Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T15:33:03.320Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ecological, behavioural and nutritional factors influencing use of palms as host plants by a Neotropical forest grasshopper

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

Elizabeth Braker  and
Robin L. Chazdon
Elizabeth Braker
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of California, Berkeley CA 94720
Robin L. Chazdon
Affiliation:
Section of Ecology and Systematics, Cornell University, Ithaca NY 14853
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study focused on relationships between a tropical forest grasshopper and a major group of its host plants. Microtylopteryx hebardi (Acrididae:Ommatolampinae) at La Selva Biological Station, Costa Rica, feeds on understorey palms as well as other understorey plants. We assessed leaf damage levels in populations of three geonomoid palm species (Geonoma cuneata, Geonama congcsta, Asterogyne martiana), investigated feeding response of M. hebardi to the three palms, and examined leaf characteristics presumed to be important to herbivores. In understorey and gapedge habitats, total leaf damage did not differ significantly between palm species. In the centre of small light gaps, where M. hebardi was most abundant, total leaf damage and total herbivory on G. cuneata was equal to that on the other species, but herbivory attributable to grasshoppers was significantly greater. Female M. hebardi showed strong preference for G. cuneata over the other palm species in laboratory feeding trials. Experiments to elucidate the proximate basis for this feeding preference showed that grasshoppers preferentially bit filter paper discs containing cuticular wax extract of G. cuneata. In consumption and digestibility experiments, grasshoppers consumed more fresh weight of G. cuneata and gained more weight per unit time spent feeding on this species. Leaves of G. cuneata had the highest percentage water content, highest fresh and dry mass per unit leaf area, and the lowest percentage crude lignin among the three palms studied. These factors may partially explain the preference of M. hebardi for G. cuneata, which was reflected in higher herbivory rates incurred by G. cuneata in sites where M. hebardi was locally abundant.

Keywords

consumptionCosta Ricafeeding preferencegrasshopperherbivoryleaf surfacetropical forestunderstorey palms
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Tropical Ecology , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , May 1993 , pp. 183 - 197
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

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

LITERATURE CITED

Baker, H. G. 1970. Evolution in the tropics. Biotropica 2:101–111.Google Scholar
Bernays, E. A. 1990. Water Regulation. Pp. 129–141 in Chapman, R. F. & Joern, A. (eds). Biology of grasshoppers. Wiley-Interscience, New York. 563 pp.Google Scholar
Bernays, E. A., & Chapman, R. F. 1972. Meal size in nymphs of Locusta migratoria. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 15:399–410.Google Scholar
Bernays, E. A., Blaney, W. M., Chapman, R. F., & Cook, A. G. 1976. The ability of Locusta migratoria L. to perceive plant surface waxes. Symposium Biologica Hungarica 1:3–40.Google Scholar
Blaney, W. M. & Chapman, R. F. 1970. The functions of the maxillary palps of Acrididae (Orthoptera). Entomologia Experimental et Applicata 13:33–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaney, W. M. & Simmonds, M. S. J. 1990. The chemoreceptors. Pp. 1–37 in Chapman, R. F. & Joern, A. (eds). Biology of grasshoppers. Wiley-Interscience, New York. 563 pp.Google Scholar
Blaney, W. M., Winstanley, C., & Simmonds, M. S. J. 1985. Food selection by locusts: an analysis of rejection behaviour. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 38:35–40.Google Scholar
Braker, H. E. 1989. Endophytic oviposition by a neotropical forest grasshopper. Ecological Entomology 14:141–148.Google Scholar
Braker, H. E. 1991. Natural history of a neotropical gap-inhabiting grasshopper. Biotropica 23:41–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, R. F. 1990. Food selection. Pp. 39–72 in Chapman, R. F. & Joern, A. (eds). Biology of grasshoppers. Wiley-Interscience, New York. 563 pp.Google Scholar
Chazdon, R. L. 1984. Ecophysiology and architecture of three rain forest understory palm species. PhD Thesis. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Chazdon, R. L. 1985. The palm flora of Finca La Selva. Principes 29:74–78.Google Scholar
Chazdon, R. L. 1986. Light variation and carbon gain in rain forest understory palms. Journal of Ecology 74:995–1012.Google Scholar
Chazdon, R. L. 1991a. Plant size and form in the understory palm genus Ceonoma: Are species variations on a theme? American Journal of Botany 78:680–694.Google Scholar
Chazdon, R. L. 1992. Patterns of growth and reproduction of Geonoma congesta, a clustered understory palm. Biotropica 24:43–51.Google Scholar
Coley, P. D. 1982. Rates of herbivory on different tropical trees. Pp. 123–132 in The ecology of a tropical forest: seasonal rhythms and long-term changes. Leigh, E. G., Rand, A. S. & Windsor, D. M. (eds). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.468 pp.Google Scholar
Coley, P. D. 1983a. Intraspecific variation in herbivory on two tropical tree species. Ecology 4:42–433.Google Scholar
Coley, P. D. 1983b. Herbivory and defensive characteristics of tree species in a lowland tropical forest. Ecological Monographs 53:209–233.Google Scholar
Coley, P. D. 1986. Costs and benefits of defense by tannins in a neotropical tree. Oecologia 70:238–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devries, P. J. 1987. The butterflies of Costa Rica and their natural history. Papilionidae, Pieridae, Nymphalidae. Princeton University Press Princeton, New Jersey USA. 327 pp.Google Scholar
Doutt, R. L. 1960. Natural enemies and insect speciation. Pan-Pacific Entomologist 3:1–14.Google Scholar
Goering, H. K. & Van Soest, P. J. 1979. Forage fiber analysis: apparatus, reagents, procedures and some applications. Agricultural Handbook Number 379, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Levin, D. A. 1976. Alkaloid-bearing plants: an ecogeographic perspective. American Naturalist 110:21–284.Google Scholar
Lewinsohn, T. M., Fernandes, G. W., Benson, W. W., & Price, P. W. 1991. Introduction: Historical roots and current issues in tropical evolutionary ecology. Pp. 1–21 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-Interscience, New York.Google Scholar
Lowman, M. D. 1984. An assessment of techniques for measuring herbivory: is rainforest defoliation more intense than we thought? Biotropica 1:24–28.Google Scholar
Lowman, M. D., & Box, J. D. 1983. Variation in leaf toughness and phenolic content among five species of Australian rainforest trees. Australian Journal of Ecology 8:17–25.Google Scholar
Marquis, R. J. 1984. Leaf herbivores decrease fitness of a tropical plant. Science 22:537–539.Google Scholar
Marquis, R. J. 1990. Genotypic variation in leaf damage in Piper arieianum (Piperaceae) by a multispecies assemblage of herbivores. Evolution 44:104–120.Google Scholar
Marquis, R. J. & Braker, H. E. 1992. Plant-herbivore interactions at La Selva: diversity, specificity, and impact. In McDade, L. A., Bawa, K. S., Hespenheide, H. A. & Hartshorn, G. S. (eds). La Selva: ecology and natural history of a Neotropical rainforest. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. In press.Google Scholar
Rhoades, D. F. 1979. Evolution of plant chemical defense against herbivores. Pp. 4–54 in Rosenthal, G. A. & Janzen, D. H. (eds). Herbivores: their interaction with secondary plant metabolites. Academic Press, New York. 718 pp.Google Scholar
Simpson, S. J. 1982. Patterns in feeding: a behavioural analysis using Locusta migratoria nymphs. Physiological Entomology 7:325–333.Google Scholar
Simpson, S. J. 1990. The pattern of feeding. Pp. 73–103 in Chapman, R. F. & Joern, A. (eds). Biology of grasshoppers. Wiley-Interscience, New York. 563 pp.Google Scholar
Simpson, S. J., Simmonds, M. S. J., & Blaney, W. M. 1988. A comparison of dietary selection behaviour in larval Locusta migratoria and Spodoptera littoralis. Physiological Entomology 13:225–238.Google Scholar
Stadler, E. 1986. Oviposition and feeding stimuli in leaf surface waxes. Pp. 105–121 in Juniper, B. & Southwood, T. R. E. (eds). Insects and the plant surface. Edward Arnold, London. 360 pp.Google Scholar
Uhl, N. & Dransfield, J. 1987. Genera Palmarum. Allen Press, Lawrence, Kansas.Google Scholar
Waldbauer, G. P. 1968. The consumption and utilization of food by insects. Advances in Insect Physiology 5:229–288.Google Scholar
Waller, D. A. & Jones, C. J. 1989. Measuring herbivory. Ecological Entomology 14:479–481.Google Scholar
Woodhead, S. & Chapman, R. F. 1986. Insect behaviour and the chemistry of plant surface waxes. Pp. 123–135 in Juniper, B., & Southwood, T. R. E. (eds). Insects and the plant surface. Edward Arnold, London. 360 pp.Google Scholar