Literature DB >> 26584533

Non-pest prey do not disrupt aphid predation by a web-building spider.

K D Welch1, T D Whitney2, J D Harwood2.   

Abstract

A generalist predator's ability to contribute to biological control is influenced by the decisions it makes during foraging. Predators often use flexible foraging tactics, which allows them to pursue specific types of prey at the cost of reducing the likelihood of capturing other types of prey. When a pest insect has low nutritional quality or palatability for a predator, the predator is likely to reject that prey in favour of pursuing alternative, non-pest prey. This is often thought to limit the effectiveness of generalist predators in consuming aphids, which are of low nutritional quality for many generalist predators. Here, we report behavioural assays that test the hypothesis that the generalist predator, Grammonota inornata (Araneae: Linyphiidae), preferentially forages for a non-pest prey with high nutritional quality (springtails), and rejects a pest prey with low nutritional quality (aphids). In no-choice assays, molecular gut-content analysis revealed that spiders continued to feed on the low-quality aphids at high rates, even when high-quality springtails were readily available. When provided a choice between aphids and springtails in two-way choice tests, spiders did not show the expected preference for springtails. Decision-making by spiders during foraging therefore appears to be sub-optimal, possibly because of attraction to the less frequently encountered of two preys as part of a dietary diversification strategy. These results indicate that behavioural preferences alone do not necessarily compromise the pest-suppression capacity of natural enemies: even nutritionally sub-optimal pest prey can potentially be subject to predation and suppression by natural enemies.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Araneae; Collembola; Linyphiidae; alternative prey; olfactory cues; optimal foraging; prey choice; spider webs

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26584533     DOI: 10.1017/S0007485315000875

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bull Entomol Res        ISSN: 0007-4853            Impact factor:   1.750


  3 in total

1.  Molecular gut content analysis of different spider body parts.

Authors:  Nuria Macías-Hernández; Kacie Athey; Vanina Tonzo; Owen S Wangensteen; Miquel Arnedo; James D Harwood
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-05-30       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  Does prey encounter and nutrient content affect prey selection in wolf spiders inhabiting Bt cotton fields?

Authors:  Dalila Rendon; Phillip W Taylor; Shawn M Wilder; Mary E A Whitehouse
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-01-10       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  A novel molecular diagnostic method for the gut content analysis of Philaenus DNA.

Authors:  Isabel Rodrigues; Vítor Ramos; Jacinto Benhadi-Marín; Aránzazu Moreno; Alberto Fereres; José Alberto Pereira; Paula Baptista
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-01-11       Impact factor: 4.379

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.