Eur. J. Entomol. 102 (2): 209-216, 2005 | DOI: 10.14411/eje.2005.033

Ladybird (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) dispersal in experimental fragmented alfalfa landscapes

Audrey A. GREZ1, Tania ZAVIEZO2, Marta RÍOS1
1 Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias y Pecuarias, Universidad de Chile, Casilla 2 Correo 15, La Granja, Santiago, Chile; e-mail: agrez@uchile.cl
2 Facultad de Agronomía e Ingeniería Forestal, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Casilla 306-22, Santiago, Chile; e-mail: tzaviezo@puc.cl

Habitat fragmentation may affect the dispersal behaviour of individuals across the landscape. If there is a high boundary contrast between the remaining fragments and the matrix, individuals should tend to stay inside the fragments, but the configuration of the landscape, i.e. the level of fragmentation and isolation distance between fragments, may modulate this. To test these ideas, we made several mark-recapture experiments with the ladybird Eriopis connexa (Germ.) in manipulated alfalfa model landscapes (30 × 30 m). Specifically we evaluated (i) ladybird movement and permanence in alfalfa and bare ground areas, (ii) how they move across fragment/matrix boundaries, (iii) how their movement between fragments within a landscape is affected by fragmentation level and isolation distance, and (iv) how their permanence in the landscape is affected by fragmentation level and isolation distance. The fragmented alfalfa landscapes had a constant level of habitat loss (84%), but varied in the level of habitat fragmentation (4 or 16 fragments), and isolation distance between fragments (2 or 6 m). We also sampled aphid abundance in the different landscapes through time. We found that ladybirds stay longer and displace less in alfalfa than on bare ground, and that they move less from the alfalfa fragments to the neighbouring bare ground matrix than vice versa. At the landscape level, ladybirds had a higher inter-fragment movement when fragments were closer, they tended to remain in less fragmented landscapes, regardless of their isolation distance. Aphid abundance increased in time, but it was similar in all landscapes. Ladybird movement within fragments, in the matrix and in the boundary between both habitats explains why ladybirds concentrate within alfalfa fragments. However, their dispersal movements at the landscape level do not reflect the higher abundance sometimes found for several species of ladybirds in more fragmented landscapes. At this larger scale, other mechanisms may have a stronger influence in determining the abundance of ladybirds.

Keywords: Dispersal, fragmented landscapes, distance between fragments, mark-recapture experiments, ladybird, Eriopis connexa

Received: February 17, 2004; Revised: January 11, 2005; Accepted: January 11, 2005; Published: May 3, 2005  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
GREZ, A.A., ZAVIEZO, T., & RÍOS, M. (2005). Ladybird (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) dispersal in experimental fragmented alfalfa landscapes. EJE102(2), 209-216. doi: 10.14411/eje.2005.033
Download citation

References

  1. BACH C.E. 1980: Effect of plant density and diversity on the population dynamics of a specialist herbivore, the striped cucumber beetle, Acalymna vittata (Fab.). Ecology 61: 1515-1530 Go to original source...
  2. BANKS J.E. 1999: Differential response of two agroecosystem predators, Pterostichus melanarius (Coleoptera: Carabidae) and Coccinella septempunctata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) to habitat-composition and fragmentation-scale manipulations. Can. Entomol. 131: 645-657 Go to original source...
  3. BOWMAN J., CAPPUCCINO N. & FAHRIG L. 2002: Patch size and population density: the effect of immigration behavior. Conserv. Ecol. 6: 9 [Online] URL: http://www.consecol.olg/vol6/ iss1/art9 Go to original source...
  4. BULLOCK J.M., KENWARD R.E. & HAILS R.S. 2002: Dispersal Ecology. Blackwell, Oxford, UK, 443 pp
  5. COLLINGE S.K. & PALMER T.M. 2002: The influences of patch and boundary contrast on insect response to fragmentation in California grasslands. Landsc. Ecol. 17: 647-656 Go to original source...
  6. DIXON A.F.G. 2000: Insect Predator-Prey Dynamics: Ladybird Beetles and Biological Control. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 257 pp
  7. DOUMBIA M., HEMPTINNE J.L. & DIXON A.F.G. 1998: Assessment of patch quality by ladybirds: the role of larval tracks. Oecologia 113: 197-202 Go to original source...
  8. ELLIOTT N.C. & MICHELS JR. G.J. 1997: Estimating aphidophagous coccinellid populations in alfalfa. Biol. Contr. 8: 43-51 Go to original source...
  9. ELLIOTT N.C., KIECKHEFER R.W. & BECK D.A. 2000: Adult coccinellid activity and predation on aphids in spring cereals. Biol. Contr. 17: 218-226 Go to original source...
  10. ELLIOTT N.C., KIECKHEFER R.W., MICHELS JR. G.J. & GILES K.L. 2002: Predator abundance in alfalfa fields in relation to aphids, within field vegetation, and landscape matrix. Environ. Entomol. 31: 253-260 Go to original source...
  11. EVANS E.W. 2003: Searching and reproductive behaviour of female aphidophagous ladybirds (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae): a review. Eur. J. Entomol. 100: 1-10 Go to original source...
  12. FAGAN W.F., CANTREL R.S. & COSNER C. 1999: How habitat edges can change species interactions. Am. Nat. 153: 165-182 Go to original source...
  13. FAHRIG L. 2001: How much habitat is enough? Biol. Conserv. 100: 65-74 Go to original source...
  14. FAHRIG L. 2003: Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 34: 487-515 Go to original source...
  15. GREZ A.A. 1997: Effect of habitat subdivision on the population dynamics of herbivorous and predatory insects in central Chile. Rev. Chil. Hist. Nat. 70: 481-490
  16. GREZ A.A. & PRADO E. 2000: Effect of plant patch shape and surrounding vegetation on the dynamics of predatory coccinellids and their prey Brevicoryne brassicae (Hemiptera: Aphididae). Environ. Entomol. 29: 1244-1250. Go to original source...
  17. GREZ A.A., ZAVIEZO T., TISCHENDORF L. & FAHRIG L. 2004: A transient, positive effect of habitat fragmentation on insect population densities. Oecologia 141: 444-451 Go to original source...
  18. HOFMANN W. 1970: Die Gattung Eriopis Mulsant (Col. Coccinellidae). Mitt. Muench. Entomol. Ges. 60: 102-116
  19. HONEK A. 1985: Activity and predation of Coccinella septempunctata adults in the field (Col., Coccinellidae). Z. Angew. Entomol. 100: 399-409 Go to original source...
  20. IMS R.A. 1995: Movement patterns related to spatial structures. In Hansson L., Fahrig L. & Merriam G. (eds.): Mosaic Landscapes and Ecological Processes. Chapman & Hall, London, pp. 85-109 Go to original source...
  21. IVES A.R., KAREIVA P. & PERRY R. 1993: Response of a predator to variation in prey density at three hierarchical scales: ladybeetles feeding on aphids. Ecology 74: 1929-1938 Go to original source...
  22. JONSEN I.D., BOURCHIER R.S. & ROLAND J. 2001: The influence of matrix habitat on Aphthona flea beetle immigration to leafy spurge patches. Oecologia 127: 287-294 Go to original source...
  23. KALUSHKOV P. 1998: Ten species of aphids (Sternorrhyncha: Aphididae) as prey for Adalia bipunctata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Eur. J. Entomol. 95: 343-349
  24. KAREIVA P. 1987: Habitat fragmentation and the stability of predator-prey interactions. Nature 326: 388-390 Go to original source...
  25. KAREIVA P. 1990: Population dynamics in spatially complex environments: theory and data. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. (B) 330: 175-190 Go to original source...
  26. KOTLIAR N.B. & WIENS J.A. 1990: Multiple scales of patchiness and patch structure: a hierarchical framework for the study of heterogeneity. Oikos 59: 253-260 Go to original source...
  27. MATTER S.F. 1996: Interpatch movement of the red milkweed beetle, Tetraopes tetraophthalmus: individual responses to patch size and isolation. Oecologia 105: 447-453 Go to original source...
  28. MENNECHEZ G., SCHTICKZELLE N. & BAGUETTE M. 2003: Metapopulation dynamics of the bog fritillary butterfly: comparison of demographic parameters and dispersal between a continuous and a highly fragmented landscape. Landsc. Ecol. 18: 279-291 Go to original source...
  29. MORALES J.M. 2002: Behavior at habitat boundaries can produce leptokurtic movement distributions. Am. Nat. 160: 531-538 Go to original source...
  30. ROSLIN T. 2000: Dung beetle movements at two spatial scales. Oikos 91: 323-335 Go to original source...
  31. SCHTICKZELLE N. & BAGUETTE M. 2003: Behavioural responses to habitat patch boundaries restrict dispersal and generate emigration-patch area relationships in fragmented landscapes. J. Anim. Ecol. 72: 533-545 Go to original source...
  32. STATSOFT 2000: Statistica Vol. 1: General Conventions and Statistics. StatSoft, Tulsa
  33. TISCHENDORF L., GREZ A., ZAVIEZO T. & FAHRIG L. 2005: Mechanisms affecting population density in fragmented habitat. Ecol. Soc. 10(1): 7. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art7/
  34. TURCHIN P. 1987: The role of aggregation in the response of Mexican bean beetles to host-plant density. Oecologia 71: 577-582 Go to original source...
  35. TURCHIN P. 1998: Quantitative Analysis of Movement. Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts, 396 pp
  36. TURCHIN P. & THOENY W.T. 1993: Quantifying dispersal of southern pine beetles with mark-recapture experiments and a diffusion model. Ecol. Appl. 3: 187-198 Go to original source...
  37. WIENS J.A. 1992: What is landscape ecology, really? Landsc. Ecol. 7: 149-150 Go to original source...
  38. WIENS J.A., SCHOOLEY R.L. & WEEKS JR. R.D. 1997: Patchy landscapes and animal movements: do beetles percolate? Oikos 78: 257-264 Go to original source...
  39. WITH K.A. & KING A.W. 1999: Dispersal success on fractal landscapes: a consequence of lacunarity thresholds. Landsc. Ecol. 14: 73-82 Go to original source...
  40. WITH K.A., CADARET S.J. & DAVIS C. 1999: Movement responses to patch structure in experimental fractal landscapes. Ecology 80: 1340-1353 Go to original source...
  41. WITH K.A., PAVUK D.M., WORKCHUCK J.L., OATES R.K. & FISHER J.L. 2002: Threshold effects of landscape structure on biological control in agroecosystems. Ecol. Appl. 12: 52-65 Go to original source...

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.