Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-8bbf57454-s7zjg Total loading time: 0.275 Render date: 2022-01-25T21:13:27.318Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Caterpillar abundance and parasitism in a seasonally dry versus wet tropical forest of Panama

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 December 2010

Heidi Connahs*
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND, 58202–9019, USA Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Apartado 0843-03092, Balboa, Ancón, Republic of Panama
Annette Aiello
Affiliation:
Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Apartado 0843-03092, Balboa, Ancón, Republic of Panama
Sunshine Van Bael
Affiliation:
Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Apartado 0843-03092, Balboa, Ancón, Republic of Panama
Genoveva Rodríguez-Castañeda
Affiliation:
Landscape Ecology Laboratory, University of Umeå, SwedenSE091-87
*
1Corresponding author. Email: hconnahs@gmail.com

Abstract:

Rainfall seasonality can strongly influence biotic interactions by affecting host plant quality, and thus potentially regulating herbivore exposure to natural enemies. Plant defences are predicted to increase from dry to wet forests, rendering wet-forest caterpillars more vulnerable to parasitoids due to the slow-growth-high-mortality hypothesis. We collected and reared caterpillars from the understorey and trail edges of a wet forest and a seasonally dry forest to determine whether wet-forest caterpillars suffered a higher prevalence of parasitism and were less abundant than dry-forest caterpillars. In the two forests, caterpillar abundances (on average 8 h−1) and prevalence of parasitism (18%) were very similar regardless of feeding niche for both parasitism (27% versus 29% in shelter builders, and 16% versus 11% in external feeders) and caterpillar abundances (shelter builders: 1.42 versus 2.39, and external feeders: 8.27 versus 5.49 caterpillars h−1) in the dry and wet forests, respectively. A similar comparative analysis conducted in the canopy and understorey of the dry forest revealed a higher prevalence of parasitism in the canopy (43%) despite caterpillar densities similar to those in the understorey. Overall, shelter builders suffered higher parasitism than external feeders (32% versus 14.9%), and were attacked primarily by flies, whereas external feeders were more vulnerable to attack by parasitoid wasps.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

AIDE, T. M. 1993. Patterns of leaf development and herbivory in a tropical understory community. Ecology 74:455466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
AIELLO, A. 1992. Dry season strategies of two Panamanian butterfly species, Anartia fatima (Nymphalinae) and Pierella luna luna (Satyrinae). Pp. 573575 in Quintero, D. & Aiello, A. (eds.). Insects of Panama and Mesoamerica. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
AIELLO, A. & SOLIS, A. 2003. Defense mechanisms in Pyralidae & Choreutidae: fecal stalactites and escape holes, with remarks about cocoons, camouflage and aposematism. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 57:168175.Google Scholar
ALBERTI, J., MONTEMAYOR, D., ALVAREZ, F., AGUSTINA, C., LUPPI, T., CANEPUCCIA, A., ISACCH, J. P. & IRIBARNE, O. 2007. Changes in rainfall pattern affect crab herbivory rates in a SW Atlantic salt marsh. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 353:126133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BASSET, Y., KITCHING, R., MILLER, S. & NOVOTNY, V. 2003. Arthropods of tropical forests – spatio-temporal dynamics and resource use in the canopy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 492 pp.Google Scholar
BENREY, B. & DENNO, R. F. 1997. The slow growth high mortality hypothesis: a test using the cabbage butterfly. Ecology 78:987999.Google Scholar
BORGHESIO, L. & LAIOLO, P. 2004. Seasonal foraging ecology in a forest avifauna of northern Kenya. Journal of Tropical Ecology 20:145155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BRANSON, D. H. 2008. Influence of a large late summer precipitation event on food limitation and grasshopper population dynamics in a northern Great Plains grassland. Environmental Entomology 37:686695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BRENES-ARGUEDAS, T. C., COLEY, P. D. & KURSAR, T. A. 2009. Pest versus drought as determinants of plant distribution along a tropical rainfall gradient. Ecology 90:17511761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
COLEY, P. D. 1998. Possible effects of climate change on plant-herbivoreinteractions in moist tropical forests. Climatic Change 39:455472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
COLEY, P. D. & AIDE, T. M. 1991. Comparison of herbivory and plant defences in temperate and tropical broad-leaved forests. Pp. 2549 in Price, P. W., Lewinsohn, T. M., Fernandes, G. W. & Benson, W. W. (eds.). Plant–animal interactions: evolutionary ecology in tropical and temperate regions. Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
COLEY, P. D. & BARONE, J. A. 1996. Herbivory and plant defences in tropical forests. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 27:305335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CONNAHS, H., RODRÍGUEZ-CASTAÑEDA, G., WALTERS, T., WALLA, T. & DYER, L. 2009. Geographic variation in host-specificity and parasitoid pressure of an herbivore (Geometridae) associated with the tropical genus Piper (Piperaceae). Journal of Insect Science 9:111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DOMINY, N. J., LUCAS, P. W. & WRIGHT, S. J. 2003. Mechanics and chemistry of rain forest leaves: canopy and understorey compared. Journal of Experimental Botany 54:20072014.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DYER, L. A. 2007. Tropical tritrophic interactions: Nasty hosts and ubiquitous cascades. Pp. 275293 in Carson, W. P. & Schnitzer, S. A. (eds.). Tropical forest community ecology. Blackwell Science, Oxford.Google Scholar
GENTRY, G. L. & DYER, L. 2002. On the conditional nature of neotropical caterpillar defenses against their natural enemies. Ecology 83:31083119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GODFRAY, H. C. J. 1994. Parasitoids: behavioral and evolutionary ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton. 473 pp.Google Scholar
GIVINISH, T. 1999. On the causes of gradients in tropical tree diversity. Journal of Ecology 87:193210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HANCE, T., BAAREN, J., VERNON, P. & BOIVIN, G. 2007. Impact of extreme temperature on parasitoids in a climate change perspective. Annual Review of Entomology 52:107–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HAWKINS, B. A. 1994. Pattern and process in host–parasitoid interactions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 200 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
JOERN, A. & MOLE, S. 2005. The plant stress hypothesis and variable responses by blue grama grass (Bouteloua gracilis) to water, mineral nitrogen, and insect herbivory. Journal of Chemical Ecology 31:20692090.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
JONES, M. T., CASTELLANOS, I. & WEISS, M. R. 2002. Do leaf shelters always protect caterpillars from invertebrate predators? Ecological Entomology 27:753757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KNAPP, A. K., BEIER, C., BRISKE, D. D., CLASSEN, A. T., LUO, Y., REICHSTEIN, M., SMITH, M. D., SMITH, S. D., BELL, J. E., FAY, P. A., HEISLER, J. L., LEAVITT, S.W., SHERRY, R., SMITH, B. & WENG, E. 2008. Consequences of more extreme precipitation regimes for terrestrial ecosystems. Bioscience 58:811821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LEIGH, E. G., DAVIDAR, P., DICK, C. W., PUYRAVAUD, J. P., TERBORGH, J., TER STEEGE, H. & WRIGHT, S. J. 2004. Why do some tropical forests have so many species of trees? Biotropica 36:447473.Google Scholar
LOISELLE, B. A. & FARJI-BRENER, A. G. 2002. What's up? An experimental comparison of predation levels between canopy and understory in a tropical wet forest. Biotropica 34:327330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LOWMAN, M. D. & MOFFETT, M. 1993. The ecology of tropical rain forests canopies. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8:104108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PRICE, P. W., BOUTON, C. E., GROSS, P., MCPHERSON, B. A., THOMPSON, J. N. & BOECKLEN, W. 1980. Interactions among three insect herbivores and natural enemies. Annual Review Ecology and Systematics 11:4165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PREISSER, E. L. & STRONG, D. R. 2004. Climate affects predator control of an herbivore outbreak. American Naturalist 163;754762.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
RODOVALHO, S. R., LAUMANN, R. A. & DINIZ, I. R. 2007. Ecological aspects of lepidopteran caterpillar parasitoids from Caryocar brasiliense Camb. (Caryocaraceae) in a cerrado sensu stricto of Central Brazil. Biota Neotropica 7:239243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SANTIAGO, L. S. & MULKEY, S. S. 2005. Leaf productivity along a precipitation gradient in lowland Panama: patterns from leaf to ecosystem. Trends in Evolution, Ecology and Systematics 19;349356.Google Scholar
SANTIAGO, L. S., KITAJIMA, K., WRIGHT, S. J. & MULKEY, S. S. 2004. Coordinated changes in photosynthesis, water relations and leaf nutritional traits of canopy trees along a precipitation gradient in lowland tropical forest. Oecologia 139:495502.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
SHAPIRO, B. A. & PICKERING, J. 2000. Rainfall and parasitic wasp (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonoidea) activity in successional forest stages at Barro Colorado Nature Monument, Panama and La Selva Biological Station Costa Rica. Agricultural Forest Entomology 2:3947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
STENSETH, N. C., MYSTERUD, A., OTTERSEN, G., HURRELL, J. W., CHAN, K.-S. & LIMA, M. 2002. Ecological effects of climate fluctuations. Science 297:12921296.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
STIREMAN, J. O., DYER, L. A., JANZEN, D. H., SINGER, M. S., LILL, J. T., MARQUIS, R. J., RICKLEFS, R. E., GENTRY, G. L., HALLWACHS, W., COLEY, P. D., BARONE, J. A., GREENEY, H. F., CONNAHS, H., BARBOSA, P., MORAIS, H. C., & DINIZ, I. R. 2005. Climatic unpredictability and parasitism of caterpillars: implications of global warming. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 102:1738417387.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
VAN BAEL, S. A. & BRAWN, J. D. 2005. The direct and indirect effects of insectivory by birds in two contrasting Neotropical forests. Oecologia 143:106116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
VAN BAEL, S. A., AIELLO, A., VALDERRAMA, A., MEDIANERO, E., SAMANIEGO, M. & WRIGHT, S. J. 2004. General herbivore outbreak following an El Nino-related drought in a lowland Panamanian forest. Journal of Tropical Ecology 20;625633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VAN SCHAIK, C. P., TERBORGH, J. W. & WRIGHT, S. J. 1993. The phenology of tropical forests: adaptive significance and consequences for primary consumers. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 24:353377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WILF, P., LABANDEIRA, C. C., JOHNSON, K. R., COLEY, P. D. & CUTTER, A. D. 2001. Insect herbivory, plant defense, and early Cenozoic climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 98:62216226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
WIRTH, R. & LEAL, I. R. 2001. Passiflora coccinea? Ecoscience 8:450453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WOLDA, H. 1978. Seasonal fluctuations in rainfall, food and abundance of tropical insects. Journal of Animal Ecology 47:369381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WOLDA, H. 1988. Insect seasonality – why? Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 19;118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WRIGHT, S. J. 1999. Plant diversity in tropical forests. Pp. 450495 in Pugnaire, F. I. & Valladares, F. (eds.). Handbook of plant functional ecology. CRC Press, New York.Google Scholar
YANOVIAK, S. P. & KASPARI, M. 2000. Community structure and the habitat template: ants in the tropical forest canopy and litter. Oikos 89:259266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Caterpillar abundance and parasitism in a seasonally dry versus wet tropical forest of Panama
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Caterpillar abundance and parasitism in a seasonally dry versus wet tropical forest of Panama
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Caterpillar abundance and parasitism in a seasonally dry versus wet tropical forest of Panama
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *