4.7 Article

Periodical cicadas use light for oviposition site selection

Journal

PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY B-BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES
Volume 273, Issue 1604, Pages 2993-3000

Publisher

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2006.3676

Keywords

indirect cues; underground habitat selection; light environment; oviposition site selection; nutrient enrichment; periodical cicadas (Magicicada spp.)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Organisms use incomplete information from local experience to assess the suitability of potential habitat sites over a wide range of spatial and temporal scales. Although ecologists have long recognized the importance of spatial scales in habitat selection, few studies have investigated the temporal scales of habitat selection. In particular, cues in the immediate environment may commonly provide indirect information about future habitat quality. In periodical cicadas (Magicicada spp.), oviposition site selection represents a very long-term habitat choice. Adult female cicadas insert eggs into tree branches during a few weeks in the summer of emergence, but their oviposition choices determine the underground habitats of root-feeding nymphs over the following 13 or 17 years. Here, field experiments are used to show that female cicadas use the local light environment of host trees during the summer of emergence to select long-term host trees. Light environments may also influence oviposition microsite selection within hosts, suggesting a potential behavioural mechanism for associating solar cues with host trees. In contrast, experimental nutrient enrichment of host trees did not influence cicada oviposition densities. These findings suggest that the light environments around host trees may provide a robust predictor of host tree quality in the near future. This habitat selection may influence the spatial distribution of several cicada-mediated ecological processes in eastern North American forests.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available