4.6 Article

The relationship between resource abundance and insect herbivory on islands

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 16, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256183

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea [2018R1D1A1B07046637]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea [2018R1D1A1B07046637] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study examined the relationship between resource abundance and feeding activity of phytophagous insects on island plants, finding that different plant species significantly influence insects' feeding behavior, while geographic factors also play a variable role in shaping phytophagous insects activity.
We examined the relationship between resource abundance and the feeding activity of phytophagous insects on three common island plants. The aim was to investigate the correlation between phytophagous insects' abundance and availability of food and island geography. We collected 30,835 leaves from three tree species groups (Mallotus japonicus, Prunus species, and Quercus species) on 18 islands in southwest Korea. The number of plant resources for herbivores varied: the number of leaves per shoot was the highest in Mallotus, leaf weight and the water content per leaf was significantly lower in Quercus species. External feeding was higher for Prunus and Quercus species, whereas the internal feeding type was significantly higher for Quercus species. Geography (area and distance), elevation and food resource (elevation, number of plant species, and the forest cover rate) had a variable effect on phytophagous insects feeding activities: distance and the number of plant species were more explainable to the external feeding guild. In contrast, area and forest cover were more to the internal feeding guild.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available