09.01.2013 Views

ecology of phasmids - KLUEDO - Universität Kaiserslautern

ecology of phasmids - KLUEDO - Universität Kaiserslautern

ecology of phasmids - KLUEDO - Universität Kaiserslautern

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Adult female feeding preference & nymph performance 48<br />

4.2.1 Measuring leaf traits<br />

Relative leaf toughness, water content, specific leaf weight, total phenol and tannin content were<br />

assessed for mature leaves <strong>of</strong> 15 host plant species <strong>of</strong> M. diocles.<br />

Leaves were collected in the vicinity <strong>of</strong> the BCI laboratories at the forest edge and in the understory. No<br />

more than three leaves were collected per plant individual to cover intraspecific variation in leaf traits.<br />

Leaves were stored in zip log bags in a cooler until measurements were taken.<br />

Data for leaf water content and specific leaf weight derived from leaves used in dual choice feeding<br />

trials and are expressed as species-specific means (for sample size see Table 4-1). For details see<br />

Chapter 4.2.2.<br />

4.2.1.1 Measuring leaf toughness<br />

Coley and Barone (1996) considered leaf toughness as the most effective plant defense. For this reason I<br />

decided to use the M. diocles host plant species with lowest leaf toughness as reference in dual-choice<br />

feeding trials (see Chapter 4.2.2). Consequently I had to measure leaf toughness before starting<br />

preference tests. This initial screening included nine Piper and two Philodendron species. From these<br />

species I collected six leaves from six individuals each in the nearby vicinity <strong>of</strong> the BCI laboratory and<br />

took toughness measurements as described below. Later, when preference tests were already running, I<br />

added four more Piper species. Here, I measured toughness <strong>of</strong> all leaves that were used in dual-choice<br />

feeding trials. For these reasons sample sizes for toughness measurements vary among species (for<br />

sample size see Table 4-1).<br />

Leaf toughness was measured using a Chatillon penetrometer (Chatillon Co. Ltd., New York; rod<br />

diameter = 3.25 mm; one unit represents a force <strong>of</strong> 1 g * 8.3 mm -2 ) (alternative methods are described<br />

by Choong 1996). As I wanted to measure the strength an herbivore needs to cut leaf tissue I had to<br />

assure to minimize tissue flexibility. Therefore each leaf was positioned between two Plexiglas plates<br />

seated on four stands. The Plexiglas plates were perforated with holes <strong>of</strong> 5mm diameter both. Upraising<br />

the plates prevented from flawed measurements as the punching rod may jump back up if it hits a hard<br />

surface directly after having pierced the leaf tissue. From each leaf I took 10 measurements. Mayor leaf<br />

veins were avoided. Toughness was calculated on a relative scale as species-specific mean toughness <strong>of</strong><br />

mature leaves.<br />

4.2.1.2 Leaf phenol and tannin content<br />

To evaluate leaf foliar chemistry freeze-dried leaves from dual-choice feeding trials were ground and<br />

extracted in 70 % aqeuous acetone (Hagerman 1988).<br />

Total phenolics were assayed using the technique <strong>of</strong> Price & Butler (1977) modified by Mole &<br />

Waterman (1994). The reaction is an oxidation-reduction in which the phenolate ion is oxidized and<br />

ferric irons are reduced to the ferrous state forming the Prussian Blue complex. Phenolic content is then<br />

measured spectrophotometrically.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!