Skip to main content
Log in

Which impatiens is eaten more? Phytoliriomyza melampyga (Agromyzidae) attack rates on invasive Impatiens glandulifera and I. parviflora and native I. noli-tangere

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Arthropod-Plant Interactions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

Invasive plants are often released from herbivore pressure in their secondary range, but native herbivores can adapt to feed on them over time. Impatiens glandulifera and I. parviflora are two invasive species, whose leaves in the secondary range have been severely damaged by leaf miners in recent years. The leaf miner attack rates for these species and a native congener, I. noli-tangere, were examined. Molecular analysis shows that all three impatiens species are affected by the same leaf miner Phytoliriomyza melampyga (Agromyzidae) without signs of divergence between populations living on different plant species. The native I. noli-tangere is more often damaged by the leaf miner, whilst I. parviflora is attacked more often than I. glandulifera. The largest mined area was found in I. glandulifera leaves and the smallest in I. noli-tangere. The nitrogen content, indicative of food quality, was similar in all three species, and there were no differences in 15N enrichment between miners from three impatiens species. We suppose that observed differences in attack rates and mined area in P. melampyga on three Impatiens species can be explained mainly by different levels of antiherbivore defence and recent host shift from native species to invasive ones.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analysed in this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank A.G. Zuev and S.M. Tsurikov (A.N Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution, Russian Academy of Sciences) for performing isotopic analysis.

Funding

This study was supported by the Russian Science Foundation (project No 23-24-00090).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Data collection and analysis were performed by ENU, SNL, DMS, and AVT. The first draft of the manuscript was written by ENU, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elena N. Ustinova.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Handling Editor: Ek del-Val.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 16 kb)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ustinova, E.N., Lysenkov, S.N., Schepetov, D.M. et al. Which impatiens is eaten more? Phytoliriomyza melampyga (Agromyzidae) attack rates on invasive Impatiens glandulifera and I. parviflora and native I. noli-tangere. Arthropod-Plant Interactions 17, 825–837 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11829-023-10008-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11829-023-10008-7

Keywords

Navigation