| Literature DB >> 21053057 |
Abstract
Population dynamics models suggest that both the over-all level of resource productivity and spatial variability in productivity can play important roles in community dynamics. Higher productivity environments are predicted to destabilize consumer-resource dynamics. Conversely, greater heterogeneity in resource productivity is expected to contribute to stability. Yet the importance of these two factors for the dynamics of arthropod communities has been largely overlooked. I manipulated nutrient availability for strawberry plants in a multi-patch experiment, and measured effects of overall plant quality and heterogeneity in plant quality on the stability of interactions between the phytophagous mite Tetranychus urticae and its predator Phytoseiulus persimilis. Plant size, leaf N content and T. urticae population growth increased monotonically with increasing soil nitrogen availability. This gradient in plant quality affected two correlates of mite population stability, population variability over time (i.e., coefficient of variation) and population persistence (i.e., proportion of plant patches colonized). However, the highest level of plant quality did not produce the least stable dynamics, which is inconsistent with the "paradox of enrichment". Heterogeneity in plant productivity had modest effects on stability, with the only significant difference being less variable T. urticae densities in the heterogeneous compared to the corresponding homogeneous treatment. These results are generally congruent with metapopulation theory and other models for spatially segregated populations, which predict that stability should be governed largely by relative movement rates of predators and prey--rather than patch quality.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2010 PMID: 21053057 PMCID: PMC3040825 DOI: 10.1007/s10493-010-9410-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Exp Appl Acarol ISSN: 0168-8162 Impact factor: 2.132
Fig. 1Mean (±SE) change in Tetranychus urticae density of all stages combined among fertilizer levels between the first and fifth censuses. Points with different letters denote significant differences
Plant and mite responses to fertilizer levels, expressed as means (±SE) over all censuses
| Response1 variable | Fertilizer treatment | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low2 | Medium | High | Heterogeneous | Het-Low3,4 | Het-High | |
| Number of leaves | 8.177 ± 0.293a | 12.070 ± 0.433b | 12.421 ± 0.335b | 12.458 ± 0.404b | 9.053 ± 0.348A | 15.893 ± 0.574B,* |
| Leaf C:N | 34.072 ± 1.518a | 23.441 ± 0.728b | 20.761 ± 0.703c | 25.294 ± 1.054b | 29.922 ± 1.283A | 20.424 ± 0.812B |
| Prey variability | 1.1186 ± 0.106a | 1.764 ± 0.123b | 1.266 ± 0.111a | 1.330 ± 0.135a | 1.709 ± 0.100A,* | 1.281 ± 0.137B |
| Predator persistence | 0.427 ± 0.055a | 0.792 ± 0.055b | 0.757 ± 0.055b | 0.738 ± 0.055b | 0.658 ± 0.055A,* | 0.836 ± 0.055B |
1Leaf number, C:N, and prey CV calculated as means per cage averaged over all censuses. Persistence calculated as overall proportion per cage averaged over all censuses
2Different lower case letters denote significant differences among fertilizer treatments
3Different upper case letters denote significant differences between Low and High fertilized plants within the Heterogeneous treatment (Het-Low vs. Het-High)
4Significant differences between the Low or High fertilizer treatments versus Low or High fertilized plants in the Heterogeneous treatment are denoted by “*”
Fig. 2Tetranychus urticae (a) and Phytoseiulus persimilis (b) density (total number of all stages/cm of leaf length per plant) within a cage among fertilizer levels over time