Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T04:21:27.281Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Arthropod diversity in necrotic tissue of three species of columnar cacti (Cactaceae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Sergio Castrezana  and
Therese Ann Markow
Sergio Castrezana*
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, United States 85721
Therese Ann Markow
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, United States 85721
*
1 Author to whom all correspondence should be addressed (E-mail: castreza@u.arizona.edu).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We compared the insect and arachnid species found in spring and summer samples of necrotic tissue of three species of columnar cacti, cardón [Pachycereus pringlei (S. Watson) Britten and Rose], organ-pipe (Stenocereus thurberi Buxb.), and senita [Lophocereus schottii (Engelm.) Britten and Rose] (all Cactaceae), endemic to the Sonoran Desert of North America. A total of 9380 arthropods belonging to 34 species, 23 families, 10 orders, and 2 classes were collected in 36 samples. Arthropod communities differed in composition among host cacti, as well as between seasons. These differences may be a function of variation in host characteristics, such as chemical composition and abiotic factors, such as water content or temperature.

Résumé

Nous comparons les espèces d’insectes et d’arachnides trouvées au printemps et à l’été dans des échantillons de tissus nécrotiques de trois espèces de cactus colonnaires, le cardón [Pachycereus pringlei (S. Watson) Britten et Rose], le « tuyau d’orgue » (Stenocereus thurberi Buxb.) et la senita [Lophocereus schottii (Engelm.) Britten et Rose], trois cactacées endémiques du désert de Sonora en Amérique du Nord. Au total, 9380 arthropodes appartenant à 34 espèces, 23 familles, 10 ordres et 2 classes ont été récoltés dans 36 échantillons. Les communautés d’arthropodes diffèrent par leur composition chez les trois espèces hôtes et varient d’une saison à l’autre. Ces différences sont sans doute fonction des variations des caractéristiques de l’hôte, telles la composition chimique et les facteurs abiotiques comme le contenu hydrique et la température.

[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 133 , Issue 3 , June 2001 , pp. 301 - 309
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Breitmeyer, C.M., Markow, T.A. 1998. Resource availability and population size in cactophilic Drosophila. Functional Ecology 12: 14–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heed, W.B. 1978. Ecology and genetics of Sonoran Desert Drosophila. pp 109–26 in Brussard, P.P. (Ed), Ecological genetics: the interface. New York: SpringerCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heed, W.B. 1982. The origin of Drosophila in the Sonoran Desert. pp 65–80in Barker, J.S.F., Starmer, W.T. (Eds), Ecological genetics and evolution: the cactus-yeast Drosophila model system. Sydney: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
Heed, W.B., Mangan, R.L. 1986. Community ecology of the Sonoran Desert Drosophila. pp 311–45 in Ashburner, M., Carson, H.L., Thompson, J.N. (Eds), The genetics and biology of Drosophila. London: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
Kircher, H. 1982. Chemical composition of cacti and its relationship to Sonoran Desert Drosophila. pp 143–58 in Barker, J.S.F., Stanner, W.T. (Eds), Ecological genetics and evolution: the cactus–yeast Drosophila model system. Sydney: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
Magurran, A.E. 1988. Ecological diversity and its measurement. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mangan, R.L. 1984. Reproductive ecology of three cactophilic Diptera (Diptera: Drosophilidae; Neriidae, Syrphidae). Pan-Pacific Entomologist 60: 326–31Google Scholar
Polak, M., Markow, T.A. 1995. Effect of ectoparasitic mites, Macrocheles subbadius (Acarina: Macrochelidae), on sexual selection in Sonoran Desert fruit fly, Drosophila nigrospiracula. Evolution 49: 660–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santana, F.J. 1961. The biology of immature Diptera associated with bacterial decay in the giant saguaro cactus (Cereus giganteus Englemann). MSc thesis, Department of Entomology, University of Arizona, TusconGoogle Scholar
Zeh, D.W., Zeh, J.A. 1992. Failed predation or transportation? Causes and consequences of phoretic behavior in the pseudoscorpion Dinocheirus arizonensis (Pseudoscorpionida: Chemetidae). Journal of Insect Behavior 5: 37–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar