Florivores limit cost of mutualism in the yucca-yucca moth association

Ecology

Volumn 89, Issue 11, 2008, Pages 3215-3221

  Segraves, Kari A ^a  

^a SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Beetle; Community context; Florivory; Hymenorus; Multi species interaction; Obligate pollination mutualism; Tegeticula Cassandra; Yucca; Yucca filamentosa; Yucca moth

Indexed keywords

BEETLE; EGG PREDATION; FEEDING BEHAVIOR; FLOWER; HERBIVORY; INGESTION RATE; MORTALITY; MOTH; MUTUALISM; SEED PRODUCTION;

COLEOPTERA; LEPIDOPTERA; PRODOXIDAE; TEGETICULA CASSANDRA; YUCCA; YUCCA FILAMENTOSA;

EID: 63849196263     PISSN: 00129658     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1890/07-1993.1     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Addicott, J. 1986. Variation in the costs and benefits of mutualism: the interaction between yuccas and yucca moths. Oecologia 70:486-494.
2. Addicott, J. F. 1998, Regulation of mutualism between yuccas and yucca moths: population level processes. Oikos 81:119-129.
3. Addicott, J., and T. Bao. 1999. Limiting the costs of mutualism: multiple modes of interaction between yuccas and yucca moths. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 266: 197-202.
4. Althoff, D. M., K. A. Segraves, and O. Pcllmyr. 2005. Community context of an obligate mutualism: pollinator and florivore effects on Yucca filamentosa. Ecology 86:905-913.
5. Armbruster, W. S. 1997. Exaptations link evolution of plant-herbivore and plant-pollinator interactions: a phylogenetie inquiry. Ecology 78:1661-1672,
6. Bacher, S., and J. Friedli. 2002. Dynamics of a mutualism in a multi-species context. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 269:1517-1522.
7. Brody, A. K. 1992. Oviposition choices by a pre-dispersal seed predator (Hylemya sp.). Oecologia 91:56-62.
8. Bronstein, J. L. 1994. Conditional outcomes in mutualistic interactions. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9:214-217.
9. Bronstein, J. L., and P. Barbosa. 2002. Multi-trophic/multi-species mutualistic interactions: the role of non-mutualists in shaping and mediating mutualisms. Pages 44-66 in B. Hawkins and T. Tscharntke, editors. Multitrophic level interactions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
10. Brues, C. T. 1926. Remarkable abundance of a cistelid beetle, with observations on other aggregations of insects. American Naturalist 60:526-545.
11. Cariveau, D., R. E. Irwin, A. K. Brody, L. S. Garcia-Mayeya, and A. von der Ohe. 2004. Direct and indirect effects of pollinators and seed predators to selection on plant and floral traits. Oikos 104:15-26.
12. Cassell, D. L. 2002. A randomization-test wrapper for SAS PROCs. Proceedings of the 27th Annual SAS Users Group International Conference. SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, USA.
13. Crabb, B. A., and O. Pellmyr. 2006. Impact of the third trophic level in an obligate mutualism: do yucca plants benefit from parasitoids of yucca moths? International Journal of Plant Sciences 167:119-124.
14. Crawley, M. J. 2005. Statistics: an introduction using R, John Wiley and Sons, West Sussex, UK.
15. Cushman, J., and T, Whitham. 1989. Conditional mutualism in a membracid-ant association: temporal, age-specific, and density-dependent effects, Ecology 70:1040-1047.
16. Dejean, A. T. Bourgoin, and M. Gibernau. 1997. Ant species that protect figs against other ants: result of territoriality induced by a mutualistic homopteran. Ecoscience 4:446-153.
17. Fritz, R. S. 1983. Ant protection of a host plant's defoliator: consequences of an ant-membracid mutualism. Ecology 64: 789-797.
18. Galen, C. 1999. Flowers and enemies: prédation by nectar-thieving ants in relation to variation in floral form of an alpine wildflower, Polemonium viscosum. Oikos 85:426-434.
19. Gomez, J. M. 2005. Non-additive effects of herbivores and pollinators on Erysimum mediohispankum (Cruciferae) fitness. Oecologia 143:412-418.
20. Hay, M. E., J. D. Parker, D. E. Burkepile, C. C. Caudill, A. E. Wilson, Z. P. Hallinan, and A. D. Chequer. 2004. Mutualisms and aquatic community structure: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematica 35:175-197.
21. Herre, E. A. 1996. An overview of studies on a community of Panamanian figs. Journal of Biogeography 23:593-607.
22. Herrera, C. M., M. Medrano, P. J. Rey, A. M, Sanchez-Lafuente, M. B. Garcia, J. Guitian, and A. J. Manzaneda. 2002. Interaction of pollinators and herbivores on plant fitness suggests a pathway for correlated evolution of mutualism- and antagonism-related traits. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 99:16823-16828.
23. Hofstetter, R. W., J. T. Cronin, K. D. Klepzig, J. C, Moser, and M. P. Ayres. 2006. Antagonisms, mutualisms and commen-salisms affect outbreak dynamics of the southern pine beetle. Oecologia 147:679-691.
24. Holland, J. N., and D. L. DeAngelis. 2006. Interspecific population regulation and the stability of mutualism: fruit abortion and density-dependent mortality of pollinating seed-eating insects. Oikos 113:563-571.
25. Humphries, S. A., and J. F. Addicott. 2004. Regulation of the mutualism between yuccas and yucca moths: intrinsic and extrinsic patterns of fruit set. Canadian Journal of Botany 82: 573-581.
26. Littell, R. C, G. A. Milliken, W. W. Stroup, R. D. Wolfinger, and O. Schabenberger. 2006. SAS for mixed models, Second edition. SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, USA.
27. Marr, D. L., and O. Pellmyr. 2003. Effect of pollinator-inflicted ovule damage on floral abscission in the yucca-yucca moth mutualism: the role of mechanical and chemical factors. Oecologia 136:236-243.
28. Morales, M. 2000. Mechanisms and density dependence of benefit in an ant-membracid mutualism. Ecology 81:482-489.
29. Mothershead, K., and R. J. Marquis. 2000. Fitness impacts of herbivory through indirect effects on plant-pollinator interactions in Oenothera macrocarpa. Ecology 81:30-40.
30. Pellmyr, O., and C. J. Huth. 1994. Evolutionary stability of mutualism between yuccas and yucca moths. Nature 372: 257-260.
31. Perry, J. C, E. B. Mondor, and J. F. Addicott. 2004. An indirect mutualism: ants deter seed predators from ovipositing in yucca fruit. Canadian Journal of Zoology 82:823-827.
32. R Development Core Team. 2006. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Version 2,3.1. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
33. Rudgers, J. A. 2004. Enemies of herbivores can shape plant traits: selection in a facultative ant-plant mutualism. Ecology 85:192-205.
34. Schatz, B., M. Proffit, B. V. Rakhi, R. M. Borges, and M. Hossaert-McKey. 2006. Complex interactions on fig trees: ants capturing parasitic wasps as possible indirect mutualists of the fig-fig wasp interaction. Oikos 113:344-352.
35. Segraves, K, A, 2003. Understanding stability in mutualisms: do extrinsic factors balance the vucca-yucca moth interaction? Ecology 84:2943-2951.
36. Shapiro, J., and J. Addicott, 2003, Regulation of moth-yucca mutualisms: mortality of eggs in oviposition-induced "damage zones." Ecology Letters 6:440-447.
37. Shapiro, J., and J. F. Addicott. 2004. Re-evaluating the role of selective abscission in moth/vucca mutualisms. Oikos 105: 449-460.
38. Stanton, M. L. 2003. Interacting guilds: moving beyond the pairwise perspective on mutualisms. American Naturalist 162:S10-S23.
39. Strauss, S. Y., and R. E. Irwin. 2004. Ecological and evolutionary consequences of multispecies plant-animal interactions. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics 35:435-466.
40. Thompson, J. N., and C. C. Fernandez. 2006. Temporal dynamics of antagonism and mutualism in a geographically variable plant-insect interaction. Ecology 87:103-112.
41. Wilson, R., and J. Addicott. 1998. Regulation of mutualism between yuccas and yucca moths: is oviposition behavior responsive to selective abscission of flowers? Oikos 81:109-118.