Literature DB >> 29569075

Contrasting structures of plant-mite networks compounded by phytophagous and predatory mite species.

Walter Santos de Araújo1,2, Rodrigo Damasco Daud3.   

Abstract

Differences in the feeding habits between phytophagous and predatory species can determine distinct ecological interactions between mites and their host plants. Herein, plant-mite networks were constructed using available literature on plant-dwelling mites from Brazilian natural vegetation in order to contrast phytophagous and predatory mite networks. The structural patterns of plant-mite networks were described through network specialization (connectance) and modularity. A total of 187 mite species, 65 host plant species and 646 interactions were recorded in 14 plant-mite networks. Phytophagous networks included 96 mite species, 61 host plants and 277 interactions, whereas predatory networks contained 91 mite species, 54 host plants and 369 interactions. No differences in the species richness of mites and host plants were observed between phytophagous and predatory networks. However, plant-mite networks composed of phytophagous mites showed lower connectance and higher modularity when compared to the predatory mite networks. The present results corroborate the hypothesis that trophic networks are more specialized than commensalistic networks, given that the phytophagous species must deal with plant defenses, in contrast to predatory mites which only inhabit and forage for resources on plants.

Keywords:  Acari; Atlantic Forest; Ecological networks; Plant–mite interaction

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29569075     DOI: 10.1007/s10493-018-0250-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Appl Acarol        ISSN: 0168-8162            Impact factor:   2.132


  20 in total

1.  Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities.

Authors:  N Myers; R A Mittermeier; C G Mittermeier; G A da Fonseca; J Kent
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2000-02-24       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Leaf domatia mediate mutualism between mites and a tropical tree.

Authors:  Gustavo Q Romero; Woodruff W Benson
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2004-06-17       Impact factor: 3.225

3.  Interaction intimacy organizes networks of antagonistic interactions in different ways.

Authors:  Mathias M Pires; Paulo R Guimarães
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2012-09-26       Impact factor: 4.118

4.  Host-plant specificity and specialization in eriophyoid mites and their importance for the use of eriophyoid mites as biocontrol agents of weeds.

Authors:  Anna Skoracka; Lincoln Smith; George Oldfield; Massimo Cristofaro; James W Amrine
Journal:  Exp Appl Acarol       Date:  2009-09-30       Impact factor: 2.132

5.  Associations between mites and leaf dornatia.

Authors:  D J O'Dowd; M F Willson
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  1991-06       Impact factor: 17.712

6.  Plants, mites and mutualism: leaf domatia and the abundance and reproduction of mites on Viburnum tinus (Caprifoliaceae).

Authors:  Raul Grostal; Dennis J O'Dowd
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  1994-04       Impact factor: 3.225

7.  Geography and major host evolutionary transitions shape the resource use of plant parasites.

Authors:  Joaquín Calatayud; José Luis Hórreo; Jaime Madrigal-González; Alain Migeon; Miguel Á Rodríguez; Sara Magalhães; Joaquín Hortal
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-08-17       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Are nested networks more robust to disturbance? A test using epiphyte-tree, comensalistic networks.

Authors:  Martín Piazzon; Asier R Larrinaga; Luis Santamaría
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-05-11       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Evaluating the spatio-temporal factors that structure network parameters of plant-herbivore interactions.

Authors:  Antonio López-Carretero; Cecilia Díaz-Castelazo; Karina Boege; Víctor Rico-Gray
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-10-23       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Improved community detection in weighted bipartite networks.

Authors:  Stephen J Beckett
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2016-01-20       Impact factor: 2.963

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.