Ranking lepidopteran use of native versus introduced plants
- PMID: 19627321
- DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01202.x
Ranking lepidopteran use of native versus introduced plants
Abstract
In light of the wide-scale replacement of native plants in North America with introduced, invasive species and noninvasive ornamental plants that evolved elsewhere, we compared the value of native and introduced plants in terms of their ability to serve as host plants for Lepidoptera. Insect herbivores such as Lepidoptera larvae are critically important components of terrestrial food webs and any reduction in their biomass or diversity due to the loss of acceptable host plants is predicted to reduce the production of the many insectivores in higher trophic levels. We conducted an exhaustive search of host records in the literature. We used the data we gathered to rank all 1385 plant genera that occur in the mid-Atlantic states of the United States by their ability to support Lepidoptera richness. Statistical comparisons were made with Welch's test for equality of means. Woody plants supported more species of moths and butterflies than herbaceous plants, native plants supported more species than introduced plants, and native woody plants with ornamental value supported more Lepidoptera species than introduced woody ornamentals. All these differences were highly significant. Our rankings provide a relative measure that will be useful for restoration ecologists, landscape architects and designers, land managers, and landowners who wish to raise the carrying capacity of particular areas by selecting plants with the greatest capacity for supporting biodiversity.
Similar articles
-
Impact of native plants on bird and butterfly biodiversity in suburban landscapes.Conserv Biol. 2009 Feb;23(1):219-24. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01076.x. Epub 2008 Sep 29. Conserv Biol. 2009. PMID: 18950471
-
Effects of alien plants on insect abundance and biomass: a food-web approach.Conserv Biol. 2009 Apr;23(2):410-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01129.x. Epub 2008 Dec 10. Conserv Biol. 2009. PMID: 19128322
-
Host plants influence parasitism of forest caterpillars.Nature. 2002 May 9;417(6885):170-3. doi: 10.1038/417170a. Nature. 2002. PMID: 12000959
-
Causes and consequences of woody plant encroachment into western North American grasslands.J Environ Manage. 2009 Jul;90(10):2931-42. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.04.023. Epub 2009 Jun 5. J Environ Manage. 2009. PMID: 19501450 Review.
-
Four ways towards tropical herbivore megadiversity.Ecol Lett. 2008 Apr;11(4):398-416. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01155.x. Epub 2008 Jan 31. Ecol Lett. 2008. PMID: 18248447 Review.
Cited by
-
Integrated behavioural and stable isotope data reveal altered diet linked to low breeding success in urban-dwelling blue tits (Cyanistes caeruleus).Sci Rep. 2017 Jul 10;7(1):5014. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-04575-y. Sci Rep. 2017. PMID: 28694437 Free PMC article.
-
Bats reduce insect density and defoliation in temperate forests: An exclusion experiment.Ecology. 2023 Feb;104(2):e3903. doi: 10.1002/ecy.3903. Epub 2022 Dec 21. Ecology. 2023. PMID: 36310413 Free PMC article.
-
Exotic urban trees conserve similar natural enemy communities to native congeners but have fewer pests.PeerJ. 2019 Mar 7;7:e6531. doi: 10.7717/peerj.6531. eCollection 2019. PeerJ. 2019. PMID: 30867988 Free PMC article.
-
Quantifying bee assemblages and attractiveness of flowering woody landscape plants for urban pollinator conservation.PLoS One. 2018 Dec 26;13(12):e0208428. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0208428. eCollection 2018. PLoS One. 2018. PMID: 30586408 Free PMC article.
-
Can Cities Activate Sleeper Species and Predict Future Forest Pests? A Case Study of Scale Insects.Insects. 2020 Feb 25;11(3):142. doi: 10.3390/insects11030142. Insects. 2020. PMID: 32106554 Free PMC article.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources