Literature DB >> 11170695

Wolf spider predator avoidance tactics and survival in the presence of diet-associated predator cues (Araneae: Lycosidae).

M. H. Persons1, S. E. Walker, A. L. Rypstra, S. D. Marshall.   

Abstract

Some prey can distinguish between chemical cues from predators fed different diets. Here we document the first evidence of diet-based chemical discrimination of predators in a terrestrial arthropod and measure the survival value of behavioural responses to predator chemical cues. We tested activity level and avoidance behaviour of the wolf spider, Pardosa milvina, to faeces and silk associated with the predatory wolf spider, Hogna helluo, fed either P. milvina or crickets (Acheta domesticus). We then measured survival of Pardosa in the presence of Hogna when placed on blank paper or paper previously occupied by Hogna fed either crickets or Pardosa. Filter paper previously occupied by Hogna from each diet treatment or a blank control were simultaneously presented to adult female Pardosa among four treatment pairs (N=15/treatment): (1) blank paper/blank paper, (2) Hogna fed crickets/blank, (3) Hogna fed Pardosa /blank and (4) Hogna fed Pardosa / Hogna fed crickets. Cues from Hogna fed either crickets or Pardosa elicited significantly less activity relative to blank controls. Cues from Hogna fed Pardosa elicited a significantly greater reduction in activity than Hogna fed crickets. When given a choice, Pardosa initially chose the blank substrate significantly more often than either substrate with Hogna cues. Spiders survived longer in the presence of cues from either Hogna diet treatment relative to blank paper, but there was no significant effect of predator diet on survival. Results suggest diet-based predator cues elicit different levels of activity in Pardosa that reduce predation in the presence of Hogna. Copyright 2001 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour.

Entities:  

Year:  2001        PMID: 11170695     DOI: 10.1006/anbe.2000.1594

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anim Behav        ISSN: 0003-3472            Impact factor:   2.844


  22 in total

1.  Herbivore host plant selection: whitefly learns to avoid host plants that harbour predators of her offspring.

Authors:  Maria Nomikou; Arne Janssen; Maurice W Sabelis
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2003-06-07       Impact factor: 3.225

2.  Information from familiar and related conspecifics affects foraging in a solitary wolf spider.

Authors:  Catherine R Hoffman; Michael I Sitvarin; Ann L Rypstra
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2015-10-26       Impact factor: 3.225

3.  Previous and present diets of mite predators affect antipredator behaviour of whitefly prey.

Authors:  Rui-Xia Meng; Arne Janssen; Maria Nomikou; Qing-Wen Zhang; Maurice W Sabelis
Journal:  Exp Appl Acarol       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 2.132

4.  Behavioural and life history effects of predator diet cues during ontogeny in damselfly larvae.

Authors:  Tomas Brodin; Dirk Johannes Mikolajewski; Frank Johansson
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2006-01-19       Impact factor: 3.225

5.  Glyphosate-based herbicide has contrasting effects on prey capture by two co-occurring wolf spider species.

Authors:  Sandra Rittman; Kerri M Wrinn; Samuel C Evans; Alex W Webb; Ann L Rypstra
Journal:  J Chem Ecol       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 2.626

6.  Risk of spider predation alters food web structure and reduces local herbivory in the field.

Authors:  Roman Bucher; Florian Menzel; Martin H Entling
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2015-01-29       Impact factor: 3.225

Review 7.  Spider pheromones - a structural perspective.

Authors:  Stefan Schulz
Journal:  J Chem Ecol       Date:  2012-12-27       Impact factor: 2.626

8.  Do Carolina chickadees (Poecile carolinensis) and tufted titmice (Baeolophus bicolor) use predator eyes in risk assessment?

Authors:  Steven C Kyle
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2020-11-18       Impact factor: 3.084

9.  Wolf spiders show graded antipredator behavior in the presence of chemical cues from different sized predators.

Authors:  M H Persons; A L Rypstra
Journal:  J Chem Ecol       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 2.626

10.  Predatory mites avoid ovipositing near counterattacking prey.

Authors:  F Faraji; A Janssen; M W Sabelis
Journal:  Exp Appl Acarol       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 2.132

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.