Literature DB >> 28313749

Spatial scale of aggregation in three acarine predator species with different degrees of polyphagy.

Zhi-Qiang Zhang1,2, John P Sanderson2.   

Abstract

Aggregative responses by the predatory mites, Phytoseiulus persimilis, Typhlodromus occidentalis, and Amblyseius andersoni (Acari: Phytoseiidae), to spatial variation in the density of mobile stages of Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae) were studied over different spatial scales on greenhouse roses. Significant spatial variations in prey numbers per leaflet, per leaf, per branch or per plant were present in all experimental plots. None of the predator species responded to prey numbers per plant, and all searched randomly among plants. Within a plant, the oligophagous P. persimilis searched randomly among branches, but aggregated strongly among leaves within a branch and among leaflets within a leaf. The narrowly polyphagous T. occidentalis searched randomly among leaflets within a leaf and amond leaves within a branch, but aggregated strongly among leaflets or leaves within a plant. The boradly polyphagous A. andersoni searched randomly among leaflets within a leaf, a branch or a plant, and among leaves within a branch or a plant, but distributed themselves more often on branches with lower prey densities. Thus, specialist predators aggregate strongly at lower spatial levels but show random search at higher spatial levels, whereas generalist predators show random search at lower spatial levels but aggregate at higher spatial levels. This is the first empirical evidence demonstrating the relation between the degree of polyphagy and the spatial scale of aggregation. It is also concluded that both the prey patch size (i.e. grain) and predator foraging range (i.e. extent) are important for analyzing spatial scales of predator aggregation. The importance of studying spatial scale of aggregation is also discussed in relation to predator-prey metapopulation dynamics.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Aggregation; Density dependence; Predator-prey interaction; Prey specialization; Spatial scale

Year:  1993        PMID: 28313749     DOI: 10.1007/BF00318026

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


  5 in total

1.  Parasitoids of the goldenrod gall moth: effects of scale on spatial density dependence.

Authors:  Lorne D Rothman; D Christopher Darling
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  1990-05       Impact factor: 3.225

2.  Effects of patch scale on density-dependence and species-dependence in two host-parasitoid systems.

Authors:  D C Force; D J Moriarty
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  1988-08       Impact factor: 3.225

3.  Foraging time and spatial patterns of predation in experimental populations : A comparative study of three mite predator-prey systems (Acari: Phytoseiidae, Tetranychidae).

Authors:  Zhi-Qiang Zhang; John P Sanderson; Jan P Nyrop
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  1992-05       Impact factor: 3.225

4.  The dynamics of arthropod predator-prey systems.

Authors:  M P Hassell
Journal:  Monogr Popul Biol       Date:  1978

5.  Characteristics of successful natural enemies in models of biological control of insect pests.

Authors:  J R Beddington; C A Free; J H Lawton
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1978-06-15       Impact factor: 49.962

  5 in total
  3 in total

1.  Plant architecture and prey distribution influence foraging behavior of the predatory mite Phytoseiulus persimilis (Acari: Phytoseiidae).

Authors:  Lessando M Gontijo; James R Nechols; David C Margolies; Raymond A Cloyd
Journal:  Exp Appl Acarol       Date:  2011-10-09       Impact factor: 2.132

2.  Interdependent effects of male and female body size plasticity on mating behaviour of predatory mites.

Authors:  Andreas Walzer; Peter Schausberger
Journal:  Anim Behav       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 2.844

3.  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

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.