Literature DB >> 29543392

Selectivity underlies the dissociation between seasonal prey availability and prey consumption in a generalist predator.

Thomas D Whitney1, Michael I Sitvarin1, Edward A Roualdes1, Simon J Bonner1, James D Harwood1.   

Abstract

Generalist predators are capable of selective foraging, but are predicted to feed in close proportion to prey availability to maximize energetic intake especially when overall prey availability is low. By extension, they are also expected to feed in a more frequency-dependent manner during winter compared to the more favourable foraging conditions during spring, summer and fall seasons. For 18 months, we observed the foraging patterns of forest-dwelling wolf spiders from the genus Schizocosa (Araneae: Lycosidae) using PCR-based gut-content analysis and simultaneously monitored the activity densities of two common prey: springtails (Collembola) and flies (Diptera). Rates of prey detection within spider guts relative to rates of prey collected in traps were estimated using Roualdes' cst model and compared using various linear contrasts to make inferences pertaining to seasonal prey selectivity. Results indicated spiders foraged selectively over the course of the study, contrary to predictions derived from optimal foraging theory. Even during winter, with overall low prey densities, the relative rates of predation compared to available prey differed significantly over time and by prey group. Moreover, these spiders appeared to diversify their diets; the least abundant prey group was consistently overrepresented in the diet within a given season. We suggest that foraging in generalist predators is not necessarily restricted to frequency dependency during winter. In fact, foraging motives other than energy maximization, such as a more nutrient-focused strategy, may also be optimal for generalist predators during prey-scarce winters.
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  zzm321990Schizocosazzm321990; generalist predators; molecular gut-content analysis; optimal foraging; predator-prey interactions; prey selectivity

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29543392     DOI: 10.1111/mec.14554

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Ecol        ISSN: 0962-1083            Impact factor:   6.185


  5 in total

1.  Beyond polyphagy and opportunism: natural prey of hunting spiders in the canopy of apple trees.

Authors:  László Mezőfi; Gábor Markó; Csaba Nagy; Dávid Korányi; Viktor Markó
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2020-06-19       Impact factor: 2.984

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.  Assassin snails (Anentome helena) as a biological model for exploring the effects of individual specialisation within generalist predators.

Authors:  Boris W Berkhout; Andrew Morozov
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-03-14       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 4.  High-throughput sequencing for community analysis: the promise of DNA barcoding to uncover diversity, relatedness, abundances and interactions in spider communities.

Authors:  Susan R Kennedy; Stefan Prost; Isaac Overcast; Andrew J Rominger; Rosemary G Gillespie; Henrik Krehenwinkel
Journal:  Dev Genes Evol       Date:  2020-02-10       Impact factor: 0.900

5.  Consuming alternative prey does not influence the DNA detectability half-life of pest prey in spider gut contents.

Authors:  Dávid Fülöp; Éva Szita; Regina Gerstenbrand; Gergely Tholt; Ferenc Samu
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2019-10-22       Impact factor: 2.984

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.