ecology of phasmids - KLUEDO - Universität Kaiserslautern

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Adult female feeding preference & nymph performance 56 Table 4-1: Physical leaf traits of 15 M. diocles host plant species. Measurements for water content and specific leaf weight were taken in dual-choice feeding trials with female adults, accordingly the number of leaves per species (N) equals the number of preference tests. Plant species (short name) Relative toughness* Water content* SLW* N [%] [mg*cm -2 ] N* Piper marginatum (Pmarg) 36 102.40 ± 14.83 77.98 ± 4.94 2.86 ± 0.80 422 Piper aequale (Paequ) 36 234.61 ± 33.26 78.13 ± 3.23 3.74 ± 0.77 31 Piper arboreum (Parbo) 20 105.92 ± 8.30 72.45 ± 2.44 5.73 ± 0.82 20 Piper cordulatum (Pcord) 36 323.36 ± 31.38 83.83 ± 1.92 5.49 ± 0.68 31 Piper culebranum (Pcule) 36 175.53 ± 18.82 75.20 ± 6.86 4.31 ± 1.17 32 Piper dariense (Pdari) 30 171.19 ±25.55 76.90 ± 2.13 3.77 ± 0.38 30 Piper dilatatum (Pdila) 36 121.42 ± 24.56 76.20 ± 3.44 4.04 ± 1.07 32 Piper grande (Pgran) 24 296.38 ± 29.98 78.49 ± 3.05 4.19 ± 0.66 30 Philodendron ineaquilaterum (Philinae) 36 471.72 ± 18.87 77.68 ± 1.52 3.55 ± 0.27 30 Philodendron sp. (Philsp) 36 505.47 ± 41.68 85.77 ± 1.52 4.69 ± 0.49 31 Piper peltatum (Ppelt) 36 108.36 ± 18.68 76.90 ± 3.86 3.60 ± 0.90 31 Piper perlascense (Pperl) 30 148.22 ± 21.70 72.00 ± 5.41 3.97 ± 0.77 30 Piper reticulatum (Preti) 36 163.17 ± 19.79 80.68 ± 3.83 2.76 ± 0.77 31 Piper hispidum (Phisp) 30 134.61 ± 14.19 70.23 ± 6.03 3.82 ± 0.61 30 Piper imperiale (Pimpe) 36 279.08 ± 31.28 64.65 ± 5.94 6.02 ± 1.30 32 * Mean ± StDev ** the same as number of dual-choice feeding trials Leaf toughness was thought to be the primary defensive structural leaf trait. Consequently, I used Piper marginatum (with lowest leaf toughness) as reference plant species in dual-choice feeding trials. In the following figures P. marginatum is shown as the first species opposed to test plant species in alphabetical order. Leaf water content was not as heterogeneous among species as leaf toughness (Figure 4-3). The leaves of eight species shared similar water contents between 72 % (mean wc of P. imperiale) and 78 % (mean wc of P. marginatum). And average leaf water contents of 12 M. diocles host plant species ranged from approximately 70 to 80 %. However, P. cordulatum and Philodendron sp. had significantly higher water contents (83.83 ± 1.91 % and 85.77 ± 1.51 % respectively) and differed from the 13 other species. Notably Philodendron sp. also differed from all species in toughness and P. cordulatum had tougher
Adult female feeding preference & nymph performance 57 leaves than its congeners. Both species have thick and fleshy (almost succulent) leaves. With 64.65 ± 5.94 % the leaves of P. reticulatum had significantly lower water than all other plant species. In general the pattern of variation in structural reinforcement of leaves (expressed as specific leaf weight) was opposed to the interspecific pattern of water content (Figure 4-4). This is an indication that most species shared similar thickness of leaves (specific leaf area - the reciprocal of SLW - is a measure of leaf thickness). However P. cordulatum and Philodendron sp. the species that possessed maximum water content both had significantly higher SLW than most other plant species reflecting their thick fleshy leaves. Highest biomass accumulation per unit leaf area of P. reticulatum (6.11 mg*cm -2 ) in combination with lowest water content on the other hand reflected a comparatively thin and dense leaf matrix. Only P. cordulatum showed similarly high SLW. relative leaf toughness 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 a abc h f f c gh ab de ef d g Pmarg Paequ Parbo Pcord Pcule Pdari Pdila Pgran Philinae Figure 4-2: Relative leaf toughness of 15 selected M. diocles food plant species. Leaf toughness differed significantly among species (ANOVA, F = 534.8, df = 14, P < 0.01). Identical letters below boxes indicate no difference (Tukeys HSD unequal N, P > 0.05). Box-Whiskers show mean, standard deviation and 95 % confidence intervals of standard deviation. Philsp Phisp Pimpe Ppelt Pperl Preti
Page 1 and 2:
ECOLOGY OF PHASMIDS (PHASMATODEA) I
Page 5 and 6:
ECOLOGY OF PHASMIDS (PHASMATODEA) I
Page 7 and 8:
Acknowledgements I Acknowledgements
Page 9 and 10:
Table of Contents III 3 Life cycle,
Page 11 and 12:
List of Figures V List of Figures F
Page 13:
List of Abbreviations VII List of A
Page 16 and 17:
Introduction 2 Regardless whether s
Page 18 and 19:
Introduction 4 Description of phasm
Page 20 and 21: Introduction 6 Solanum and Piper (T
Page 22 and 23: Introduction 8 1.3.4 Data analysis
Page 24 and 25: Community structure & host range 10
Page 46 and 47: Life history & potential population
Page 58 and 59: Adult female feeding preference & n
Page 92 and 93: Predation mediated mortality & migr
Page 105 and 106: Concluding remarks 91 6 Concluding
Page 107: Abstract 93 7 Abstract Herbivory is
Page 110 and 111: Literature cited 96 Basset, Y. 1997
Page 112 and 113: Literature cited 98 Brown, B. J., M
Page 114 and 115: Literature cited 100 Croat, T. B. 1
Page 116 and 117: Literature cited 102 Hagerman, A. E
Page 118 and 119: Literature cited 104 Kearsley, M. J
Page 120 and 121:
Literature cited 106 McNeill, S., T
Page 122 and 123:
Literature cited 108 Reich, P. B.,
Page 124 and 125:
Literature cited 110 Strong, D. R.,
Page 127:
Appendix 113 9 Appendix Please cont
Page 130 and 131:
Appendix 1: Phasmid species previou
Page 133 and 134:
Tabellarischer Lebenslauf Angaben z
Page 135:
Berger J., Schaefer, M., 1997. Wild
show all

ecology of phasmids - KLUEDO - Universität Kaiserslautern

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?