How specialised must natural enemies be to facilitate coexistence among plants?

The Janzen‐Connell hypothesis proposes that plant interactions with host‐specific antagonists can impair the fitness of locally abundant species and thereby facilitate coexistence. However, insects and pathogens that associate with multiple hosts may mediate exclusion rather than coexistence. We employ a simulation model to examine the effect of enemy host breadth on plant species richness and defence community structure, and to assess expected diversity maintenance in example systems. Only models in which plant enemy similarity declines rapidly with defence similarity support greater species richness than models of neutral drift. In contrast, a wide range of enemy host breadths result in spatial dispersion of defence traits, at both landscape and local scales, indicating that enemy‐mediated competition may increase defence‐trait diversity without enhancing species richness. Nevertheless, insect and pathogen host associations in Panama and Papua New Guinea demonstrate a potential to enhance plant species richness and defence‐trait diversity comparable to strictly specialised enemies.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/99082/1/ele12130.pd

Diet breadth and its relationship with genetic diversity and differentiation: the case of southern beech aphids (Hemiptera : Aphididae)

Gaete-Eastman, C. and Ramirez, C.C. Centro de Investigación en Biotecnologia Silvoagrıcola, Instituto de Biología Vegetal y Biotecnología, Universidad de Talca, Casilla 747, Talca, Chile.Herbivorous insect species with narrow diet breadth are expected to be more prone to genetic differentiation than insect species with a wider diet breadth. However, a generalist can behave as a local specialist if a single host-plant species is locally available, while a specialist can eventually behave as a generalist if its preferred host is not available. These problems can be addressed by comparing closely related species differing in diet breadth with overlapping distributions of insect and host populations. In this work, diet breadth, genetic diversity and population differentiation of congeneric aphid species from southern beech forests in Chile were compared. While at the species level no major differences in genetic diversity were found, a general trend towards higher genetic diversity as diet breadth increased was apparent. The aphid species with wider diet breadth, Neuquenaphis edwardsi (Laing), showed the highest genetic diversity, while the specialist Neuquenaphis staryi Quednau & Remaudière showed the lowest. These differences were less distinct when the comparisons were made in the same locality and over the same host. Comparison of allopatric populations indicates that genetic differentiation was higher for the specialists, Neuquenaphis similis Hille Ris Lambers and N. staryi, than for the generalist N. edwardsi. Over the same host at different locations, genetic differentiation among populations of N. edwardsi was higher than among populations of N. similis. The results support the assumption that specialists should show more pronounced genetic structuring than generalists, although the geographical distribution of host plants may be playing an important role

Practical issues affecting the utility of field survey data for biodiversity monitoring

There is growing emphasis on monitoring biodiversity in European waters not least due to the EC’s recent Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) listing biodiversity as one descriptor of ‘Good Environmental Status’ (GES). Member States already have various monitoring surveys in place, in particular groundfish and other fisheries surveys, which may provide a cost-effective way of assessing some elements of biodiversity. The MSFD recognises the “need to ensure, as far as possible, compatibility with existing programmes”. Although existing field surveys are a potential source of quantitative data for examining spatial and temporal biodiversity patterns, it must be acknowledged that such surveys were often not originally designed to monitor ‘biodiversity’, and long-term surveys may have had changes in survey design at some point, and/or subtle changes in survey protocols over time. Field surveys for infauna and plankton typically collect and preserve samples at sea, and subsequent laboratory work includes the use of reference collections, quality assurance and longer-term sample storage. Surveys with towed gears can collect large amounts of complex biological material which is typically processed at sea, and so different forms of quality assurance are required. The taxonomic knowledge, experience and enthusiasm of sea-going staff can also influence the biodiversity information collected (e.g. time spent sorting complex catches, species identification). Hence, matrices of species-station data can contain ‘artefacts’ that need to be understood and addressed before deriving biodiversity metrics, and may even necessitate some degree of data filtering. This paper uses field data from selected surveys to illustrate how various factors can affect ‘biodiversity information’