, Volume 56, Issue 2–3, pp 264–271 | Cite as

Foraging strategy of a mantid, Paratenodera angustipennis S.: Mechanisms of switching tactics between ambush and active search

  • Tamiji Inoue
  • Toshiaki Marsura
Original Papers


Foraging strategies of a mantid, Paratenodera angustipennis de Saussure were investigated both in the laboratory and in the field to determine how mantids assess the profitability of their location, and based on it, how they switch their tactics. Although mantids are often considered to be ambush predators, nymphs and adult females changed their tactics from ambushing to active searching when they did not capture any prey for more than about 2 days (nymphs) and 3 days (adult females). Switching between the two tactics was such that the females and nymphs spent more searching effort in sites with higher prey density. As opposed to the females and nymphs, male mantids did not change their tactics according to their hunger level (in our definition, and the prey density in the hunting site. The males moved around more than twice as much as did the females. In the field, female mantids moved less frequently at higher female densities.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Beukema JJ (1968) Predation by the three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus L.): The influence of hunger and experience. Behaviour 30:1–126Google Scholar
  2. Charnov EL (1976) Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem. Theor Popul Biol 9:129–136Google Scholar
  3. Cook RM, Hubbard SF (1977) Adaptive searching strategies in insect parasites. J Anim Ecol 46:115–125Google Scholar
  4. Cowie RJ (1977) Optimal foraging in great tits (Parus major). Nature 268:137–139Google Scholar
  5. Davies NB (1977) Prey selection and the search strategy of the spotted flycatcher (Muscicapa striata): A field study on optimal foraging. Anim Behav 25:1016–1033Google Scholar
  6. Givens RP (1978) Dimorphic foraging strategies of a salticid spider (Phidippus audax). Ecology 59:309–321Google Scholar
  7. Griffiths D (1982) Foraging costs and relative prey size. Am Nat 116:743–752Google Scholar
  8. Hallander H (1967) Range and movements of the wolf spiders Pardosa chelata (O.G. Muller) and P. pullata (Clerk). Oikos 18:360–364Google Scholar
  9. Hassell MP, May RM (1974) Aggregation of predators and insect parasites and its effect on stability. J Anim Ecol 43:567–594Google Scholar
  10. Hassell MP, Southwood TRE (1978) Foraging strategies of insects. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 9:75–98Google Scholar
  11. Heinrich B (1976) The foraging specializations of individual bumblebees. Ecol Mono 46:105–128Google Scholar
  12. Holling CS (1966) The functional response of invertebrate predators to prey density. Mem Ent Soc Can 48:1–86Google Scholar
  13. Inoue T (1978) A new regression method for analyzing animal movement patterns. Res Popul Ecol 20:141–163Google Scholar
  14. Inoue T (1979) Ecological studies on foraging behaviour and its degree of optimization. Ph.D. thesis, Kyoto Univ. p304 in Japanese.Google Scholar
  15. Janetos AC (1982) Foraging tactics of two guilds of web-spinning spiders. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 10:19–27Google Scholar
  16. Jolly GM (1965) Explicit estimates from capture-recapture data with death and immigration-stochastic model. Biometrika 52:225–247Google Scholar
  17. Krebs JR, Ryan JC, Charnov EL (1974) Hunting by expectation or optimal foraging? A study of patch use by chickadees. Anim Behav 22:953–964Google Scholar
  18. MacArthur RH, Pianka ER (1966) On optimal use of a patchy environment. Amer Natur 100:603–609Google Scholar
  19. Matsura T (1981) Responses to starvation in a mantis, Paratenodera angustipennis (S.). Oecologia 50:291–295Google Scholar
  20. Matsura T, Inoue T, Hosomi Y (1975) Ecological studies of a mantid, Paratenodera angustipennis de Saussure I. Evaluation of the feeding condition in natural habitats. Res Popul Ecol 17:64–76Google Scholar
  21. Morisita M (1952) Habitat preference and evaluation of environment of an animal: Experimental studies on the population density of an ant-lion, Glenuroides japonicus M'L. (I) (In Japanese with English summary) Physiol Ecol Japan 5:1–16Google Scholar
  22. Murdoch WW, Oaten A (1975) Predation and population stability. Advances in Ecological Research 9:1–131Google Scholar
  23. Okubo A (1980) Diffusion and ecological problems: mathematical models. Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg-New,-York p 254Google Scholar
  24. Pianka ER (1978) Evolutionary ecology (Second edition). Harper and Row, New York p 397Google Scholar
  25. Royama T (1970a) Evolutionary significance of predators' response to local differences in prey density: A theoretical study. In PJ den Boer, GR Gradwell (eds.) Proc Adv Study Inst Dynamics Numbers Popul, Pudoc, Wageningen p 344–357Google Scholar
  26. Royama T (1970b) Factors governing the hunting behaviour and food selection of the great tit (Parus major L.). J Anim Ecol 39:619–668Google Scholar
  27. Seber GAF (1973) The estimation of animal abundance and related parameters. Griffin, London p 506Google Scholar
  28. Smith JNM, Sweatman HP (1974) Food-searching behaviour of titmice in patchy environments. Ecology 55:1216–1232Google Scholar
  29. Turnbull AL (1964) The searching for prey by a web-building spider, Achaeranea tepidanonim (C.L. Koch). Can Ent 96:568–579Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tamiji Inoue
    • 1
  • Toshiaki Marsura
    • 1
  1. 1.Entomological Laboratory, College of AgricultureKyoto UniversityKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations