Advertisement

Biological Invasions

, Volume 12, Issue 10, pp 3563–3577 | Cite as

Experimental test of biotic resistance to an invasive herbivore provided by potential plant mutualists

  • Tom E. X. Miller
  • Jesusa C. Legaspi
  • Benjamin Legaspi
Original Paper

Abstract

Understanding the influence of resident species on the success of invaders is a core objective in the study and management of biological invasions. We asked whether facultative food-for-protection mutualism between resident, nectar-feeding ants and extrafloral nectar-bearing plants confers biotic resistance to invasion by a specialist herbivore. Our research focused on the South American cactus-feeding moth Cactoblastis cactorum Berg (Lepidopetra: Pyralidae) in the panhandle region of Florida. This species has been widely and intentionally redistributed as a biological control agent against weedy cacti (Opuntia spp.) but arrived unintentionally in the southeast US, where it attacks native, non-target cacti and is considered a noxious invader. The acquired host-plants of C. cactorum in Florida secrete extrafloral nectar, especially on young, vegetative structures, and this attracts ants. We conducted ant-exclusion experiments over 2 years (2008 and 2009) at two sites using potted plants of two vulnerable host species (O. stricta and O. ficus-indica) to evaluate the influence of cactus-visiting ants (total of eight species) at multiple points in the moth life cycle (oviposition, egg survival, and larval survival). We found that the presence of ants often increased the mortality of lab-reared C. cactorum eggsticks (stacks of cohered eggs) and larvae that we introduced onto plants in the field, although these effects were variable across sites, years, host-plant species, ant species, and/or between old and young plant structures. In contrast to these “staged” encounters, we found that ants had little influence on the survival of cactus moths that occurred naturally at our field sites, or on moth damage and plant growth. In total, our experimental results suggest that the influence of cactus-visiting ants on C. cactorum invasion dynamics is weak and highly variable.

Keywords

Biological invasion Biotic resistance Cactoblastis cactorum Mutualism Opuntia 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the valuable field and laboratory assistance provided by Elizabeth Aninakwa, Ignacio Baez, Keith Marshall, Jr., Neil Miller, Meredith Robbins, and Maggie Simon. Jes Hines, Tomomi Suwa, and Amy Savage provided helpful feedback on the manuscript. This research was supported by a grant from the US Department of Agriculture (CSREES-2007-02270) and a Rice University Huxley Fellowship to T.E.X.M.

References

  1. Baker AJ, Stiling P (2009) Comparing the effects of the exotic cactus-feeding moth, Cactoblastis cactorum (Berg) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) and the native cactus-feeding moth, Melitara prodenialis (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) on two species of Florida Opuntia. Biol Invasions 11:619–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barton AM (1986) Spatial variation in the effects of ants on an extrafloral nectary plant. Ecology 62:495–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bentley BL (1977) Extrafloral nectaries and protection by pugnacious bodyguards. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 8:407–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bronstein JL (1998) The contribution of ant-plant protection studies to our understanding of mutualism. Biotropica 30:150–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Center TD, Frank JH, Dray FA (1995) Biological invasions: stemming the tide in Florida. Fla Entomol 78:45–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chamberlain SA, Holland JN (2008) Density-mediated context-dependent consumer-resource interactions between ants and extrafloral nectar plants. Ecology 89:1364–1374CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Chamberlain SA, Holland JN (2009) Quantitative synthesis of context dependency in ant-plant mutualisms. Ecology 90:2384–2392CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. de la Fuente MA, Marquis RJ (1999) The role of ant-tended extrafloral nectaries in the protection and benefit of a Neotropical rainforest tree. Oecologia 118:192–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Di Giusto B, Anstett M, Dounias E, McKey DB (2001) Variation in the effectiveness of biotic defence: the case of opportunistic ant-plant protection mutualism. Oecologia (Berlin) 129:367–375Google Scholar
  10. Elton CS (1958) The ecology of invasions by animals and plants. Methuen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Frederickson ME (2005) Ant species confer different partner benefits on two neotropical myrmecophytes. Oecologia 143:387–395CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Griffith MP (2004) The origins of an important cactus crop, Opuntia ficus-indica (Cactaceae): new molecular evidence. Am J Bot 91:1915–1921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Habeck DH, Bennett FD (1990) Cactoblastis cactorum Berg (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), a phycitine new to Florida. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industries, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  14. Heil M, Fiala BBM, Linsenmair KE (2000) Temporal, spatial and biotic variations in extrafloral nectar secretion by Macaranga tanarius. Funct Ecol 14:749–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hight SD, Carpenter JE (2009) Flight phenology of male Cactoblastis cactorum (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) at different lattitudes in the southeastern United States. Fla Entomol 92:208–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hight SD, Carpenter JE, Bloem KA, Bloem S, Pemberton RW, Stiling P (2002) Expanding geographic range of Cactoblastis cactorum (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in North America. Fla Entomol 85:527–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holway DA, Lach L, Suarez AV, Tsutsui ND, Case TJ (2002) The causes and consequences of ant invasions. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 33:181–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Inouye DW, Taylor OR Jr (1979) A temperate region ant-plant-seed predator system: consequences of extra floral nectar secretion by Helianthella quiquenervis. Ecology 60:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnson DM, Stiling P (1996) Host specificity of Cactoblastis cactorum (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), an exotic Opuntia-feeding moth, in Florida. Environ Entomol 25:743–748Google Scholar
  20. Johnson DM, Stiling PD (1998) Distribution and dispersal of Cactoblastis cactorum (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), an exotic Opuntia-feeding moth, in Florida. Fla Entomol 81:12–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Legaspi JC, Legaspi JBC (2007) Life table analysis for Cactoblastis cactorum immatures and female adults under five constant temperatures: implications for pest management. Ann Entomol Soc Am 100:497–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Legaspi JC, Baez I, Legaspi JBC (2008) Phenology of the blue cactus moth, Melitara prodenialis (Lepidopera: Pyralidae). Subtropical Plant Sci 60:66–68Google Scholar
  23. Legaspi JC, Baez I, Legaspi JBC (2009a) Reproduction, longevity, and survival of Cactoblastis cactorum (Lepidoptera: Pyradliae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 102:445–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Legaspi JC, Baez I, Legaspi JBC (2009b) Phenology and egg production of the cactus moth (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae): comparison of field census data and life stage development in the field. J Entomol Sci 44:341–352Google Scholar
  25. Levine JM, Adler PB, Yelenik SG (2004) A meta-analysis of biotic resistance to exotic plant invasions. Ecol Lett 7:975–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. MacGowan JA, Hill JG, Deyrup MA (2007) Brachymyrmex paragonicus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), an emerging pest species in the southeastern United States. Fla Entomol 90:457–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mahr DL (2001) Cactoblastis cactorum (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in North America: a workshop of assessment and planning. Fla Entomol 84:465–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Maron JL, Vila M (2001) When do herbivores affect plant invasion? Evidence for the natural enemies and biotic resistance hypotheses. Oikos 95:361–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Matthews CR, Brown MW, Bottrell DG (2007) Leaf extrafloral nectaries enhance biological control of a key economic pest, Grapholita molesta (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), in Peach (Rosales: Rosaceae). Environ Entomol 36:383–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McCullough DG, Work TT, Cavey JF, Liebhold AM, Marshall D (2006) Interceptions of nonindigenous plant pests at US ports of entry and border crossing over a 17-year period. Biol Invasions 8:611–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Miller TEX (2007) Does having multiple partners weaken the benefits of facultative mutualism? A test with cacti and cactus-tending ants. Oikos 116:500–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mody K, Linsenmair KE (2004) Plant-attracted ants affect arthropod community structure but not necessarily herbivory. Ecol Entomol 29:217–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ness JH, Bronstein JL (2004) The effects of invasive ants on prospective mutualists. Biol Invasions 6:445–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ness JH, Morris WF, Bronstein JL (2006) Integrating quality and quantity of mutualistic service to contrast ant species protecting Ferocactus wislizeni. Ecology 87:912–921CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Oliveira PS, Rico-Gray V, Diez-Castelazo C, Castillo-Guevara C (1999) Interactions between ants, extrafloral nectaries, and insect herbivores in Neotropical sand dunes: herbivore deterrence by visiting ants increases fruit set in Opuntia stricta (Cactaceae). Funct Ecol 13:623–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Palmer TM, Brody AK (2007) Mutualism as reciprocal exploitation: African plant-ants defend foliar but not reproductive structures. Ecology 88:3004–3011CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Pettey FW (1948) The biological control of prickly pear in South Africa. Department of Agriculture of the Union of South AfricaGoogle Scholar
  38. Pickett CH, Clark WD (1979) The function of extrafloral nectaries in Opuntia acanthocarpa (Cactaceae). Am J Bot 66:618–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rashbrook VK, Compton SG, Lawton JH (1992) Anti-herbivore interactions: reasons for the absence of benefits to a fern with foliar nectaries. Ecology 73:2167–2174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rico-Gray V, Oliveira PS (2007) The ecology and evolution of ant-plant interactions. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  41. Robbins M, Miller TEX (2009) Patterns of ant activity on Opuntia stricta (Cactaceae), a native host-plant of the invasive cactus moth, Cactoblastis cactorum (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Fla Entomol 92:391–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Robertson HG (1984) Egg predation by ants as a partial explanation of the difference in performance of Cactoblastis cactorum on cactus weeds in South Africa and Australia. In: Delfosse ES (ed) Proc. VI Symp. Biol. Contr. Weeds, Vancouver, pp 83–88Google Scholar
  43. Robertson HG (1988) Spatial and temporal patterns of predation by ants on eggs of Cactoblastis cactorum. Ecol Entomol 13:207–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rosumek FB, Silveira FAO, Neves FdS, Barbosa NPDU, Diniz L, Oki Y, Pezzini F, Fernandes GW, Cornelissen T (2009) Ants on plants: a meta-analysis of the role of ants as plant biotic defenses. OecologiaGoogle Scholar
  45. Rudgers JA, Strauss SY (2004) A selection mosaic in the facultative mutualism between ants and wild cotton. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B 271:2481–2488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Simberloff D, Von Holle B (1999) Positive interactions of nonindigenous species: invasional meltdown? Biol Invasions 1:21–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Simonson SE, Stohlgren TJ, Tyler L, Gregg WP, Muir R, Garrett LJ (2005) Preliminary assessment of the potential impacts and risks of the invasive cactus moth, Cactoblastis cactorum Berg, in the US and Mexico. International Atomic Energy Agency, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  48. Stiling P, Moon D, Gordon D (2004) Endangered cactus restoration: mitigating the non-target effects of a biological control agent (Cactoblastis cactorum) in Florida. Restor Ecol 12:605–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zimmerman HG, Moran VC, Hoffmann JH (2001) The renowned cactus moth, Cactoblastis cactorum (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae): its natural history and threat to native Opuntia floras in Mexico and the United States of America. Fla Entomol 84:543–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zimmerman HG, Bloem S, Klein H (2004) Biology, history, threat, surveillance and control of the cactus moth, Cactoblastis cactorum. Joint FAO/IAEA Programme of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture, IAEA, ViennaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tom E. X. Miller
    • 1
  • Jesusa C. Legaspi
    • 2
  • Benjamin Legaspi
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyRice UniversityHoustonUSA
  2. 2.USDA-ARS-CMAVE Center for Biological ControlFlorida A&M UniversityTallahasseeUSA
  3. 3.Florida Public Service CommissionTallahasseeUSA

Personalised recommendations