Literature DB >> 24648022

Predator interference alters foraging behavior of a generalist predatory arthropod.

Jason M Schmidt1, Thomas O Crist, Kerri Wrinn, Ann L Rypstra.   

Abstract

Interactions between predators foraging in the same patch may strongly influence patch use and functional response. In particular, there is continued interest in how the magnitude of mutual interference shapes predator-prey interactions. Studies commonly focus on either patch use or the functional response without attempting to link these important components of the foraging puzzle. Predictions from both theoretical frameworks suggest that predators should modify foraging efforts in response to changes in feeding rate, but this prediction has received little empirical attention. We study the linkage between patch departure rates and food consumption by the hunting spider, Pardosa milvina, using field enclosures in which prey and predator densities were manipulated. Additionally, the most appropriate functional response model was identified by fitting alternative functional response models to laboratory foraging data. Our results show that although prey availability was the most important determinant of patch departure rates, a greater proportion of predators left enclosures containing elevated predator abundance. Functional response parameter estimation revealed significant levels of interference among predators leading to lower feeding rates even when the area allocated for each predator was kept constant. These results suggest that feeding rates determine patch movement dynamics, where interference induces predators to search for foraging sites that balance the frequency of agonistic interactions with prey encounter rates.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24648022     DOI: 10.1007/s00442-014-2922-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oecologia        ISSN: 0029-8549            Impact factor:   3.225


  12 in total

1.  The nature of predation: prey dependent, ratio dependent or neither?

Authors: 
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 17.712

2.  Responses of invertebrate natural enemies to complex-structured habitats: a meta-analytical synthesis.

Authors:  Gail A Langellotto; Robert F Denno
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2004-02-11       Impact factor: 3.225

Review 3.  Cannibalism, food limitation, intraspecific competition, and the regulation of spider populations.

Authors:  David H Wise
Journal:  Annu Rev Entomol       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 19.686

4.  The influence of vigilance on intraguild predation.

Authors:  Tristan Kimbrell; Robert D Holt; Per Lundberg
Journal:  J Theor Biol       Date:  2007-08-10       Impact factor: 2.691

5.  Habitat choice in predator-prey systems: spatial instability due to interacting adaptive movements.

Authors:  Peter A Abrams
Journal:  Am Nat       Date:  2007-02-27       Impact factor: 3.926

6.  Animal foraging: past, present and future.

Authors:  G Perry; E R Pianka
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 17.712

7.  Ratio- and predator-dependent functional forms for predators optimally foraging in patches.

Authors:  James J Anderson
Journal:  Am Nat       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 3.926

8.  New inductive population model for insect parasites and its bearing on biological control.

Authors:  M P Hassell; G C Varley
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1969-09-13       Impact factor: 49.962

9.  Opportunistic predator prefers habitat complexity that exposes prey while reducing cannibalism and intraguild encounters.

Authors:  Jason M Schmidt; Ann L Rypstra
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2010-09-22       Impact factor: 3.225

10.  Mutual interference is common and mostly intermediate in magnitude.

Authors:  John P Delong; David A Vasseur
Journal:  BMC Ecol       Date:  2011-01-06       Impact factor: 2.964

View more
  4 in total

1.  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

2.  Mutual interference between adult females of Galendromus flumenis (Acari: Phytoseiidae) feeding on eggs of Banks grass mite decreases predation efficiency and increases emigration rate.

Authors:  Fatemeh Ganjisaffar; Gösta Nachman; Thomas M Perring
Journal:  Exp Appl Acarol       Date:  2017-05-19       Impact factor: 2.132

3.  The body-size dependence of mutual interference.

Authors:  John P DeLong
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 3.703

4.  Effectiveness of augmentative biological control depends on landscape context.

Authors:  Ricardo Perez-Alvarez; Brian A Nault; Katja Poveda
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-06-17       Impact factor: 4.379

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.