Population dynamics of leafminers on a deciduous oak Quercus dentata

Nakamura, Takashi; Hattori, Kouhei; Ishida, Tomoya; Sato, H.; Kimura, Masahito T.

doi:10.1016/j.actao.2008.03.008

Cited by 12 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the case of arthropod associated to oak species, several studies have supported the hypothesis proposed by Mattson Jr. (1980); these studies found a positive relationship between leaf nitrogen concentration in Q. alba (Wold and Marquis 1997), Q. prinus, Q. rubra (Forkner and Hunter 2000), Q. dentata (Nakamura et al 2008), Q. geminata, Q. laevis Stiling 2006, 2008), Q. alba, Q. coccinea, and Q. velutina (Marquis and Lill 2010) and the density of herbivorous insects (i.e., leaf miners, leaf-chewing, gall-forming, and leaf rollers). Similarly, it has been reported that higher leaf nitrogen content in Q. crispula favors greater species richness of leaf-chewing insects (Lepidoptera) (Murakami et al 2005(Murakami et al , 2008.…”

Section: Chemistry Of the Host Plantmentioning

confidence: 58%

“…For example, Le Corff and Marquis (1999) found that the richness of herbivorous insect species (larvae of Lepidoptera) in Q. alba and Q. velutina was higher in the understory than in the canopy, suggesting that environmental factors such as the amount of light can be important in explaining the results. In addition, Nakamura et al (2008) found that Q. crispula showed a greater abundance of herbivorous leaf miners in the canopy compared to the understory, suggesting that the results were determined by the higher leaf nutritional quality in the understory compared to the canopy.…”

Section: Spatial Variationmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…On the other hand, Nakamura et al (2008) analyzed the population dynamics of several leaf miners on a deciduous oak Q. dentata for 9 years in northern Japan. The authors found that density-dependent effects were not explicit in the population dynamics of the species studied.…”

Section: Biotic Interactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are few studies in oaks belonging to other groups (Southwood et al 2004(Southwood et al , 2005Nazemi et al 2008). The works mentioned above included species belonging to different geographic regions (i.e., Africa Southwood et al 1982), America (Preszler and Boecklen 1994;Forkner et al 2004;Yarnes et al 2008;Tovar-Sánchez et al 2013), Asia (Ishida et al 2003;Ito and Ozaki 2005;Nakamura et al 2008), and Europe (Southwood et al 2004(Southwood et al , 2005Sobek et al 2008)]. In general, these studies have revealed a great diversity of canopy arthropods (including epiphytes and suspended soil), a pattern that suggests that oaks are important habitats for these organisms.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Oak canopy arthropod communities: which factors shape its structure?

Valencia-Cuevas

Tovar-Sánchez

2015

Rev. Chil. de Hist. Nat.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Canopy of forest ecosystems has been recognized as a habitat that supports a wide variety of plants, vertebrates, invertebrates, and microbes. Within the invertebrate group, arthropods are characterized by their great abundance, diversity, and functional importance. Particularly in temperate forests, species of the genus Quercus (oaks) are one of the most important tree canopy groups, for its diversity and dominance. Different studies have shown that the oak canopy contains a high diversity of arthropods suggesting their importance as habitat for this group of organisms. In this review, we investigated the factors that determine the establishment, organization, and maintenance of arthropod communities in the oak canopy. In general, it was found that there is a lack of literature that addresses the study of oak canopy arthropod communities. Also, the following patterns were found: (a) the research has covered a wide variety of topics; however, there are differences in the depth to which each topic has been analyzed, (b) there are ambiguous criteria to define the structure of the canopy, (c) groups with different habitat preferences belonging to different guilds and uneven development stages have been studied, avoiding generalizations about patterns found, (d) the standardization in sampling techniques and collection has been difficult, (e) bias exists towards the study of phytophagous insects belonging to the Coleoptera, Hymenoptera, and Lepidoptera orders, and (f) there are few studies in other groups of arthropods, for example, acorn borers, whose activity has an impact on the fitness and dispersion of the host plants. Finally, we propose that the detection and study of patterns in oak canopy communities can be of great value to propose management and conservation strategies in these forests.

show abstract

Section: Chemistry Of the Host Plantmentioning

confidence: 58%

Section: Spatial Variationmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Biotic Interactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Oak canopy arthropod communities: which factors shape its structure?

Valencia-Cuevas

Tovar-Sánchez

2015

Rev. Chil. de Hist. Nat.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…High incidences and abundances of leafminers on dominant plants have been demonstrated at global, regional, and community levels (Dai et al., 2017). For example, the highest reported abundance and richness values of leaf‐mining insects are found for members of Fagaceae and Myrtaceae (i.e., the most dominant plant families in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, respectively) (Bairstow, Clarke, McGeoch, & Andrew, 2010; Claridge & Wilson, 1982; Dai, Xu, & Cai, 2014; Dai, Xu, & Ding, 2013; Faeth & Mopper, 1981; Ishida, Hattori, & Kimura, 2004; Kollár & Hrubík, 2009; Lopez‐Vaamonde, Godfray, & Cook, 2003; Nakamura, Hattori, Ishida, Sato, & Kimura, 2008; Opler & Davis, 1981; Sato, 1991; Sinclair & Hughes, 2008a,b). The variation in leafminer species richness among different host plants might be described by the species–area (i.e., leafminer species to host plant area) or species–apparency (i.e., leafminer species to host plant apparency) relationship (Dai et al., 2017; MacArthur & Wilson, 1967; Opler, 1974).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are dominant plant species more susceptible to leaf‐mining insects? A case study at Saihanwula Nature Reserve, China

Dai

Long

et al. 2018

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dominant species significantly affect interspecific relationships, community structure, and ecosystem function. In the field, dominant species are often identified by their high importance values. Selective foraging on dominant species is a common phenomenon in ecology. Our hypothesis is that dominant plant groups with high importance values are more susceptible to leaf‐mining insects at the regional level. Here, we used the Saihanwula National Nature Reserve as a case study to examine the presence–absence patterns of leaf‐mining insects on different plants in a forest‐grassland ecotone in Northeast China. We identified the following patterns: (1) After phylogenetic correction, plants with high importance values are more likely to host leafminers at the species, genus, or family level. (2) Other factors including phylogenetic isolation, life form, water ecotype, and phytogeographical type of plants have different influences on the relationship between plant dominance and leafminer presence. In summary, the importance value is a valid predictor of the presence of consumers, even when we consider the effects of plant phylogeny and other plant attributes. Dominant plant groups are large and susceptible targets of leaf‐mining insects. The consistent leaf‐mining distribution pattern across different countries, vegetation types, and plant taxa can be explained by the “species‐area relationship” or the “plant apparency hypothesis.”

show abstract