lab report
kadirouzradli
LAB.docxRunning head: GALLFLY PARASITISM 10
Gallfly Parasitism of Goldenrod
LUKE H. S ANDRO RICHARD E. LEE, JR.2006
Abstract
Plant frequently maintain protection from different natural enemies, including galls that hide within living tissue of the plant. The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether the effects of the goldenrod ball and rosette galls on stem heights and diameter of Solidago altissima. This can account for changes in biomass allocation and total biomass observed in galled goldenrod. Galls are influenced by various agents, such us: goldenrod gall fly (Eurosta solidaginis). females fly lay eggs on vegetation, their larvae hatch and tunnel into host tissue where they spend their hours eating away on the plant's living cells, then eats its way into the stem and forms a feeding/living chamber. In a prairie of a study 10x50m field divided into transects and used those to find either rosette or ball galls on goldenrod, Solidago spp., within the randomized plots along one transect, we measured stem height and benefits o The presence Populations of goldenrods (Solidago altissima) were sampled to determine the effects of two stem gall insects (flies ball galls and rosette galls on resource stem height in the plants .Rosette Gall invasions were as high in the prairie and the dominant gall insect differed from site to site………………..
Introduction
Discussion
The data on gall type, gall diameter, gall plant height, and healthy plant height were put into an Excel table. Two scatterplots were created from the Excel data and the correlation coefficient was calculated. One graph compares the rosette gall diameter with the galled plant height in centimeters and the second compares the ball gall diameter with the galled plant height in centimeters. A bar chart was created showing the differences in height between rosette galled plants, ball galled plants, and healthy plants occurring near the rosette and ball galled plants. A paired t-test was performed for both rosette and ball galls.
Results:
In figure 1. the scatterplot depicts ball gall correlations ( r = 0.824; df = 2). Since the r value is greater than 0.5, ball gall diameter and galled stem height have a strong positive relationship. In figure 2. the scatterplot depicts rosette gall correlations ( r = 0.192; df = 94). Since the r value is less than 0.2, rosette gall diameter and gall height have a very weak positive relationship. Figure 3. is a bar chart comparing the heights of healthy plants and plant heights of rosette and ball galled plants. The ball gall plants and healthy nearest plants have the same height. Rosette gall plants and healthy nearest plants do not have the same height. Standard error bars are shown in the graph. The paired t-test for Rosette gall plant height shows the following data (t = -14.3; df = 95, p = 0.000). The probability being less than 0.05 means the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted. Rosette galls do effect stem height. The paired t-test for Ball gall plant height shows the following data (t = 0.00445; df = 8, p = 0.997). The probability being more than 0.05 means the null hypothesis is accepted and Ball galls have no effect on stem height.
Figure 1. Scatterplot shows the relationship between ball gall diameter in centimeters and the galled plant stem height of ball gall plants in centimeters. Data was collected at approximately 1400 on 19 September 2019 from a goldenrod field . The R2 value is shown.
Figure 2. Scatterplot shows the relationship between rosette gall diameter in centimeters and the galled plant stem height of rosette gall plants in centimeters. Rosette diameters were measured mid-gall from leaf tip to leaf tip. Data was collected at approximately 1400 on 19 September 2019 from. The R2 value is shown.
Figure 3. Bar Graph showing the relationship between Ball and Rosette Galls on plants stem height based on 100 Goldenrods at 1400. Standard deviation bars are shown.
REFERENCES
Sandro, L. H., & Lee, R. E. (2006). Winter biology & freeze tolerance in the goldenrod gall fly. The American Biology Teacher, 68(1), 29-36.
https://bioone.org/journals/The-American-Biology-Teacher/volume-68/issue-1/0002-7685(2006)068[0029:WBFTIT]2.0.CO;2/Winter-Biology--Freeze-Tolerance-in-the-Goldenrod-Gall-Fly/10.1662/0002-7685(2006)068[0029:WBFTIT]2.0.CO;2.short
Helms, A. M., De Moraes, C. M., Mescher, M. C., & Tooker, J. F. (2014). The volatile emission of Eurosta solidaginis primes herbivore-induced volatile production in Solidago altissima and does not directly deter insect feeding. BMC plant biology, 14(1), 173.
https://bmcplantbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2229-14-173
Helms, A. M., De Moraes, C. M., Tooker, J. F., & Mescher, M. C. (2013). Exposure of Solidago altissima plants to volatile emissions of an insect antagonist (Eurosta solidaginis) deters subsequent herbivory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(1), 199-204.
https://www.pnas.org/content/110/1/199.short
Wise, M. J., & Abrahamson, W. G. (2017). Constraints on the evolution of resistance to gall flies in Solidago altissima: resistance sometimes costs more than it is worth. New Phytologist, 215(1), 423-433.
https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/nph.14583
Start, D., & Gilbert, B. (2016). Host–parasitoid evolution in a metacommunity. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 283(1831), 20160477.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2016.0477
Yip, E. C., Sowers, R. P., Helms, A. M., Mescher, M. C., De Moraes, C. M., & Tooker, J. F. (2019). Trade-offs between defenses against herbivores in goldenrod (Solidago altissima). Arthropod-Plant Interactions, 13(2), 279-287.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11829-019-09674-3
Wise, M. J., Abrahamson, W. G., & Cole, J. A. (2010). The role of nodding stems in the goldenrod–gall–fly interaction: A test of the “ducking” hypothesis. American journal of botany, 97(3), 525-529.
https://bsapubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.3732/ajb.0900227
Abrahamson, W. G., Sattler, J. F., McCrea, K. D., & Weis, A. E. (1989). Variation in selection pressures on the goldenrod gall fly and the competitive interactions of its natural enemies. Oecologia, 79(1), 15-22.
|
|
|
|
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00378234
Stinner, B. R., & Abrahamson, W. G. (1979). Energetics of the Solidago canadensis‐stem gall insect‐parasitoid guild interaction. Ecology, 60(5), 918-926.
https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.2307/1936860
Confer, J. L., & Paicos, P. (1985). Downy woodpecker predation at goldenrod galls. Journal of Field Ornithology, 56-64.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4512979?seq=1
1. Plant populations frequently maintain submaximal levels of resistance to natural enemies,
even in the presence of substantial genetic variation for resistance. Identifying constraints on
the evolution of increased resistance has been a major goal of researchers of plant–herbivore
interactions.
Autotoxicity may constrain the resistance of S. altissima to an intermediate level, and variation
in environmental conditions may alter the relative costs and benefits of resistance and tolerance,
thus maintaining genetic variation within goldenrod populations.
2. few can survive freezing.
Larvae of the goldenrod gall fly {Eurosta solidaginis),
can survive freezing to -40°C or below
Galls can also be studied to learn about insect ovipositing
beha\ior and plant responses to three types of
gallmakers-each with its own distinct gall type
(Newell, 1994)
3. that had ball galls caused by the fly Eurosta solidaginis
The presence of a gall did not significantly affect final stem height but did slow the growth of ramets during the period of most rapid gall growth. The observed effects of the gall probably explain changes in resource allocation shown by other studies but do not account for the overall decrease in biomass of galled ramets
114.2 122 104 112 2.5 1.8 2.5 2.4
Galled Stem Height (cm)
Ball Gall Diameter (cm)
85 80 93 115 110 102 116 116 94 100 90 110 104 96 104 90 101 105 85 97 68 83 83 58 86 102 105 96 92 94 72 82 74 100 90 75 77 78 96 86 142 100 109 112 102 74 95 99 78 103 109 95 95 112 106 75 97 107 94 114 134 64 92 129 140 106 97 133 94 88 78 95 154 92 99 75 82 80 79 88 112 97 109 107 88 95 96 104 107 99 106 122 97 105 109 112 6.9 8.9 5.5 8.5 8.9 10 7.5 11.2 6.9 6.4 2.4 8 8 5.8 3.6 4.9000000000000004 6.8 6.7 4.7 4.8 3.5 3 5 3 8 6 7 6.5 6.5 11.1 4.5999999999999996 8 7.5 8 4 4.5 4.5 4 4 5.9 6.2 6.3 4.0999999999999996 4.5 6.6 4.3 2.2999999999999998 3.7 10 7.7 5 5.0999999999999996 4.3 4.2 5.8 2 2.9 6 3.4 4.5999999999999996 9.9 4.0999999999999996 4.8 3.9 5.2 3 5.3 5.9 4.5 3.4 3 10 2.1 4.5999999999999996 3.1 4.5 7 4.8 5 3.3 6.5 3 9 9 2.4 4.5 2.5 3 3 2.5 7 10 5 6 1.8 5
Galled Stem Height (cm)
Rosette Gall Diameter (cm)
16.695571426673538 17.919750448607036 17.285398462286018 24.434970386267675 1 Rosette Ungalled stem ht Ball Ungalled Stem ht 97.625 128.69583333333333 118.96666666666667 118.95555555555555
Height of stem (Cm)
