs between defense and growth or competitive ability do not necessarily apply to all species in a community (Viola et al 2010, Lind et al 2013.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Defensive tradeoffs are not prerequisites to plant diversity in a two species model

Mortensen

Abbott

Danielson

2017

Oikos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trait-based theories of biodiversity consider interspecific tradeoffs among speciesspecific traits as prerequisites to maintaining community evenness, a component of species diversity. Such tradeoffs are commonly observed in plant communities, particularly in relation to traits associated with resistance to herbivory. Indeed, global experiments show that interspecific tradeoffs are common between plant defense and growth or competitive ability; however, the positive effects of herbivory on plant diversity predicted by theories with trait-based tradeoffs are far less commonly observed. Moreover, both the overall and relative importance of these tradeoffs in promoting plant diversity are not well known. To disentangle the relationships among growth, competition, and defense in relation to plant community evenness, we built a model that describes the effects of a shared herbivore on two plant species with the potential to differ in each of these traits. While tradeoffs between plant defense and growth or competitive ability can increase plant diversity via evenness, this is not always the case nor is it a requirement for increased diversity. Herbivores may increase plant diversity even in the absence of defensive tradeoffs, preferentially consuming apparently maladapted species, by limiting the negative effects of interspecific interactions. Therefore, the importance of defensive tradeoffs in increasing diversity may not be as important, or as straightforward, as previously hypothesized.

show abstract

Are rare plant species less resistant than common ones to herbivores? A multi‐plant species study using above‐ and below‐ground generalist herbivores

Bürli,

Ensslin,

Kempel

et al. 2023

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rare plant species are suggested to be less resistant to herbivores than common species. Their lower apparency and the fact that they often live in isolated populations, resulting in fewer herbivore encounters, might have led to the evolution of reduced defences. Moreover, their frequent lower levels of genetic diversity compared with common species could negatively affect their resistance against enemies. However, the hypothesis that plant resistance depends on plant regional and local rarity, independently of habitat and competitive and growth strategy, lacks evidence. To test this hypothesis, we assessed the performance and preference of one belowground and three aboveground generalist invertebrate herbivores from different taxonomic groups as indicators of plant resistance. Herbivores were fed a total of 62 regionally and locally rare and common plant species from Switzerland. We accounted for differences in a plant's growth and competitive strategy and habitat resource availability. We found that regionally and locally rare and common plant species did not generally differ in their resistance to most generalist herbivores. However, one herbivore species even performed better and preferred locally and regionally common plant species over rarer ones, indicating that common species are not more resistant, but tend to be less resistant. We also found that all herbivore species consistently performed better on competitive and large plant species, although different herbivore species generally preferred and performed better on different plant species. The latter indicates that the use of generalist herbivores as indicators of plant‐resistance levels can be misleading. Synthesis: Our results show that rare plant species are not inherently less resistant than common ones to herbivores. Instead, our results suggest that the ability of plants to allocate resources away from defence towards enhancing their competitive ability might have allowed plants to tolerate herbivory, and to become locally and regionally common.

show abstract

Impacts of insect herbivores on rare plant populations

Cited by 51 publications

References 56 publications

Consumption of tabular acroporid corals by reef fishes: a comparison with plant–herbivore interactions

Consumption of tabular acroporid corals by reef fishes: a comparison with plant–herbivore interactions

Defensive tradeoffs are not prerequisites to plant diversity in a two species model

Are rare plant species less resistant than common ones to herbivores? A multi‐plant species study using above‐ and below‐ground generalist herbivores

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About