Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2012 Jul 13.
Published in final edited form as: Oecologia. 2010 Apr 10;164(1):221–230. doi: 10.1007/s00442-010-1624-2

Interpopulation differences in competitive effect and response of the mosquito Aedes aegypti and resistance to invasion by a superior competitor

Paul T Leisnham 1,✉, S A Juliano 1
PMCID: PMC3396007  NIHMSID: NIHMS384289  PMID: 20383530

Abstract

Geographic variation in species interactions can have major effects on species distributions and can be important for the resistance of resident communities to invasive species. We tested the hypothesis that coexistence or replacement of a resident North American mosquito Aedes aegypti with the invasive Aedes albopictus is affected by interpopulation variation in the inherent competitive ability of A. aegypti and variation in the fecundity–size relationship. We postulated that such variation creates differential population-level outcomes of competition with A. albopictus. We compared competitive abilities of eight North American populations of A. aegypti, four populations sympatric to A. albopictus, and four populations allopatric to A. albopictus. Competition among larvae from each A. aegypti population and a single A. albopictus population was tested in laboratory microcosms in a response-surface design. We found origin of A. aegypti influences its competitive response to competition from A. albopictus and competitive effect on A. albopictus. A. aegypti from allopatric sites preformed better in competition with A. albopictus than did A. aegypti from sympatric sites because they had a stronger average effect on A. albopictus. This average was strongly influenced by the allopatric population from Miami. Competitive effect and response were uncorrelated among populations, indicating inconsistent ranking of A. aegypti in competitive effect and response. Although A. albopictus is generally a superior competitor to A. aegypti, a stronger competitive effect of particular A. aegypti populations on invading A. albopictus may contribute to competition-mediated biotic resistance to the invader. These results suggest that interpopulation variation in competitive ability of A. aegypti may contribute to failure of A. albopictus to invade parts of the southeastern United States and offer evidence of a contribution to biotic resistance by an inferior competitor. Geographic variation in competitive ability may be common and one general cause of variation in invasion success and impact.

Keywords: Biotic resistance, Fecundity–size relationship, Invasive, Reproductive tactics

Introduction

Geographic variation in species interactions can be a major cause of geographic patterns in the diversity of genotypes and phenotypes (Travis 1996). Despite these important effects of geographic variation of species interactions, most empirical studies of species interactions have been restricted to documenting the presence of species interactions as important factors for local populations (Travis 1996; Sakai et al. 2001; Juliano 2009 for reviews). Most studies on the establishment and spread of exotic insects have focused on the roles of vacant niches or release from natural predators as being important determinants of invasion success. Competition clearly also occurs between invaders and resident species (Duyck et al. 2006), and is considered an important mechanism of biotic resistance of residents to exotic invaders in plants (Levine et al. 2004). Competition-mediated resistance is not well studied in animals and the importance of interspecific competition in determining when and where invasions occur for all organisms is usually ascribed to variation in community properties (Levine 2000; Levine et al. 2004; Diez et al. 2008). When invaders interact strongly with particular resident species, intraspecific variation in population characteristics of the residents may also be important for biotic resistance. However, there is little known of how local differentiation of competitive ability of resident species, either in response to selection from different biotic environments (Sakai et al. 2001; Siemann and Rogers 2001) or because of heterogeneous founding genotypes (Levine et al. 2004; Abbott et al. 2007; Keller and Taylor 2008) affects their interactions with an invasive species.

Impacts of invasive species may vary across their introduced range from limited impacts and the persistence of residents to the competitive displacement of residents (Juliano et al. 2004; Abbott et al. 2007). Investigations of the causes of such variation provide an opportunity to understand how intraspecific variation in species interactions arises (Keller and Taylor 2008). Investigations into the impacts of invasives across their introduced range are also of potential practical importance because such variation may help to predict where resident species are most resistant to invasive impacts and thus provide a metric of vulnerability of a system to ecological, economic, and health impacts of invasion (Levine et al. 2004; Abbott et al. 2007). Ideal model systems for such investigations involve a widespread, well-studied resident that varies in its persistence after the invasion of invasive species, from resistance to invasion to coexistence with invasive species (Leisnham et al. 2009).

The yellow-fever mosquito, Aedes aegypti, originated in tropical Africa but has invaded numerous tropical and subtropical regions worldwide, including the Americas in the sixteenth century (Lounibos 2002). A. aegypti is the principal vector of yellow fever, chikungunya, and dengue viruses worldwide (Lounibos 2002). Since its invasion, A. aegypti has spread throughout much of North and South America to become one of the most common human-biting mosquitoes in its range (Lounibos 2002). In the mid-1980s the Asian tiger mosquito, Aedes albopictus, invaded the continental United States from Japan. The spread of A. albopictus has been associated with a decline, sometimes to local extinction, of A. aegypti (O’Meara et al. 1995). Most field (e.g., Juliano 1998; Braks et al. 2004) and laboratory (e.g., Barrera 1996; Murrell and Juliano 2008; Leisnham et al. 2009) competition experiments have shown that A. albopictus are superior in competition for resources with A. aegypti when leaf detritus is the nutrient base. With the exception of some studies that have examined the effects of larval competition on adults (e.g., Hawley 1985; Alto et al. 2005, 2008; Costanzo et al. 2005a, b; Leisnham et al. 2009; Reiskind and Lounibos 2009), these experiments have typically only involved the effects of competition on the immature stages, ignoring effects that may be expressed in resulting adults. Despite an apparent competitive advantage for North American A. albopictus, A. aegypti remains dominant in some areas in the southern USA, particularly in urban and southern sites in the Florida peninsula (O’Meara et al. 1995) and New Orleans (Comiskey et al. 1999).

At least two sets of hypotheses could account for the observations that A. albopictus is typically superior in competition to A. aegypti yet A. aegypti coexists with A. albopictus at some sites. One set of hypotheses suggests that ecological context, including abiotic and biotic environments, differs among sites, with conditions at some sites favoring A. aegypti (Juliano et al. 2002, 2004, Costanzo et al. 2005a, b). For example, Juliano et al. (2002) found that, in Florida, occupancy of containers was greater for A. aegypti at warm sites with little winter rainfall compared to relatively cool sites with greater winter rain.

The second set of hypotheses is that local populations of these Aedes may differ in their competitive characteristics. First, local populations of the invasive A. albopictus differ in competitive interactions with A. aegypti. Leisnham et al. (2009), using laboratory microcosms and a response-surface design, tested this hypothesis by comparing larval competitive abilities of nine North American populations of A. albopictus falling into three site types: extinction of A. aegypti following A. albopictus invasion, coexistence following A. albopictus invasion, and A. albopictus allopatric to A. aegypti. Leisnham et al. (2009) found interpopulation differences in competitive ability of A. albopictus but no strong patterns among site types, and thus suggested that the first hypothesis of geographic variation in competitive ability of A. albopictus did not adequately explain its invasion success and local extinction of A. aegypti. The second hypothesis concerning geographic variation of competition in Aedes is that there is geographic variation in the competitive ability of A. aegypti. This hypothesis is yet to be tested and until it is the role of geographic variation in competition among Aedes enabling invasion by A. albopictus remains unclear.

In this study, we test the hypothesis that variation in the outcome of A. albopictus invasion (i.e., coexistence vs. replacement of A. aegypti) is affected by variation among local populations of A. aegypti in competitive interactions with A. albopictus. We do this by comparing the competitive ability of eight North American populations of A. aegypti with known population histories of contact with A. albopictus. As in the study by Leisnham et al. (2009) on Aedes and other studies on species interactions (Black et al. 1989), we compare populations under a single set of environmental conditions, and thus correlate phenotypic differences with underlying genotypic variation. To quantify effects of heterospecific and conspecific competition, we employed a response surface design (Goldberg and Scheiner 2001), in which regression slopes of population performance versus heterospecific and conspecific densities quantify per capita competitive effect (the negative effects of a species on other species) and response (the ability of a species to withstand competition exerted by other species) to interspecific and intraspecific competition (Goldberg and Fleetwood 1987). Based on our hypothesis, we predict that A. aegypti from sites where A. albopictus has not established will have better competitive response, or stronger competitive effect, than will A. aegypti from sites where A. albopictus has established.

We estimate population performance by calculating an estimate of the finite rate of population increase (λ′), which is a composite index based on individual fitness components: survivorship, female development time, and female wing length (Livdahl and Sugihara 1984; Juliano 1998). Traditional experimental methods that only consider individual fitness components yield limited inference of competitive effects. For example, strongly competing mosquito larvae often grow more slowly, and thus cohorts under strong competition may have the same or greater survivorship as larvae that do not compete, simply because larval development is delayed (e.g., Knight et al. 2004; Leisnham et al. 2009). Further, prior experiments using λ′ have yielded different conclusions for λ′ and survivorship of species, reaffirming the importance of including an analysis of population rate of increase in competition studies (Livdahl and Sugihara 1984; Juliano 1998; Leisnham et al. 2009).

Materials and methods

Collection and maintenance of mosquitoes

Approximately 500 A. aegypti larvae were collected from ten to 20 containers from each of eight geographic populations in the eastern United Sates, four populations each from sites allopatric to A. albopictus and sympatric to A. albopictus (Electronic Supplementary Material). With the exception of New Orleans, all other sites have been routinely sampled at least once every 2–3 years from the mid-1990s, and usually more often (G. F. O’Meara, unpublished data; P. Leisnham, unpublished data). At allopatric sites (Fort Lauderdale, Key West, Miami, and St. Petersburg, FL, USA), A. albopictus was considered locally absent (unpublished data). At Fort Lauderdale, Miami, and St. Petersburg, though A. albopictus was absent in our samples, it has been present in low numbers at some stage in the past (G. F. O’Meara, unpublished data; P. Leisnham, unpublished data), and there may be occasional oviposition of A. albopictus from individuals of neighboring populations. At Key West, there is no evidence that A. albopictus has ever been present. At sympatric sites (Fort Myers, Florida, New Orleans, Louisiana, Palmetto, Florida, and West Palm Beach, FL, USA) A. albopictus has been established since the early 1990s, yet A. aegypti remains present (O’Meara et al. 1995; Comiskey et al. 1999). A. albopictus for this experiment were collected as larvae (~500 individuals) from a single population in Fort Denaud, FL, USA where A. aegypti went extinct after invasion by A. albopictus (O’Meara et al. 1995).

A. albopictus and A. aegypti used in the experiment were first generation progeny of field-collected individuals. Field-collected larvae were reared to adulthood at 26°C at 16:8 h (light:dark; L:D) photoperiod and then released into 0.6-m3 cages. Adults were kept at 26°C and 75% relative humidity at 17:7 h (L:D) photoperiod with a graduated dawn-dusk period. Adults had continuous access to 20% sugar solution. Females were regularly blood fed from anesthetized guinea pigs and laid eggs on paper towels in water-filled cups.

Experiment 1: competition

The experiment had a replicated, blocked design with within-block replication of all populations. For each block, eggs of both species were hatched synchronously in a solution of 0.44 g nutrient broth per 1 l deionized (DI) water. Within 24 h, larvae were rinsed and transferred into the experiment. The experiment consisted of the following initial combinations of larvae (A. albopictus: A. aegypti): 10:0, 20:0, 40:0, 10:10, 20:20, 10:30, 30:10, 0:10, 0:20, and 0:40 to create a response surface design (Goldberg and Scheiner 2001). Each combination was replicated 3 times for each of the eight A. aegypti populations. Inadequate numbers of eggs after hatching prevented us setting-up three experimental units containing A. aegypti and seven experimental units containing both species, but excess A. albopictus larvae allowed two additional units containing A. albopictus. In total, there were 161 experimental units with A. albopictus, 160 experimental units with A. aegypti, and 232 total experimental units. The experiment was executed in 400-ml cups containing 350 ml DI water and provisioned with 0.70 g of dried senescent live oak (Quercus virginiana) leaves. This amount of detritus mimics typical conditions in the field under which competition for food occurs. Cups were set up 4 days prior to the addition of larvae to allow microbial communities to establish. On days 14, 28, 42 and 56 after the start of each replicate, 0.70 g of additional dried live oak was added to each cup to avoid complete resource depletion and to mimic the natural condition of continuous resource inputs to containers.

The experiment was housed in an environmental chamber at 28°C and 14:10 h (L:D) photoperiod. Treatments were randomly assigned cups and cup position was shuffled daily. Each day we collected pupae into individual vials and held them until adult emergence, when adults were killed by drying (24 h, 50°C). To represent the range of adult body sizes emerging from each cohort, the first, middle and last males and females from each cup were weighed and the females also had their wing lengths measured. Dry mass and wing length of adult females were highly correlated (A. albopictus: r2 = 0.834, n = 433; A. aegypti: r2 = 0.721, n = 334), and wing length was used as a measure of female size to estimate fecundity of A. albopictus and A. aegypti (see below).

Proportion survivorship to adulthood, mean development time (female and male), mean adult mass (female and male), and mean female wing length were recorded for each species’ mosquito cohort in each cup. Survivorship, female development time, and female wing length were used to calculate λ′, a composite index of population performance based on r′ (Livdahl and Sugihara 1984), which estimates the realized per capita rate of population change (dN/N dt = r, the exponential growth rate) for each replicate cohort (details in given by Leisnham et al. 2009). Our index is λ′ = exp(r′) and thus estimates the finite rate of increase (Juliano 1998).

Experiment 2: fecundity–size relationships

We used a regression relating adult wing length (w) to fecundity (f) for A. albopictus: f(wx) = −121.240 + 78.02wx (r2 = 0.714, n = 91, P < 0.001; Lounibos et al. 2002). To test differences in the relationship between fecundity and body size in A. aegypti, A. aegypti larvae from each colony were reared to adulthood in the laboratory. As adults enclosed they were placed in 20-l nylon-screen cages and within 5–10 days were fed to repletion from an anaesthetized mouse, then isolated individually in 600-ml containers with a 40 ml cup of water lined with paper towel for oviposition. Eggs were counted and the mean dry mass determined for ten randomly chosen eggs from each female. Eggs were weighed in groups of five to ten, to 0.1 μg. After oviposition, all females were killed, dissected, and numbers of mature eggs (stages 4 and 5; Detinova 1962) in their ovaries counted. Fecundity was calculated by adding laid and unlaid mature eggs. Wings of all females were removed and measured. A total of 193 females (16–30 for each population) entered the experiment. Killing and dissecting females after the first gonotrophic cycle is consistent with most prior studies that have examined the fecundity of A. albopictus (e.g., Armbruster and Hutchinson 2002; Lounibos et al. 2002). Data on the parous rate of wild A. albopictus females suggest that the average female matures one batch of eggs (Hawley 1988).

Data analyses

Experiment 1: competition

For each species, linear models with effects of densities of A. albopictus and A. aegypti (continuous variables) and population (class variable) were tested with λ′, survivorship, development time (female and male), mass (female and male), and female wing length as dependent variables. An effect of competition was detected as a significant slope for a species’ performance versus heterospecific or conspecific density. If population affects the outcome of competition, we expect an interaction between density and population. A. aegypti populations with stronger effects on A. albopictus will yield steeper slopes of A. albopictus population performance versus A. aegypti density. Populations with better competitive responses to A. albopictus will yield shallower slopes of A. aegypti population performance versus A. albopictus density. Competitive hierarchy among populations was tested by estimating Spearman rank correlation between slopes for effect and response. A strong negative correlation indicates that strong competitive effect and response are associated across populations.

Populations selected for this study were not a random sample of all possible populations of each site type. Therefore, in all analyses, population was treated as a fixed effect and statistical inferences extend only to the populations selected. This strategy follows that of previous studies on geographic variation of life history traits (e.g., Reznick et al. 2001; Leisnham et al. 2008, 2009). For all analyses, we tested for significant differences among populations using pairwise contrasts (Scheiner 2001), with sequential Bonferroni correction for all possible comparisons (33) within each analysis. We tested for a site type effect using the a priori contrast comparing mean values of coexistence versus allopatric sites. We arcsine-square root transformed proportion surviving, and log transformed λ′ + 1, mass, and development time to meet assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variances. All analyses were done using SAS (SAS Institute 2003) using experiment-wise α = 0.05.

Experiment 2: fecundity–size relationships

Multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was used to test for differences between populations in the relationships of wing length with fecundity and egg size, using F statistics derived from Pillai’s trace (SAS Institute 2003). We interpret contributions of dependent variables to significant MANCOVA effects using standardized canonical coefficients (Scheiner 2001). Population was a class variable and wing length a continuous variable. Interaction of wing length with population was also included. Thirty-seven females either did not lay eggs before dying or their eggs were damaged, and thus their eggs were not weighed and they were excluded from the MANCOVA. Although we tested population differences in the relationship of wing length with fecundity and egg size using data from all populations, we conducted separate univariate linear regressions of fecundity on wing length for each population to predict fecundity from wing length for calculating λ′ for each population.

Because there is no evidence that A. albopictus has ever been present at Key West, and thus there is the possibility that A. aegypti may not experience the same selection on Aedes competition as A. aegypti in the other allopatric populations, we undertook all statistical analyses after the removing Key West population. We found no difference in the outcomes of these tests with those that included Key West and thus do not report their results.

Results

Experiment 1: competition

Estimated finite rate of increase

The origin of A. aegypti influenced its competitive response to density of A. albopictus (F7,136 = 3.37, P = 0.0024) and competitive effect on A. albopictus (F7,136 = 4.70, P < 0.0001), with A. aegypti from allopatric sites having stronger effect on A. albopictus than A. aegypti from sympatric sites (P = 0.0002; Table 1). Miami and New Orleans had an average of 14.2 and 13.1 times better competitive response than St. Petersburg, respectively (P < 0.0007; Table 2). Miami had a 2.9–4.3 times stronger competitive effect than most other populations (P < 0.002) except St. Petersburg (1.5 times, P = 0.0684; Table 2). Competitive effect and response slopes were uncorrelated (rs = 0.119, P = 0.749), indicating inconsistent ranking of populations of A. aegypti in competitive effect and response (Table 2). Particularly at high combined densities, A. albopictus usually had higher λ′ than A. aegypti (Fig. 1).

Table 1.

Least squares linear models for the estimated finite rate of increase (λ′; log10λ′ + 1) and arcsin survivorship of both species in response to the independent variables of Aedes albopictus density, Aedes aegypti density, and population

Source λ′
Survivorship
A. albopictus
A. aegypti
A. albopictus
A. aegypti
df F P df F P df F P df F P
A. albopictus density 1, 137 24.98 <0.0001 1, 136 46.37 <0.001 1, 137 431.89 <0.0001 1, 136 7.87 0.0058
A. aegypti density 1, 137 60.92 <0.0001 1, 136 6.85 0.0098 1, 137 26.83 <0.0001 1, 136 347.41 <0.0001
Population 7, 137 0.04 0.9999 7, 136 0.21 0.9822 7, 137 0.04 0.9999 7, 136 0.17 0.6766
A. albopictus × population 7, 137 0.18 0.9893 7, 136 3.37 0.0024 7, 137 0.13 0.9962 7, 136 0.11 0.9979
Sympatric versus allopatric 1, 137 0.27 0.6062 1, 136 0.97 0.3252 1, 137 0.00 0.9957 1, 136 0.17 0.6766
A. aegypti × population 7, 137 4.70 <0.0001 7, 136 0.55 0.7939 7, 137 0.21 0.9819 7, 136 0.14 0.9952
Sympatric versus Allopatric 1, 137 9.23 0.0029 1, 137 0.08 0.7734 1, 137 0.01 0.9432 1, 136 0.07 0.9432
Open in a new tab

Significant effects and pairwise contrasts are indicated in bold and are reported in the main text

Only pairwise contrasts between average slopes of site types for interaction effects are shown for brevity

Table 2.

Regression slope estimates (±SE) for the competitive response of A. aegypti to A. albopictus and competitive effect of A. aegypti on A. albopictus of eight A. aegypti populations originating from sites where A. aegypti is either allopatric or sympatric to A. albopictus

Population Site type Regression slope estimate (±SE)
Competitive response
 Miami Allopatric −0.00074 ± 0.00205 a, b
 New Orleans Sympatric −0.00080 ± 0.00203 a, b
 Key West Allopatric −0.00276 ± 0.00198 b
 Ft. Meyers Sympatric −0.00360 ± 0.00195 b
 Palmetto Sympatric −0.00383 ± 0.00199 b
 Ft. Lauderdale Allopatric −0.00791 ± 0.00198 b
 West Palm Beach Sympatric −0.00812 ± 0.00199 b
 St. Petersburg Allopatric −0.01049 ± 0.00285 b, c
Competitive effect
 Miami Allopatric −0.02509 ± 0.00344 a
 St. Petersburg Allopatric −0.01685 ± 0.00285 a, b
 Ft. Meyers Sympatric −0.00869 ± 0.00301 b
 Palmetto Sympatric −0.00752 ± 0.00308 b
 New Orleans Sympatric −0.00718 ± 0.00293 b
 West Palm Beach Sympatric −0.00626 ± 0.00308 b
 Ft. Lauderdale Allopatric −0.00616 ± 0.00286 b
 Key West Allopatric −0.00580 ± 0.00285 b
Open in a new tab

Significant pairwise contrasts are indicated by different letters and are reported in the main text

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Observed conspecific and heterospecific effects of larval densities on backtransformed estimated finite rate of increase (λ′) of a, b Aedes aegypti and c, d Aedes albopictus. Panels are grouped by species (rows) and origin of A. aegypti populations that are either allopatric or sympatric to A. albopictus (columns)

Other univariate measures

For survivorship (Table 1) and adult female mass and development time (Table 3) there were no significant interactions of population and either conspecific or heterospecific density, indicating that effects of density on these variables were consistent among populations. Heterospecific and conspecific densities negatively affected survivorship (Table 1), mass, and development time of A. albopictus and A. aegypti (Table 3). No A. albopictus females survived from two cups (Miami 10:30 and St. Petersburg 10:30) and no A. aegypti females survived from 18 cups; nine from cups with 30:10, four with 20:20, two each with 10:30 and 0:40, and one with 10:10.

Table 3.

Least squares linear model for log10 mean mass and log10 mean development time of females for both species in response to the independent variables of A. albopictus density, A. aegypti density, and population

Source Mass
Development time
A. albopictus
A. aegypti
A. albopictus
A. aegypti
df F P df F P df F P df F P
A. albopictus density 1, 135 12.17 0.0007 1, 118 14.84 0.0002 1, 135 459.22 <0.0001 1, 118 14.84 0.0002
A. aegypti density 1, 135 9.25 0.0028 1, 118 14.88 0.0002 1, 135 268.62 <0.0001 1, 118 14.88 0.0002
Population 7, 135 0.26 0.9692 7, 118 1.60 0.1409 7, 135 0.30 0.9507 7, 118 1.60 0.1409
A. albopictus × population 7, 135 0.25 0.9726 7, 118 0.70 0.6761 7, 135 1.20 0.3088 7, 118 0.70 0.6761
A. aegypti × population 7, 135 0.34 0.9324 7, 118 1.47 0.1852 7, 135 0.94 0.4815 7, 118 1.47 0.1852
Open in a new tab

Significant effects are indicated in bold and are reported in the main text

Experiment 2: fecundity–size relationships

There was no significant interaction of wing length with population, indicating that fecundity–size relationships were similar across all populations. Wing length positively affected fecundity in all populations and only weakly affected egg size (Table 4; Fig. 2). Multivariate pairwise contrasts showed no difference between sympatric and allopatric sites, and among individual populations. Separate linear regressions of fecundity on wing length for use in estimating λ′ for each population yielded r2-values from 0.336 to 0.763.

Table 4.

Least squares multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) on fecundity and mean egg size of A. aegypti in response to the independent variables of population and wing length

Source of variation MANCOVA
Standardized canonical coefficients
Pillai’s trace (F) df P Fecundity Egg size
Population 0.93 14, 354 0.5270 0.99 1.00
Wing length 22.31 2, 176 <0.0001 1.11 0.20
Population × wing length 0.90 14, 354 0.5615 0.13 0.99
Open in a new tab

Significant effects and pairwise comparisons are indicated in bold. Only first variates are shown; all second variates are nonsignificant

See text for the results of pairwise contrasts between populations

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Relationships of wing length with a, b fecundity and c, d egg size in A. aegypti from populations that are either allopatric or sympatric to A. albopictus

Discussion

There are inherent interpopulation differences in competitive effect and response of A. aegypti, but these differences are only evident when examining the composite index of performance, and are not evident in individual components of population performance. Thus, as noted by Livdahl and Sugihara (1984), simple analysis of individual components of fitness or population rate of increase often provides a highly inadequate assessment of the biotic processes affecting population dynamics and fitness.

Consistent with our prediction, A. aegypti from sites where A. albopictus has not established (allopatric) were superior in competition with A. albopictus to A. aegypti from sites where A. albopictus has established (sympatric), having a stronger effect on the λ′ of A. albopictus. Miami, in particular, had the strongest effect and best response of all populations, but effect and response slopes of all populations were uncorrelated, indicating inconsistent ranking of A. aegypti in competitive effect and response. This lack of correlation is a similar pattern to that observed for effect and response of A. albopictus (Leisnham et al. 2009). There was no difference in the average fecundity–size relationships between sympatric and allopatric sites indicting that a superior competitive effect of A. aegypti from sympatric sites is not strongly related to the fecundity–size relationship. This result is consistent with the observation that results of competition experiments with these species, analyzed using this composite index of performance, are not dependent on the fecundity–size relationship (Juliano 1998).

A. albopictus always yielded greater λ′ than A. aegypti at high combined densities. This result is consistent with previous field (Juliano 1998; Braks et al. 2004) and laboratory (Barrera 1996; Leisnham et al. 2009) experiments using natural leaf detritus as the nutrient base because it shows competitive superiority of A. albopictus over A. aegypti. Competition from all A. aegypti populations affected survivorship to adulthood, female size, and female development time of A. albopictus in the same way, arguing against strong population effects of competition on separate demographic variables. Prior studies have shown effects of competition on separate demographic variables of Aedes and Culex mosquitoes (e.g., Aspbury and Juliano 1998, Costanzo and Juliano 2005b), and our results again reaffirm the importance of estimating population rate of increase in competition studies (Livdahl and Sugihara 1984).

Our study is one of the first to show interpopulation divergence in competitive ability of a resident species associated with the pattern of invasion of an exotic species. Competition has been invoked as a major process conferring biotic resistance of resident communities to exotic invaders in plants (Levine et al. 2004) but is relatively unstudied among insects. Superior competition of A. aegypti from allopatric sites compared to sympatric sites may make an important contribution to reducing the performance of A. albopictus at allopatric sites, and thus may contribute to the lack of success of A. albopictus as an invader at these sites. This result suggests that inherent differences in competitive ability of A. aegypti may help prevent the establishment of A. albopictus. Comparing the competitive ability of A. aegypti from sites where A. aegypti have gone extinct to sites where A. aegypti coexists with A. albopictus would provide another (more direct) test of the role of biotic resistance in the invasion success of A. albopictus. Obviously, we cannot make such a comparison now. A previous study by Leisnham et al. (2009) showed no association of competitive ability of A. albopictus with the pattern of coexistence and displacement with A. aegypti. The results of our study in combination with those of Leisnham et al. (2009) suggest that interpopulation variation among resident A. aegypti may make an important contribution to competition-mediated biotic resistance of A. albopictus.

At Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and St. Petersburg, A. albopictus has been present in low numbers at some stage in the past (G. F. O’Meara, unpublished data; P. Leisnham, unpublished data) but has never become permanently established or spread, even at the same specific location within a city site (i.e., same cemetery). Our results that A. aegypti from Miami had the strongest effect and best response of all populations is consistent with the idea that characteristics of Miami A. aegypti may act as a barrier for A. albopictus invasion. However, A. aegypti from Fort Lauderdale or St. Petersburg did not show competitive ability superior to all other populations, thus suggesting that other abiotic and biotic factors, including temperature, rainfall, and detritus resources, specific to site types, are likely also important in limiting invasion success of A. albopictus (Juliano et al. 2002).

Coexistence of A. aegypti with A. albopictus may be also affected by the phenotypic responses of both species to environmental conditions, which differ among sites, with conditions at some sites favoring A. aegypti (Juliano et al. 2002, 2004; Costanzo et al. 2005a, b). Even if A. aegypti is consistently inferior in competition to A. albopictus under our lab conditions, when coupled with abiotic factors, A. aegypti populations with inherently better competitive ability may create barriers to A. albopictus invasion when A. aegypti populations with poorer competitive ability may not.

Interpopulation divergence in competitive effect and response of A. aegypti is consistent with the findings of Leisnham et al. (2009) who documented interpopulation divergence in competitive effect and response of A. albopictus. Competitive effect is usually thought to be associated with ability to harvest and to deplete scarce resources (Tilman 1982). Competition between A. albopictus and A. aegypti is widely assumed to occur via resource depletion, and manipulating resources levels can alter the impact of competition (e.g., Braks et al. 2004; Juliano 1998). However, both species may be affected by interference competition produced by water-borne substances (Dye 1984; Broadie and Bradshaw 1991). Competition between invertebrates can involve multiple mechanisms (e.g., Byers 2000). Interpopulation differences in the specific mechanisms of competition between A. albopictus and A. aegypti could explain geographic divergence both in effect and response of Aedes in North America and competitive effect of A. aegypti on the superior competitor A. albopictus.

More generally, our results suggest that geographic variation among native or resident species in competitive characteristics is an under-appreciated aspect of variation in invasion success and impact. Whether such variation among populations arises due to strong selection for competitive ability (e.g., due to a history of inter- or intra-specific competition) or due to founder effects or other random processes resulting in interpopulation variation, it has the potential to be an important contributor to variation in invasion success and impact in many systems involving geographically widespread invaders (Travis 1996; Keller and Taylor 2008). Invasibility of native communities has been linked to community-level factors like diversity (e.g., Levine 2000) or taxonomic similarity of native species (e.g., Diez et al. 2008). Our results indicate that intraspecific variation of particular competitors that interact strongly with invaders can be another factor contributing to biotic resistance.

Supplementary Material

Map with sample sites

Acknowledgments

We thank L. P. Lounibos, G. F. O’Meara, R. Escher, D. Wesson, M. Reiskind, K. Damal, E. G. Murrell, K. Steadley, and L. Towler for useful discussion, for providing us with eggs, for experiment maintenance, or for data collection. This research was funded by NIAID grant R01-AI-44793.

Footnotes

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00442-010-1624-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

References

  1. Abbott KL, Greaves SNJ, Ritchie PA, Lester PJ. Behaviourally and genetically distinct populations of an invasive ant provide insight into invasion history and impacts on a tropical ant community. Biol Inv. 2007;9:453–463. [Google Scholar]
  2. Alto BW, Lounibos LP, Higgs S, Juliano SA. Larval competition differentially affects arbovirus infection in Aedes mosquitoes. Ecology. 2005;86:3279–3288. doi: 10.1890/05-0209. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Alto BW, Lounibos LP, Mores CN, Reiskind MH. Larval competition alters susceptibility of adult Aedes mosquitoes to dengue infection. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2008;275:463–471. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2007.1497. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Armbruster P, Hutchinson RA. Pupal mass and wing length as indicators of fecundity in Aedes albopictus and Aedes geniculatus (Diptera: Culicidae) J Med Entomol. 2002;39:699–704. doi: 10.1603/0022-2585-39.4.699. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Aspbury AS, Juliano SA. Negative effects of habitat drying and prior exploitation on the detritus resources in an ephemeral aquatic habitat. Oecologia. 1998;115:137–148. doi: 10.1007/s004420050500. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Barrera R. Competition and resistance to starvation in larvae of container-inhabiting Aedes mosquitoes. Ecol Entomol. 1996;21:117–127. [Google Scholar]
  7. Black WC, Karamjit SR, Turco BJ, Arroyo DC. Laboratory study of competition between United States strains of Aedes albopictus and Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) J Med Entomol. 1989;26:260–271. doi: 10.1093/jmedent/26.4.260. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Braks MAH, Honório NA, Lounibos LP, Lourenço-de-Oliveira R, Juliano SA. Interspecific competition between two invasive species of container mosquitoes in Brazil. Ann Entomol Soc Am. 2004;97:130–139. [Google Scholar]
  9. Broadie KS, Bradshaw WE. Mechanisms of interference competition in the western treehole mosquito, Aedes sierrensis. Ecol Entomol. 1991;16:145–154. [Google Scholar]
  10. Byers JT. Competition between two estuarine snails: implications for invasions of exotic species. Ecology. 2000;81:1225–1236. [Google Scholar]
  11. Comiskey NM, Lowrie RC, Wesson DM. Role of habitat components on the dynamics of Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) from New Orleans. J Med Entomol. 1999;36:313–320. doi: 10.1093/jmedent/36.3.313. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Costanzo KS, Kesavaraju B, Juliano SA. Condition specific competition in container mosquitoes: the role of non-competing life-history stages. Ecology. 2005a;86:3289–3295. doi: 10.1890/05-0583. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Costanzo KS, Mormann K, Juliano SA. Asymmetrical competition and patterns of abundance of Aedes albopictus and Culex pipiens (Diptera: Culicidae) J Med Entomol. 2005b;42:559–570. doi: 10.1093/jmedent/42.4.559. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Detinova TS. Age-grouping methods in Diptera of medical importance. World Health Organization; Geneva: 1962. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Diez JM, Sullivan JJ, Hulme PE, Edwards G, Duncan RP. Darwin’s naturalization conundrum: dissecting taxonomic patterns of species invasions. Ecol Lett. 2008;11:1–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01178.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Duyck P, David P, Junod G, Brunel C, Dupont R, Quilici S. Importance of competition mechanisms in successive invasions by polyphagous tephritids in La Réunion. Ecology. 2006;87:1770–1780. doi: 10.1890/0012-9658(2006)87[1770:iocmis]2.0.co;2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Dye C. Competition amongst larval Aedes aegypti: the role of interference. Ecol Entomol. 1984;9:355–357. [Google Scholar]
  18. Goldberg DE, Fleetwood L. Competitive effect and response in four annual plants. J Ecol. 1987;75:1131–1143. [Google Scholar]
  19. Goldberg DE, Scheiner SM. ANOVA and ANCOVA: field competition experiments. In: Scheiner SM, Gurevitch J, editors. Design and analysis of ecological experiments. Oxford University Press; New York: 2001. pp. 77–98. [Google Scholar]
  20. Hawley WA. The effect of larval density of larval density on adult longevity of a mosquito, Aedes sierrensis—epidemiological consequences. J Anim Ecol. 1985;54:955–964. [Google Scholar]
  21. Hawley WA. The biology of Aedes albopictus. J Am Mosquito Contr. 1988;4(Supplement):1–40. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Juliano SA. Species introduction and replacement among mosquitoes: interspecific resource competition or apparent competition. Ecology. 1998;79:255–268. [Google Scholar]
  23. Juliano SA. Species interactions among larval mosquitoes: context dependence across habitat gradients. Annu Rev Entomol. 2009;54:37–56. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ento.54.110807.090611. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Juliano SA, O’Meara GF, Morrill JR, Cutwa MM. Desiccation and thermal tolerance of eggs and the coexistence of competing mosquitoes. Oecologia. 2002;130:458–469. doi: 10.1007/s004420100811. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Juliano SA, Lounibos LP, O’Meara GF. A field test for competitive effects of Aedes albopictus on A. aegypti in South Florida: differences between sites of coexistence and exclusion. Oecologia. 2004;194:583–593. doi: 10.1007/s00442-004-1532-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Keller SR, Taylor DR. History, chance and adaptation during biological invasion: separating stochastic phenotypic evolution from response to selection. Ecol Lett. 2008;11:852–866. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01188.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Knight TM, Chase JM, Goss CW, Knight JJ. Effects of interspecific competition, predation, and their interaction on survival and development time of immature Anopheles quadrimaculatus. J Vector Ecol. 2004;29:277–284. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Leisnham PT, Sala LM, Juliano SA. Geographic variation in adult survival and reproduction of the mosquito Aedes albopictus. J Med Entomol. 2008;45:210–221. doi: 10.1603/0022-2585(2008)45[210:gviasa]2.0.co;2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Leisnham PT, Lounibos LP, O’Meara GF, Juliano SA. Interpopulation divergence in competitive interactions of the mosquito Aedes albopictus. Ecology. 2009;90:2405–2413. doi: 10.1890/08-1569.1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Levine JM. Species diversity and biological invasions: relating local process to community pattern. Science. 2000;288:852–854. doi: 10.1126/science.288.5467.852. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Levine JM, Adler PB, Yelenik SG. A meta-analysis of biotic resistance to exotic plant invasions. Ecol Lett. 2004;7:975–989. [Google Scholar]
  32. Livdahl TP, Sugihara G. Non-linear interactions of populations and the importance of estimating per capita rates of change. J Anim Ecol. 1984;53:573–580. [Google Scholar]
  33. Lounibos LP. Invasions by insect vectors of human disease. Annu Rev Entomol. 2002;47:233–266. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ento.47.091201.145206. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Lounibos LP, Suárez S, Menéndez Z, Nishimura N, Escher RL, O’Connell SM, Rey JR. Does temperature affect the outcome of larval competition between Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus? J Vector Ecol. 2002;27:86–95. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Murrell EG, Juliano SA. The role of detritus type in interspecific competition and population distributions of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) J Med Entomol. 2008;45:375–383. doi: 10.1603/0022-2585(2008)45[375:dtatoo]2.0.co;2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. O’Meara GF, Evans LF, Jr, Gettman AD, Cuda JP. Spread of Aedes albopictus and decline of A. aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) in Florida. J Med Entomol. 1995;32:554–562. doi: 10.1093/jmedent/32.4.554. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Reiskind MH, Lounibos LP. Effects of intraspecific larval competition on adult longevity in the mosquitoes Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus. Med Vet Entomol. 2009;23:62–68. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2915.2008.00782.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Reznick D, Butler MJ, IV, Rodd H. Life history evolution in guppies. VII. The comparative ecology of high- and low-environments. Am Nat. 2001;157:12–26. doi: 10.1086/318627. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Sakai AK, Allendorf FW, Holt JS, Lodge DM, Molofsky J, With KA, Baughman S, Cabin RJ, Cohen JE, Ellstrand NC, McCauley DE, O’Neil P, Parker IM, Thompson JN, Weller SG. The population biology of invasive species. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 2001;32:305–332. [Google Scholar]
  40. SAS Institute. SAS user’s guide: statistics. Version 9.1. SAS Institute; Cary: 2003. [Google Scholar]
  41. Scheiner SM. MANOVA: multiple response variables and multispecies interactions. In: Scheiner SM, Gurevitch J, editors. Design and analysis of ecological experiments. Oxford University Press; Oxford: 2001. pp. 99–115. [Google Scholar]
  42. Siemann E, Rogers WE. Genetic differences in growth of an invasive tree species. Ecol Lett. 2001;4:514–518. [Google Scholar]
  43. Tilman D. Resource competition and community structure. Princeton University Press; Princeton: 1982. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Travis JT. The significance of geographical variation in species interactions. Am Nat. 1996;148:51–58. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Map with sample sites
NIHMS384289-supplement-Map_with_sample_sites.doc (57KB, doc)

RESOURCES