| Literature DB >> 34940206 |
Priscillia Hanache1,2, Thierry Thomann1, Valerie Caron3, Gaylord A Desurmont4.
Abstract
Terrestrial snails that live in hot and dry climates have developed strategies to cope with high summer temperatures. Several species estivate during the warmest months of the years by resting on vertical supports, typically in groups. Understanding how snails choose their estivation sites and aggregate may lead to the development of new management tools in areas where these snails are invasive. Here, we investigated the preferences of four snail species for vertical supports varying in widths and heights under laboratory and field conditions, and tested whether the presence of conspecifics or snails of other species affected these preferences. The results show that the snails strongly preferred wider supports in laboratory dual-choice tests, and one species (Theba pisana) showed a consistent preference for taller supports as well. These results were confirmed in the field, where more snails were found on wider and taller supports 24 h after being placed in test quadrats. The percentage of snails found in groups on a support was strongly density-dependent. The presence of conspecifics or their mucus did not affect the choices of the snails, nor did the presence of snails of other species or their mucus. Taken together, these results could lead to the development of attractive supports that could be used to mass-capture snails in the field.Entities:
Keywords: Cernuella virgata; Cochlicella acuta; Cochlicella barbara; Gastropoda; Theba pisana; aggregation; land snail
Year: 2021 PMID: 34940206 PMCID: PMC8708318 DOI: 10.3390/insects12121118
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Insects ISSN: 2075-4450 Impact factor: 2.769
Summary of the laboratory choice tests with the four snail species tested. A total of 50 snails were used per test. Chi-square tests with a p-value < 0.05 indicate a significant preference for one of the treatments (in bold). %part. = % participation.
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Test Category | Season | Test | % of Choice (n) | χ² | % Part. | % of Choice (n) | χ² | % Part. | % of Choice (n) | χ² | % Part. | % of Choice (n) | χ² | % Part. | ||||
| Width of support (cm) | spring | 0.4 vs. 1.6 | 26.5 (9) vs. 73.5 (25) |
|
| 68 | 26.9 (7) vs. 73.1 (19) |
|
| 52 | 20.0 (4) vs. 80.0 (16) |
|
| 40 | X | X | ||
| summer | 14.3 (3) vs. 85.7 (18) |
|
| 42 | X | X | 14.9 (7) vs. 85.1 (40) |
|
| 94 | 37.5 (3) vs. 62.5 (5) | 0.5 | 0.47 | 16 | ||||
| spring | 0.4 vs. 6.4 | 19.5 (8) vs. 80.5 (33) |
|
| 82 | 12.1 (4) vs. 87.9 (29) |
|
| 66 | 6.5 (2) vs. 93.5 (29) |
|
| 62 | X | X | |||
| spring | 1.6 vs. 6.4 | 10.5 (4) vs. 89.5 (34) |
|
| 76 | 17.9 (7) vs. 82.1 (32) |
|
| 78 | 17.2 (5) vs. 82.7 (24) |
|
| 38 | X | X | |||
| summer | 14.7 (5) vs. 85.3 (29) |
|
| 68 | X | X | 7.0 (3) vs. 93.0 40) |
|
| 86 | 9.5 (2) vs. 90.5 (19) |
|
| 42 | ||||
| spring | 0.4 vs. nothing | 42.6 (9) vs. 57.1 (12) | 0.4 | 0.51 | 42 | 52.0 (13) vs. 48.0 (12) | <0.1 | 0.84 | 50 | 84.6 (11) vs. 15.4 (2) |
|
| 26 | X | X | |||
| summer | 64.3 (9) vs. 35.7 (5) | 1.1 | 0.28 | 28 | X | X | 84.2 (32) vs. 15.8 (6) |
|
| 76 | 16.7 (1) vs. 83.3 (5) | 2.7 | 0.1 | 12 | ||||
| spring | 1.6 vs. nothing | 73.1 (19) vs. 26.9 (7) |
|
| 52 | 66.7 (18) vs. 33.3 (9) | 3.0 | 0.08 | 74 | 88.2 (15) vs. 11.8 (2) |
|
| 34 | X | X | |||
| summer | 68.8 (11) vs. 31.2 (5) | 2.2 | 0.13 | 32 | X | X | 89.5 (34) vs. 10.5 (4) |
|
| 76 | 50.0 (5) vs. 50.0 (5) | <0.1 | 0.99 | 20 | ||||
| spring | 6.4 vs. nothing | 91.4 (32) vs. 8.6 (3) |
|
| 70 | 87.2 (34) vs. 12.8 (5) |
|
| 78 | 96.3 (26) vs. 3.7 (1) |
|
| 54 | X | X | |||
| Height of support (cm) | spring | 10.5 vs. 2.5 | 75.0 15) vs. 25.0 (6) |
|
| 48 | 37.5 (9) vs. 62.5 (15) | 1.5 | 0.22 | 48 | 80.0 (20) vs. 20.0 (5) |
|
| 50 | X | X | ||
| summer | 65.5 (19) vs. 34.5 (10) | 2.0 | 0.09 | 58 | X | X | 97.0 (32) vs. 3.0 (1) |
|
| 66 | 40.0 (2) vs. 60.0 (3) | 0.2 | 0.65 | 10 | ||||
| spring | 2.5 vs. nothing | 60.0 (12) vs. 40.0 (8) | 0.8 | 0.37 | 40 | 68.8 (11) vs. 31.2 (5) | 2.2 | 0.13 | 32 | 73.3 (11) vs. 26.7 (4) | 3.3 | 0.07 | 30 | X | X | |||
| summer | 64.3 (9) vs. 35.7 (5) | 1.1 | 0.28 | 28 | X | X | 66.7 (14) vs. 33.3 (7) | 2.3 | 0.12 | 42 | 40.0 (4) vs. 60.0 (6) | 0.4 | 0.53 | 20 | ||||
| Attraction by others | spring | Congeners vs. nothing | 44.1 (15) vs. 55.9 (19) | 0.47 | 0.49 | 68 | 46.7 (21) vs. 53.3 (24) | 0.2 | 0.65 | 90 | 44.4 (12) vs. 55.6 (15) | 0.3 | 0.56 | 54 | X | X | ||
| spring | Other species vs. nothing | * 45.5 (15) vs. 54.5 (18) | 0.3 | 0.6 | 66 | X | X | ** 42.4 (14) vs. 57.6 (19) | 0.8 | 0.38 | 66 | X | X | |||||
| summer | Congeners vs. nothing | 45.5 (20) vs. 54.5 (24) | 0.4 | 0.54 | 88 | X | X | 47.9 (23) vs. 52.1 (25) | 0.1 | 0.77 | 96 | 57.1 (16) vs. 42.9 (12) | 0.57 | 0.45 | 56 | |||
| summer | Other species vs. nothing | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||
| Attraction by mucus | spring | Mucus of congener vs. nothing | 59.1 (39) vs. 40.9 (27) | 2.2 | 0.14 | 72 | 57.9 (22) vs. 42.1 (16) | 0.9 | 0.33 | 76 | 51.7 (15) vs. 48.3 (14) | <0.1 | 0.85 | 58 | X | X | ||
| spring | Mucus other species vs. nothing | * 53.3 (16) vs. 46.7 (14) | 0.13 | 0.71 | 60 | X | X | ** 51.1 (23) vs. 48.8 (22) | <0.1 | 0.88 | 90 | X | X | |||||
| summer | Mucus of congener vs. nothing | 46.5 (20) vs. 53.5 (23) | 0.21 | 0.65 | 86 | X | X | 58.3 (28) vs. 41.7 (20) | 1.33 | 0.24 | 96 | 40.0 (12) vs. 60.0 (18) | 1.2 | 0.27 | 60 | |||
| summer | Mucus other species vs. nothing | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||
* Other species = Theba pisana, ** other species = Cochlicella acuta.
Figure 1Preferences of four snail species for supports of different widths in two-choice tests under laboratory conditions. Numbers indicate the total number of snails that chose a treatment (n = 50 or 100 snails tested per combination). Snails that did not make a choice are not shown. Results of spring and summer tests are summed up. Asterisks indicate significant preference for a treatment (chi-square tests; *: p < 0.05; **: p < 0.001; ***: p < 0.0001).
Figure 2Effects of (A) Snail species, and (B) Support width (=width of the wider support tested in a two-choice test, cm) on snail participation (%, mean ± SE) in choice tests under laboratory conditions. For each figure, means with a different letter are statistically different (α = 0.05).
Figure 3Correlation between the number of snails that climbed on a vertical support and the % of these snails that were found aggregated for (A) Theba pisana, and (B) Cernuella virgata. Dotted lines represent the logarithmic fit of the data.
Figure 4Field preferences of C. virgata (red) and T. pisana (blue) in quadrat-choice tests. (A) Effect of support height on C. virgata; (B) Effect of support width on C. virgata; (C) Effect of support height on T. pisana; (D) Effect of support width on T. pisana. For each figure, means with a different letter are statistically different (one-way ANOVA, Tukey post hoc test).
Test of the hypothesis that snail distribution on supports in the field matches the differences in circumferences (widths) between the supports. Likelihood ratio analysis: p-values < 0.05 reject the hypothesis that the observed frequency corresponds to the expected frequency.
| Species | Choice-test | Support | Height | Diameter | Observed Frequency | Expected Frequency | Likelihood Ratio | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chi-Square | ||||||||
|
| Width | Thin | 80 | 3 | 0.17 (126) | 0.14 | 4.5 | 0.1 |
| Medium | 80 | 7.5 | 0.33 (249) | 0.35 | ||||
| Wide | 80 | 10.5 | 0.5 (369) | 0.5 | ||||
| Height | Small | 10 | 10.5 | 0.09 (72) | 0.33 |
|
| |
| Medium | 80 | 10.5 | 0.49 (375) | 0.33 | ||||
| Tall | 160 | 10.5 | 0.42 (321) | 0.33 | ||||
|
| Width | Thin | 80 | 3 | 0.18 (111) | 0.14 | 5.72 | 0.06 |
| Medium | 80 | 7.5 | 0.36 (225) | 0.35 | ||||
| Wide | 80 | 10.5 | 0.47 (296) | 0.5 | ||||
| Height | Small | 10 | 10.5 | 0.19 (115) | 0.33 |
|
| |
| Medium | 80 | 10.5 | 0.44 (272) | 0.33 | ||||
| Tall | 160 | 10.5 | 0.37 (224) | 0.33 | ||||