4.6 Article

Relative dispersal ability of a key agricultural pest and its predators in an annual agroecosystem

期刊

BIOLOGICAL CONTROL
卷 63, 期 3, 页码 296-303

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2012.09.008

关键词

Biological control; Colonization; Lygus spp.; Mark-capture; Mean distance flown; Protein marking

资金

  1. STAR by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) [FP91-6838]
  2. USDA (RAMP) [ARZT-358320-G-30-505]
  3. van den Bosch Memorial Scholarship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In predator-prey interactions, a widely held view is that prey species have higher dispersal rates relative to their predators and are thereby able to escape from predation by colonizing habitats before their predators. Despite major implications for predator-prey interactions, community assembly, and biological control, this view has rarely been tested, and measuring relative dispersal abilities is often complicated by colonizing predators and prey originating from different locations. In California's San Joaquin Valley, the periodic harvest of alfalfa presents an opportunity to measure dispersal of a key generalist pest, Lygus spp., relative to a suite of its generalist predators. We performed a large-scale mark-capture study by marking a mature alfalfa field containing Lygus and its predators with an aerial application of a protein marker. The alfalfa was then harvested by the grower, prompting a dispersal event. At several times following harvest, surrounding cotton fields were sampled at known distances from the marked field to quantify movement by Lygus and its predators. Contrary to the general view, our data do not suggest that Lygus routinely out-disperses its suite of predators. Instead, the mean dispersal distance for Lygus fell near the average dispersal distances of its predators. Implications for biological control are discussed in light of these results, and the importance of predators' trophic strategy is stressed. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据