Foraging activity of a dominant epigeal predator: Molecular evidence for the effect of prey density on consumption

Oikos

Volumn 121, Issue 11, 2012, Pages 1715-1724

  Schmidt, J M ^a,b   Harwood, J D ^a   Rypstra, A L ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY   (United States)

^b MIAMI UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ABUNDANCE; AGRICULTURAL ECOSYSTEM; DISTURBANCE; DOMINANCE; FLY; FOOD CONSUMPTION; FORAGING BEHAVIOR; GENERALIST; IMMUNOASSAY; MAIZE; MESOCOSM; MOLECULAR ANALYSIS; NUTRITIONAL REQUIREMENT; PREDATOR-PREY INTERACTION; PREY AVAILABILITY; SOYBEAN; SPIDER;

ARANEAE; DIPTERA; GLYCINE MAX; LYCOSIDAE; PARDOSA MILVINA; ZEA MAYS;

EID: 84867744276     PISSN: 00301299     EISSN: 16000706     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2011.20366.x     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Abrams P. A. and Matsuda H. 1993. Effects of adaptive predatory and anti-predator behavior in a two prey-one predator system. Evol. Ecol. 7: 312-326.
2. Bardwell C. J. and Averill L. A. 1997. Spiders and their prey in Massachusetts cranberry bogs. J. Arachnol. 25: 31-41.
3. Bilde T. and Toft S. 1998. Quantifying food limitation of arthropod predators in the field. Oecologia 115: 54-58.
4. Birkhofer K. et al. 2008. Cursorial spiders retard initial aphid population growth at low densities in winter wheat. Bull. Entomol. Res. 98: 249-255.
5. Brook A. J. et al. 2008. Experimental verification of suction sampler capture efficiency in grasslands of differing vegetation height and structure. J. Appl. Ecol. 45: 1357-1363.
6. Brose U. 2010. Body-mass constraints on foraging behaviour determine population and food-web dynamies. Funct. Ecol. 24: 28-34.
7. Buddle C. M. et al. 2003. Cannibalism and density-dependent mortality in the wolf spider Pardosa milvina (Araneae: Lycosidae). Can. J. Zool. 81: 1293-1297.
8. Burnham K. P. and Anderson D. R. 2002. Model selection and multi-model inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd ed. - Springer.
9. Chapman E. G. et al. 2010. Maximizing collection and minimizing risk: does vacuum sampling increase the likelihood for misinterpretation of food web connections? Mol. Ecol. Resour. 10: 1023-1033.
10. Collett D. 2003. Modeling binary data, 2nd ed. - Chapman and Hall/CRC.
11. Cronin J. et al. 2004. Spider effects on planthopper mortality, dispersal, and spatial population dynamics. Ecology 85: 2134-2143.
12. Döbel H. G. and Denno R. F. 1994. Predator-planthopper interactions. - In: Denno R. F. and Perfect J. (eds), The planthoppers. Chapman and Hall, pp. 325-399.
13. Eubanks M. and Denno R. F. 1999. The ecological consequences of variation in plants and prey for an omnivorous insect. Ecology 80: 1253-1266.
14. Finke D. L. and Denno R. F. 2005. Predator diversity and the functioning of ecosystems: the role of intraguild predation in dampening trophic cascades. Ecol. Lett. 8: 1299-1306.
15. Foelix R. F. 1996. Biology of spiders. - Oxford Univ. Press.
16. Fox J. 2008. Applied regression analysis and generalized linear models, 2nd ed. - Sage.
17. Gratton C. and Denno R. F. 2003. Seasonal shift from top-down to bottom-up impact in phytophagous insect populations. Oecologia 134: 487-495.
18. Greenstone M. H. 1979. Spider feeding behaviour optimizes dietary essential amino acid composition. Nature 282: 501-203.
19. Hagler J. R. and Naranjo S. E. 1994. Qualitative survey of two coleopteran predators of Bemesia tabaci (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) and Pectinophora gossypiella (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) using multiple prey gutcontent ELISA. Environ. Entomol. 23: 193-197.
20. Halaj J. and Wise D. H. 2001. Terrestrial trophic cascades: how much do they trickle? Am. Nat. 157: 262-281.
21. Harwood J. D. et al. 2001. Secondary predation: quantification of food-chain errors in an aphid spider carabid system using monoclonal antibodies. Mol. Ecol. 10: 2049-2057.
22. Harwood J. D. et al. 2004. Prey selection by linyphiid spiders: molecular tracking of the effects of alternative prey on rates of aphid consumption. Mol. Ecol. 13: 3549-3560.
23. Harwood J. D. et al. 2007a. A monoclonal antibody specific to Diptera reveals the impact of alternative prey on spider feeding behaviour in a complex food web. Biol. Control. 41: 397-407.
24. Harwood J. D. et al. 2007b. Tracking the role of alternative prey in soybean aphid predation by Orius insidiosus: a molecular approach. Mol. Ecol. 16: 4390-4400.
25. Hassell M. P. and May R. M. 1986. Natural enemies can cause discrete generations in tropical insects. Nature 327: 144-147.
26. Hastie T. J. and Pregibon D. 1992. Statistical models in S. - In: Chambers J. M. and Hastie T. J. (eds), Generalized linear models. Wadsworth and Brooks/Cole, pp. 195-248.
27. Hawlena D. and Pérez-Mellado V. 2009. Change your diet or die: predator-induced shifts in insectivorous lizard feeding ecology. Oecologia 161: 411-419.
28. Hayes J. L. and Lockley T. C. 1990. Prey and nocturnal activity of wolf spiders (Araneae: Lycosidae) in cotton fields in the Delta region of Mississippi. Environ. Entomol. 19: 1512-1518.
29. Hilbe J. 2009. Logistic regression models. - Chapman and Hall/CRC Press.
30. Hlivko J. T. and Rypstra A. L. 2003 Spiders reduce herbivory: nonlethal effects of spiders on the consumption of soybean leaves by beetle pests. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 96: 914-919.
31. Holling C. S. 1959. The components of predation as revealed by a study of small mammal predation of the European pine sawfly. Can. Entomol. 91: 293-320.
32. Holling C. S. 1966. The functional response of invertebrate predators to prey density. Mem. Entomol. Soc. Can. 48: 1-86.
33. Holt R. 1977. Predation, apparent competition, and structure of prey communities. Theor. Popul. Biol. 12: 197-229.
34. Jolliffe P. A. 2000. The replacement series. J. Ecol. 88: 371-385.
35. Kiss B. and Samu F. 2000. Evaluation of population densities of the common wolf spider Pardosa agrestis (Araneae: Lycosidae) in Hungarian alfalfa fields using mark-recapture. Eur. J. Entomol. 97: 191-195.
36. Lang A. et al. 1999. Predation by ground beetles and wolf spiders on herbivorous insects in a maize crop. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 72: 189-199.
37. Lima S. L. 2002. Putting predators back into predator-prey interactions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17: 70-75.
38. Loeuille N. 2010. Consequences of adaptive foraging in diverse communities. Funct. Ecol. 24: 18-27.
39. Marc P. A. et al. 1999. Spiders (Araneae) useful for pest limitation and bioindication. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 74: 229-273.
40. Marshall S. D. and Rypstra A. L. 1999. Spider competition in structurally simple ecosystems. J. Arachnol. 27: 343-350.
41. Marshall S. et al. 2002. A comparative study of phenology and daily activity patterns in the wolf spiders Pardosa milvina and Hogna helluo in soybean agroecosystems in southwestern Ohio (Araneae, Lycosidae). J. Arachnol. 30: 503-510.
42. Mayntz D. et al. 2005. Nutrient-specific foraging in invertebrate predators. Science 307: 111-113.
43. Monzó C. et al. 2010. Tracking medfly predation by the wolf spider, Pardosa cribata Simon, in -citrus orchards using PCR-based gut-content analysis. Bull. Entomol. Res. 100: 145-152.
44. Murdoch W. W. and Oaten A. 1975. Predation and population stability. Adv. Ecol. Res. 9: 2-131.
45. Nentwig W. 1986. Non-web-building spiders: prey specialists or generalists. Oecologia 69: 571-576.
46. Nentwig W. and Wissel C. 1986. A comparison of prey lengths among spiders. Oecologia 68: 595-600.
47. Nyffeler M. and Benz G. 1988. Feeding ecology and predatory importance of wolf spiders (Pardosa spp)(Araneae, Lycosidae) in winter-wheat fields. J. Appl. Ecol. 106: 123-134.
48. Nyffeler M. and Sunderland K. D. 2003. Composition, abundance and pest control potential of spider communities in agroecoystems: a comparison of European and US studies. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 95: 579-612.
49. Prasad R. and Snyder W. 2006. Polyphagy complicates conservation biological control that targets generalist predators. J. Appl. Ecol. 43: 343-352.
50. Riechert S. E. and Lockley T. 1984. Spiders as biological control agents. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 29: 299-320.
51. Riechert S. E. and Lawrence K. 1997. Test for predation of single versus multiple species of generalist predators: spiders and their prey. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 84: 147-155.
52. Samu F. and Biro Z. 1993. Functional-response, multiple feeding and wasteful killing in a wolf spider (Araneae, Lycosidae). Eur. J. Entomol. 90: 471-476.
53. Samu F. et al. 2003. Foraging in agricultural fields: local 'sit-and-move' strategy scales up to risk-averse habitat use in a wolf spider. Anim. Behav. 66: 939-947.
54. Schmidt J. M. and Rypstra A. L. 2010. Opportunistic predator prefers habitat complexity that exposes prey while reducing cannibalism and intraguild encounters. Oecologia 164: 899-910.
55. Schmitz O. J. et al. 2000. Trophic cascades in terrestrial systems: a review of effects of carnivore removals on plants. Am. Nat. 155: 1441-1453.
56. Sheppard S. K. and Harwood J. D. 2005. Advances in molecular ecology: tracking trophic links through predator-prey food-webs. Funct. Ecol. 19: 751-762.
57. Sherratt T. N. and Harvey I. F. 1993. Frequency-dependent food selection by arthropods: a review. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 48: 167-186.
58. Solomon M. E. 1949. The natural control of animal populations. J. Anim. Ecol. 18: 1-35.
59. Symondson W. O. C. 2002. Molecular identification of prey in predator diets. Mol. Ecol. 11: 627-641.
60. Symondson W. O. C. et al. 2006. Biodiversity vs biocontrol: positive and negative effects of alternative prey on control of slugs by carabid beetles. Bull. Entomol. Res. 96: 367-645.
61. Toft S. and Wise D. H. 1999. Growth, development and survival of a generalist predator fed single- and mixed-species diets of different quality. Oecologia 119: 191-197.
62. Turnbull A. L. 1973. Ecology of the true spiders (Araneomorphae). Ann. Rev. Entomol. 18: 305-348.
63. Uetz G. 1977. Coexistence in a guild of wandering spiders. J. Anim. Ecol. 46: 531-541.
64. Vucic-Pestic O. et al. 2010. Habitat structure and prey aggregation determine the functional response in a soil predator-prey interaction. Pedobiologia 53: 307-312.
65. Walker S. E. and Rypstra A. L. 2002. Sexual dimorphism in trophic morphology and feeding behavior of wolf spiders (Araneae:Lycosidae) as a result of differences in reproductive roles. Can. J. Zool. 80: 679-688.
66. Wagner J. D. and Wise D. H. 1996. Cannibalism regulates densities of young wolf spiders: evidence from field and laboratory experiments. Ecology 77: 639-652.
67. Weber J. G. and Lundgren D. C. 2009. Quantification of predation using qPCR: effect of prey quantity, elapsed time, chaser diet and sample preservation. J. Insect Sci. 9: 41.
68. Weber J. G. and Lundgren D. C. 2010. Changes in digestive rate of a predatory beetle over its larval stage: implications for dietary breadth. J. Insect Physiol. 56: 431-437.
69. Wise D. H. 1993. Spiders in ecological webs. - Cambridge Univ. Press.