Literature DB >> 17601144

Predator and prey space use: dragonflies and tadpoles in an interactive game.

John I Hammond1, Barney Luttbeg, Andrew Sih.   

Abstract

Predator and prey spatial distributions have important population and community level consequences. However, little is known either theoretically or empirically about behavioral mechanisms that underlie the spatial patterns that emerge when predators and prey freely interact. We examined the joint space use and behavioral rules governing movement of freely interacting groups of odonate (dragonfly) predators and two size classes of anuran (tadpole) prey in arenas containing two patches with different levels of the prey's resource. Predator and prey movement and space use was quantified both when they were apart and together. When apart from predators, large tadpoles strongly preferred the high resource patch. When apart from prey, dragonflies weakly preferred the high resource patch. When together, large prey shifted to a uniform distribution, while predators strongly preferred the high resource patch. These patterns qualitatively fit the predictions of several three trophic level, ideal free distribution models. In contrast, the space use of small prey and predators did not deviate from uniform. Three measures of joint space use (spatial correlations, overlap, and co-occurrence) concurred in suggesting that prey avoidance of predators was more important than predator attraction to prey in determining overall spatial patterns. To gain additional insight into behavioral mechanisms, we used a model selection approach to identify behavioral movement rules that can potentially explain the observed, emergent patterns of space use. Prey were more likely to leave patches with more predators and more conspecific competitors; resources had relatively weak effects on prey movements. In contrast, predators were more likely to leave patches with low resources (that they do not consume) and more competing predators; prey had relatively little effect on predator movements. These results highlight the importance of investigating freely interacting predators and prey, the potential for simple game theory models to predict joint spatial distributions, and the utility of using model choice methods to identify potential key factors that govern movement.

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17601144     DOI: 10.1890/06-1236

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ecology        ISSN: 0012-9658            Impact factor:   5.499


  9 in total

1.  Separating spatial search and efficiency rates as components of predation risk.

Authors:  Nicholas J DeCesare
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2012-09-12       Impact factor: 5.349

2.  Distribution and oviposition site selection by predatory mites in the presence of intraguild predators.

Authors:  Yasuyuki Choh; Maurice W Sabelis; Arne Janssen
Journal:  Exp Appl Acarol       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 2.132

3.  Wolf spatial behavior promotes encounters and kills of abundant prey.

Authors:  Sana Zabihi-Seissan; Christina M Prokopenko; Eric Vander Wal
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2022-08-08       Impact factor: 3.298

4.  Lesser of two evils? Foraging choices in response to threats of predation and parasitism.

Authors:  Janet Koprivnikar; Laura Penalva
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-01-30       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Large Omnivore Movements in Response to Surface Mining and Mine Reclamation.

Authors:  Bogdan Cristescu; Gordon B Stenhouse; Mark S Boyce
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-01-11       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Diet reveals links between morphology and foraging in a cryptic temperate reef fish.

Authors:  Natalia S Winkler; Maite Paz-Goicoechea; Robert W Lamb; Alejandro Pérez-Matus
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2017-11-15       Impact factor: 2.912

7.  Naive poison frog tadpoles use bi-modal cues to avoid insect predators but not heterospecific predatory tadpoles.

Authors:  Birgit Szabo; Rosanna Mangione; Matthias Rath; Andrius Pašukonis; Stephan A Reber; Jinook Oh; Max Ringler; Eva Ringler
Journal:  J Exp Biol       Date:  2021-12-16       Impact factor: 3.312

8.  Effects of elevated temperature, reduced hydroperiod, and invasive bullfrog larvae on pacific chorus frog larvae.

Authors:  Bailey R Tasker; Karli N Honebein; Allie M Erickson; Julia E Misslin; Paul Hurst; Sarah Cooney; Skylar Riley; Scott A Griffith; Betsy A Bancroft
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-03-15       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Prey patch patterns predict habitat use by top marine predators with diverse foraging strategies.

Authors:  Kelly J Benoit-Bird; Brian C Battaile; Scott A Heppell; Brian Hoover; David Irons; Nathan Jones; Kathy J Kuletz; Chad A Nordstrom; Rosana Paredes; Robert M Suryan; Chad M Waluk; Andrew W Trites
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-01-03       Impact factor: 3.240

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.