Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T09:38:09.868Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Lateral interactions: competition, amensalism and facilitation

from Part III - Species interactions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Peter W. Price
Affiliation:
Northern Arizona University
Robert F. Denno
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, College Park
Micky D. Eubanks
Affiliation:
Texas A & M University
Deborah L. Finke
Affiliation:
University of Missouri, Columbia
Ian Kaplan
Affiliation:
Purdue University, Indiana
Get access

Summary

In the preceding chapter, we focused on interactions between phytophagous insects and their host plants and saw how species occupying different trophic levels can influence each other's abundance, distribution and evolution. Other important intertrophic level relationships include predator–prey and host–parasitoid interactions, and these will be dealt with in forthcoming chapters (see Chapters 7 and 8). Here we consider lateral interactions, those that occur among individuals feeding at the same trophic level, and how such interactions (e.g., competition, amensalism, facilitation and mutualism) can affect species' abundance, distribution and community structure. Because lateral interactions, and in particular competition, have been studied so extensively using herbivorous insects, we begin our consideration of the topic focusing on this group of consumers, deferring our treatment of lateral interactions in other insect consumer groups (e.g., detritivores, scavengers, predators and parasitoids) to a bit later in the chapter.

Lateral interactions between insect herbivores can be negative (competition and amensalism), neutral or positive (facilitation and mutualism) (Damman 1993, Denno et al. 1995, Denno and Kaplan 2007, Kaplan and Denno 2007). In competitive interactions, both participants (either conspecifics or heterospecifics) are negatively affected (−, −), whereas in cases of amensalism one of the players suffers from the interaction but the other remains unaffected (−, 0). Positive interactions include facilitation when at least one organism benefits from the interaction (+, 0) and mutualistic interactions in which both participants benefit (+, +) (Bruno et al. 2003, Bourtzis and Miller 2006). Moreover, mutualisms can involve tightly coevolved obligate interactions, such as aphids and their bacterial symbionts, or they can entail much looser facultative relationships, such as generalist pollinators and their nectar source plants. Because of the complexity and often intertrophic nature of mutualisms (e.g., protectionist ants and plants that offer rewards), we devote a whole chapter to this fascinating topic (Chapter 6). There we discuss only positive interactions between organisms feeding at the same trophic level, although the strength of such interactions (and negative ones as well) are often mediated by basal resources (plants) and natural enemies (Denno et al. 1995, Denno and Kaplan 2007, Kaplan and Denno 2007).

Type
Chapter
Information
Insect Ecology
Behavior, Populations and Communities
, pp. 184 - 223
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

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

Bruno, J. F. Stachowicz, J. L. , M. D. Bertness, 2003 Inclusion of facilitation into ecological theory Trends Ecol. Evol 18 119 Google Scholar
Denno, R. F. Kaplan, I. 2007 Plant-mediated interactions in herbivorous insects: mechanisms, symmetry, and challenging the paradigms of competition past. Pages 19–50 Ohgushi, T. Craig, T. A. Price, P. W. Ecological Communities: Plant Mediation in Indirect Interaction Webs Cambridge Cambridge University Press
Kaplan, I. Denno, R. F. 2007 Interspecific interactions in phytophagous insects revisited: a quantitative assessment of competition theory Ecol. Lett 10 977 Google Scholar
Reitz, S. R. Trumble, J. T. 2002 Competitive displacement among insects and arachnids Annu. Rev. Entomol 47 435 Google Scholar
Strong, D. R. Simberloff, D. Abele, L. G. Thistle, A. B. 1984 Ecological Communities: Conceptual Issues and the Evidence Princeton, NJ Princeton University Press

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×