Research Spotlights

Using isotopes to track nutrients

Intrepid post-doc alum David Hoekman, who is now a staff scientist at NEON Inc., the NSF-funded center for continental scale ecology and monitoring recently wrote this piece for their blog on his research in Iceland.  Thanks David for the great summary!

Tracking isotopes to illuminate Nature’s grand recycling program

by 

January 22, 2013

 

midge addition experiment

As I stand in the sun on the shore of a beautiful Icelandic lake, the wind dies down and the midges rise from their resting places in the lakeshore grasses and wildflowers. The fog of midges quickly thickens and I am soon engulfed and surrounded by the noise of millions of tiny wings buzzing around me.

…. Read More

 

 

Posted by Claudio

Share on Facebook+1Pin it on PinterestSubmit to redditShare on Twitter

Current Researcher Spotlight: Brian Spiesman

 The Gratton Lab recently welcomed yet another fantastic post-doc to the team!  Brian Spiesman joins us from Florida, where he completed his Master’s Degree at The University of Florida and his PhD with Dr. Brian Inouye at Florida State.   While he unfortunately did not bring the warm sunshine with him when he moved to Wisconsin, we are happy to have him here nonetheless!  Read more about Brian below.   admin-ajax

Where did you grow up?:  Ridgefield, WA

What was your PhD research all about?:  I studied the effects of habitat loss on plant-pollinator networks.  I found that habitat loss changes the local community composition, and these changes can have consequences for the stability of plant- pollinator networks.  

What will you be researching in the Gratton Lab?:  I will be examining how the harvesting regime within bioenergy grasslands affects pollinator communities.  Grasslands are thought to have conservation value for pollinators, but this value can change based on how the grasslands are harvested in biofuel production.

What interests you most about ecology?:  I am interested in species interactions and biogeography.  Or, more specifically, the factors that affect why species are found in certain habitats or locations.  I am interested in how local and landscape factors interact to affect the biotic community of a place.  

What excites you most about working in the Gratton Lab?:  I am excited to continuing working on pollinators, as I did for my PhD, but to continue this research in an applied context, combining basic and applied ecology.

What are your hobbies?:  Triathlons and carpentry.

Share on Facebook+1Pin it on PinterestSubmit to redditShare on Twitter

Two ama-ZZZ-ing papers!

There has been a lot of buzz in the lab about two papers examining the relationships between habitat diversity (at local and landscape scales) and arthropod diversity. 

 The first paper (Bennett and Gratton 2013) examines the relationships between floral diversity and the diversity of beneficial arthropods which includes insect pollinators and predators.   Ashley and Claudio found that as plant diversity increases, the number of beneficial arthropod species increases as well. They also found that as plant diversity increases, the variability in arthropod community decreases meaning that the composition of beneficial arthropods in highly diverse plant communities are more similar to each other than low diversity plant communities.  These results have implications for restoration and habitat management where careful selection of plants may be needed to increase the richness of beneficial arthropods in more predictable ways.

The second paper (Kennedy et al 2013) is a global study examining the relative effects of landscape composition (e.g. nesting and floral diversity), landscape configuration (e.g. habitat connectivity and shape), and local factors (e.g. farm management and plant diversity) on native bee communities in 39 crop systems (including Hannah Gaines’ cranberry system!). The authors found that native bee abundance and richness were positively affected by the diversity of resources in the local habitat and surrounding landscape features.  These results suggest that farms surrounded by a high diversity of habitats may offset any potential negative effects of low diversity agriculture (i.e. monocultures) for native bee communities. The following is a research brief put out by UC Berkley (http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2013/03/12/crop-diversity-boosts-bees/)

 Way to go Ashley, Hannah and Claudio!

Photo by Ashley Bennett

Photo by Ashley Bennett

 

Posted by Tania Kim

Share on Facebook+1Pin it on PinterestSubmit to redditShare on Twitter

Will Spotted Wing Drosophila be here next year?

If you noticed higher prices or fewer raspberries at your local farmer’s market this fall, you’re not alone. Wisconsin raspberries faced a new pest, Spotted Wing Drosophila (Drosophila suzukii) this year and the big question is: where is it now and will it return?

Male SWD

Native to Southeast Asia, Spotted Wing Drosophila (SWD) is a fruit fly with a sclerotized ovipositor capable of piercing the skin and successfully laying eggs in ripening fruits. The fly was first described in Japan in 1916 and detected in Hawaii in 1980. By the mid-2000s, SWD was in central California & spread rapidly throughout the Pacific Northwest and Florida. In 2010, SWD was in the Southeastern US, Michigan, and Wisconsin, but no significant crop damage was reported in Wisconsin until August 2012 when it was detected by raspberry growers in 17 counties.

While other fruit flies rely on fermenting or damaged fruit, SWD’s ability to attack ripening fruits can cause total crop loss, making it a potential pest for raspberry, blueberry, blackberry, grapes, strawberries and cherries in Wisconsin. Other fruit varieties at risk (e.g. elderberry, aronia) have been gaining popularity, especially in the Driftless area where growers are trending towards higher value perennial crops to increase sustainability and income. Wineries, farm stands, and value-added products are major tourism draws to the Driftless area, as well as other fruit growing regions in Wisconsin such as the southern shore of Lake Superior and Door County, and these customers tend to have a zero to low tolerance for insect larvae in fruit, so minimizing infestations are critical.

SWD are generalists which means they can jump from host-to-host throughout the year depending on ripening fruit availability. As many Wisconsin vineyards and small fruit operations are part of diversified farms, they offer the perfect season-long availability of food.  Together, these characteristics may create ideal conditions for high local population growth and significant crop damage in the Upper Midwest. Current recommendations are limited to culling fruit and heavy season-long pesticide sprays, which simply are not options for the many growers who use organic, IPM or no-spray practices.

How did Spotted Wing Drosophila reach Wisconsin? The two main theories are 1) summer winds blow the flies in from southern locales 2) local overwintering. Field monitoring and laboratory tests have confirmed that SWD can overwinter in California and the Columbia River Gorge in Oregon. While Wisconsin winters are usually much harsher than the Pacific Northwest’s, the ability of small protected populations to survive (in thicker-skinned wild fruits, leaf litter, soil, heated buildings) may be enough to cause or supplement annual outbreaks.

To help answer the overwintering question, the new fruit crop entomologist, Christelle Guedot and I  have constructed 21 apple cider vinegar traps at 5 locations in Dane County with confirmed infestations at small fruit farms, natural areas, and raspberry high-tunnels. We will continue monitoring traps throughout the winter months to detect any flying adult presence which indicates overwintering in Southern Wisconsin. If adults are overwintering, they may fly on warm, sunny winter days, so although our traps are few, they may be one of the only attractive ‘fruits’ available in the dead of winter. Our first month of trapping (mid-December thru mid-January) only trapped two male SWD in a fall-infested high-tunnel; high-tunnels may be especially at risk for infestation due to their controlled mild temperatures and weather protection. Our second month (mid-Jan thru mid-Feb) trapped no SWD.  Starting in April, in a partnership with DATCP, we will be coordinating a farmer-based monitoring program at 15+ farms statewide to track population trends.

So will we see SWD this year? We suspect a combination of benign overwintering conditions, 2012 infestation status and landscape effects will determine if any particular county or raspberry patch will face infestation. Monitoring this year will show if SWD is overwintering and help growers make early management decisions. 

Share on Facebook+1Pin it on PinterestSubmit to redditShare on Twitter

Midges connect aquatic and terrestrial food webs

Insects live in virtually every freshwater habitat and can be extremely abundant, composing a large part of the animal biomass in lakes and rivers. Aquatic insects have important roles in food webs, acting as decomposers and consumers of aquatic plants. Many are in turn consumed by crayfish, fish, and other predators. But aquatic insects can also be important parts of food webs on land when they emerge from the water and fly over land to find mates. We’ve been studying how neighboring habitats are connected to and affect one another. When midges, mayflies, mosquitoes, caddisflies and many other aquatic insects emerge from freshwater they can become food for predators like spiders, lizards, birds and bats and many studies have shown that these predators are more abundant along the edges of streams and lakes because of the rich food source provided by aquatic insects. In addition to providing food to predators, emerging insects can also have a fertilizer effect on plant communities next to lakes and streams because they act as fertilizer when they die and decompose.

springtail

Some aquatic insects emerge all at once in large swarms, resulting in a “pulse” of insects moving from the water to shoreline food webs. We’ve been studying the consequences of this resource pulse using a group of lakes in northeast Iceland. In Iceland, the typical productivity of the land is low (lava fields and heathlands) and dotting this landscape there are lakes, some with many midges and some with few midges, a type of small aquatic insect. We measure midges coming out of lakes, how many end up on land, and how this affects plant growth and the abundance of arthropod predators (e.g., spiders, harvestmen, beetles), detritivores (e.g., springtails [photograph above], mites) and herbivores (e.g., caterpillars, plant hoppers, aphids). The members of this arthropod food web can eat live midges (predators), dead midges (detritivores) or midge-fertilized plants (herbivores).

One way we track midge resources as they move through terrestrial food webs is by measuring carbon isotopes of spiders and insects on land. Carbon from aquatic plants has a different isotopic value than carbon from terrestrial plants. Because midges develop and grow in the water, they incorporate an aquatic carbon signature and we can track their carbon as it is integrated into the terrestrial food web.

In this photo you can see some of the 1x1 m plots at our midge addition experiment.

In an experiment simulating midge deposition at high-midge lakes (in the photo above you can see David on the right near our midge addition plots at Helluvadstjorn in Iceland), recently published in Oecologia by David Hoekman and others from our Iceland group, we added midge carcasses to a low-midge heathland site.  We found that the strongest responders to the dead midge additions were  the ubiquitous springtails or Collembola, little insect-like creatures that have a habit of jumping around by flicking a little structure under their abdomens.  These tiny (<2mm) arthropods are known to be decomposers of dead and decaying organic matter, likely feeding on the bacteria and fungi growing there.  If enough midges are added (for example, if you add midges for two consecutive years), then even larger things like spiders start to show evidence of midge carbon in their tissues.  How does it get there?  Well, spiders are active predators that eat only live prey, so we surmise that they got the midge carbon in their tissues by feeding on the springtails.  We even found some evidence that midge nitrogen was picked up by some of the plants in the area where midges were added.  Once the midges are gone, however, the midge carbon quickly disappears from the system.  Within one year of the midge additions there is little evidence of midge carbon in the arthropods any more.  As the arthropods die and their offspring take their place, they new generation develops in an environment that is now midge-free. 

This research is helping us to understand how aquatic and terrestrial systems are connected. Aquatic insects are a major driver of these connections, but other prominent examples include salmon returning to their natal streams and sea birds nesting on land. We’re also interested in how food webs respond to resource pulses, specifically what components of the food web respond quickly to available resources and how ephemeral resources are stored, resulting in long-term effects.

Posted by David Hoekman and Claudio Gratton

Share on Facebook+1Pin it on PinterestSubmit to redditShare on Twitter

Pest control benefits of diversified agroecosystems – From top to bottom

Harvestman When are multiple species better than one? This question has intrigued ecologists for over a century, and has relevance both for conservation and agriculture. Recently, Ben Werling, Claudio Gratton and their coauthors published work examining the benefits of diversifying potato agroecosystems, both at the top and bottom of the food chain. Looking down from the top of the food chain, the team asked the question: “If and when does having multiple predator species improve control of insect pests?” To answer this question, Ben worked with David Lowenstein – then fresh from the Bronx – and Dr. Cory Straub to examine the effects of predator diversity on predation of Colorado potato beetle, a notorious potato pest. Their results, recently published in the Journal of Insect Science, provide evidence that multiple predator species are better than one – but only under certain conditions. Specifically, they found that the benefits of predator diversity were greater at low prey density. They also suggest a simple mechanism for this effect. Specifically, ecologists hypothesize that competition amongst predators will be lessened in diverse communities, which contain species that all attack different types of prey,  compared to lower diversity communities, where individuals are more likely to compete for the same type of prey. Given this, it is reasonable to expect that predator diversity will be more important at lower prey density, where predators are competing for scarcer resources. This suggests that conserving multiple predator species on farmland could be important for keeping pest populations that are currently at low levels from escaping control. In other words, diverse predator communities may help keep pests “down for the count.”

potatofield Entomologists have also shown that diversity at the bottom of food chains – at the plant level – also affects the severity of pest problems. Specifically, pest numbers are often lower in more diverse cropping systems compared to those dominated by a single plant species. However, the mechanisms underlying these patterns are often less then clear. On the one hand, increasing plant diversity can have direct effects on pests by making it harder to find – and easier to lose – their host plants. On the other hand, diverse plants may provide more of the resources that predatory insects need to survive and increase their ability to control pests. Ben Werling and Claudio Gratton teamed up with Cory Straub and Jason Harmon – both postdocs at the time – to examine how diversifying potato fields by planting strips of prairie grasses affect both pests and their natural enemies. Their findings – recently published in Biological Control – suggest that prairie grasses increase the abundance of spiders and harvestmen, leading to increased predation of Colorado potato beetle. However, these benefits were limited to the area immediately adjacent to grassy strips. This suggests that planting prairie grasses on farmland could increase natural pest control – but, as in opening a business – location matters. In particular, interspersing patches of crop and natural habitat within a crop field could allow natural enemies to benefit from resources in non-crop areas, while minimizing the distance they have to travel to control pests in crops.

dsc02885 Above, a native warm-season prairie habitat adjacent to potato field at Arlington Agricultural Research Station in Wisconsin.

Share on Facebook+1Pin it on PinterestSubmit to redditShare on Twitter

Landscape structure influences pest predation at organism-specific spatial scales.

At which scale should conservation of non-crop habitat take place to sustain such important ecosystem services as the control of crop pests? To help understanding the consequences of land-use decisions, Ben Werling and Claudio Gratton examined the impact of local and broad scale landscape structure on the predation of two insect pests of potatoes in Wisconsin, the Colorado potato beetle, Leptinotarsa decemlineata, and the green peach aphid, Myzus persicae.

At a local scale (meters), potato fields of different sizes were bordered by different areas of uncultivated grassy field margins. At a broad scale (kilometers), potato fields and grassy margins were set in landscapes composed of varying percentages of non-crop habitat. The Predation of both investigated species was significantly impacted by non-crop habitats, but this relationship occurred at different scales for each pest and interacted differently with habitat type. The predation of exposed egg masses of L. decemlineata was greater in field margins than in the potato crop and increased in both habitats when field margins were large relative to the area of potatoes while that predation was less affected by the amount of non-crop habitat within kilometers. In contrast, the suppression of aphid population growth by predators increased with the area of non-crop habitat within kilometers of fields, but was less affected by the field margin area.

As a potential mechanism for the differential impact of local and broad scale landscape structure on predation of these pests, Ben and Claudio suggested that the two pests are attacked by natural enemies with different dispersal abilities. Aphid predators may move across the landscape at broader scales than predators that attack L. decemlineata eggs. Alternatively, the same predators may attack both pests, but respond to landscape structure differently in June, when L. decemlineata egg abundance peak and August when Aphids are present.

Ben and Claudio quoted that the influence of non-crop habitats on predation the potato beetles is due to the movement of natural enemies between resource-providing field margins and potatoes. Consequently small field sizes could reduce the travel distance and increase the ability of organisms to access resources in non-crop habitats. The oppositional patterns of M. persicae suppression suggest that aphidophagous predators move between non-crop habitats at the scale of kilometers. Because even a single ecosystem service, such as pest predation, can be influenced by landscape structure at multiple scales, the authors emphasize that it may be necessary to conserve heterogeneity both at the levels of individual farms and entire mosaic landscapes to maintain ecosystem services.


Share on Facebook+1Pin it on PinterestSubmit to redditShare on Twitter

Is Bioenergy for the Birds?

Demand for fossil fuels is increasing globally.  The United States is pursuing an energy policy that aims to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels by expanding renewable energy sources.  One important part of this effort is the use of bioenergy crops to produce heat, electricity, and transportation fuel.  Meeting energy demands could have big implications for agricultural land use.  Not only will land used to grow fuel not be available for growing food, but the choice of energy crop will have large consequences in the environment.

Few studies have considered the effects of bioenergy crops on biodiversity.  Bioenergy crops can be broadly categorized as “high intensity, low diversity” (HILD, corn and soybean) or “low intensity, high diversity (LIHD, hay fields and prairies).  HILD crops are characterized by high fertilizer and pesticide inputs and are generally annually replanted.  LIHD require fewer inputs, are more perennial, and are composed of a mix of several different plant species.

The number of plant species in a field can influence the number of species on a landscape.  In general, HILD crops are expected to support fewer species than LIHD crops.  The number of bird species is often considered to be a good indicator of the number of animal species in a community.  An active group of professional and amateur bird watchers involved with the North American Breeding Bird Survey have produced useful data on the number of bird species in landscapes across North America.  Using this data, Meehan et al. developed a model to predict the number of bird species in different future land-use scenarios.  Specifically, they contrasted two extremes scenarios for bioenergy crops on marginal lands in the Upper Midwest: (1) changing 9.5 million ha of LIHD into HILD and (2) changing 8.3 million ha of HILD into LIHD.  These two scenarios represent opposite ends of the spectrum, moving to mostly perennial (LIHD) or mostly annual (HILD) bioenergy crops on marginal lands.

Their model predicted that changing to a more perennial landscape (hay fields and prairies that are not re-planted every year) would result in more species of birds (up to 200% more) in the landscape while a more annual landscape (corn and soybeans fields) would result in fewer species of birds (up to 65% fewer) in the landscape.  This is especially the case for rare grassland birds of particular conservation interest.  Which crops are used for producing bioenergy will have consequences for many aspects of the environment, including the number of bird species.  It is important to consider all of the costs and benefits of our energy policies.

Share on Facebook+1Pin it on PinterestSubmit to redditShare on Twitter

Soybean Pests Interact

We all have an intuitive understanding that organisms interact with one another, through such events as predation, parasitism, and even mutualism.  It is easy for us to relate to plants and animals this way because we too are often focused on direct interactions between ourselves and the people and things around us.  Less often do we consider how we are indirectly linked to one another; that is, how two things influence each other through a shared intermediary.

Soybean aphid, Aphis glycines (Photo Claudio Gratton)

Field ecologists are often interested in multiple species that are connected to one another through a third living thing, including some in the Gratton Lab at theUniversityofWisconsin-Madison.  Steve Hong and his colleagues have been studying how two pests of the important crop soybean affect the plant and one another.  Soybean has historically fallen victim to tiny worms called nematodes that attack the plant below the surface.  Above ground the plant is fed upon by tiny insects known as aphids which have been introduced to Wisconsin only in the last decade.

Experiments in the laboratory and the field with soybean and its above and below-ground pests have revealed the complicated relationships among them.  Winged aphids have been shown to prefer soybeans that are uninfected by the nematodes, both in the lab and in the field.  However aphid growth and reproduction were not reduced on plants infected by nematodes versus those that were not infected.  However yield and seed production were reduced in the field by nematodes and aphids respectively.

Related Publications:

Hong,SC, J Donaldson, C Gratton.  2010.  Soybean cyst nematode effects on Soybean Aphid performance in the Laboratory.  Environmental Entomology 39:1561-1569

Hong, SC, A MacGuidwin, C Gratton.  In review.  Soybean aphid (Aphis glycines Matsumura) and soybean cyst nematode (Heterodera glycines Ichinohe) interactions in the field and effects on soybean yield.

 

 

Share on Facebook+1Pin it on PinterestSubmit to redditShare on Twitter

 

Feedback, questions or accessibility issues: Click here to send an email
Copyright © 2013 The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System