Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 62, Issue 7, pp 1185–1192

The interplay between foraging mode, habitat structure, and predator presence in antlions

Original Paper

Abstract

Antlion larvae are sand-dwelling insect predators, which ambush small arthropod prey while buried in the sand. In some species, the larvae construct conical pits and are considered as sit-and-wait predators which seldom relocate while in other species, they ambush prey without a pit but change their ambush site much more frequently (i.e., sit-and-pursue predators). The ability of antlion larvae to evade some of their predators which hunt them on the sand surface is strongly constrained by the degree of sand stabilization or by sand depth. We studied the effect of predator presence, predator type (active predatory beetle vs. sit-and-pursue wolf spider), and sand depth (shallow vs. deep sand) on the behavioral response of the pit building Myrmeleon hyalinus larvae and the sit-and-pursue Lopezus fedtschenkoi larvae. Predator presence had a negative effect on both antlion species activity. The sit-and-wait M. hyalinus larvae showed reduced pit-building activity, whereas the sit-and-pursue L. fedtschenkoi larvae decreased relocation activity. The proportion of relocating M. hyalinus was negatively affected by sand depth, whereas L. fedtschenkoi was negatively affected also by the predator type. Specifically, the proportion of individual L. fedtschenkoi that relocated in deeper sand was lower when facing the active predator rather than the sit-and-pursue predator. The proportion of M. hyalinus which constructed pits decreased in the presence of a predator, but this pattern was stronger when exposed to the active predator. We suggest that these differences between the two antlion species are strongly linked to their distinct foraging modes and to the foraging mode of their predators.

Keywords

Myrmeleontidae Foraging mode Anti predator behavior Sand depth Model selection 

References

  1. Abrams P, Menge BA, Mittelbach GG, Spiller D, Yodzis P (1996) The role of indirect effects in food webs. In: Polis GA, Winemiller KO (eds) Food webs: integration of patterns & dynamics. Kluwer, Boston, pp 371–395Google Scholar
  2. Agrawal AA (2001) Phenotypic plasticity in the interactions and evolution of species. Science 294:321–326PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown JS (1988) Prey use as an indicator of habitat preference, predation risk, and competition. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 22:37–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown JS, Kotler BP (2004) Hazardous duty pay and the foraging cost of predation. Ecol Lett 7:999–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cain ML (1987) Prey capture behavior and diel movement of Brachynemurus (Neuroptera: Myrmeleontidae) antlion larvae in south central Florida. Fla Entomol 70:397–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caswell H (2001) Matrix population models, 2nd edn. Sinauer, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  7. Greef JM, Whiting MJ (2000) Foraging-mode plasticity in the lizard Platysaurus broadleyei. Herpetologica 56:402–407Google Scholar
  8. Griffiths G (1992) Interference competition in ant-lion (Macroleon quinquemaculatus) larvae. Ecol Entomol 17:219–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Huey RB, Pianka ER (1981) Ecological consequences of foraging mode. Ecology 62:991–999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Johnson JB, Omland KS (2004) Model selection in ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 19:101–108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Krupa JJ, Sih A (1998) Fishing spiders, green sunfish, and a stream-dwelling water strider: male-female conflict and prey responses to single versus multiple predator environments. Oecologia 117:258–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lima SL (1998a) Stress and decision making under the risk of predation: recent developments from behavioral, reproductive, and ecological perspectives. Adv Study Behav 27:215–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lima SL (1998b) Non lethal effects in the ecology of predator-prey interactions. BioScience 48:25–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McPeek MA, Peckarsky BL (1998) Life histories and the strengths of species interactions: combining mortality, growth, and fecundity effects. Ecology 79:867–879Google Scholar
  15. Relyea RA, Auld JR (2004) Having the guts to compete: how intestinal plasticity explains costs of inducible defences. Ecol Lett 7:869–875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rodriguez-Prieto I, Fernandez-Juricic E, Martin J (2006) Anti-predator behavioral responses of mosquito pupae to aerial predation risk. J Insect Behav 19:373–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Scharf I, Ovadia O (2006) Factors influencing site abandonment and site selection in a sit-and-wait predator: a review of pit-building antlion larvae. J Insect Behav 19:197–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Scharf I, Nulman E, Ovadia O, Bouskila A (2006) Efficiency evaluation of two competing foraging modes under different conditions. Am Nat 168:350–357PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Schmitz OJ, Suttle KB (2001) Effects of top predator species on direct and indirect interactions in a food web. Ecology 82:2072–2081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schmitz OJ, Krivan V, Ovadia O (2004) Trophic cascades: the primacy of trait-mediated indirect interactions. Ecol Lett 7:153–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sih A, Kats LB (1991) Effects of refuge availability on the responses of salamander larvae to chemical cues from predatory green sunfish. Anim Behav 42:330–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sih A, Englund G, Wooster D (1998) Emergent impacts of multiple predators on prey. Trends Ecol Evol 13:350–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Simon D (1988) Ant-lions (Neuroptera: Myrmeleontidae) of the coastal plain: systematical, ecological, and zoogeographical aspects with emphasis on the coexistence of a species guild of the unstable dunes, PhD thesis. Tel-Aviv University, IsraelGoogle Scholar
  24. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry, 3rd edn. Freeman, NYGoogle Scholar
  25. Stamp NE, Bowers MD (1991) Indirect effect on survivorship due to presence of invertebrate predators. Oecologia 88:325–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Templeton CN, Shriner WM (2004) Multiple selection pressures influence Trinidadian guppy (Poecilia reticulate) antipredator behavior. Behav Ecol 4:673–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Werner EE, Anholt BR (1993) Ecological consequences of the trade-off between growth and mortality rates mediated by foraging activity. Am Nat 142:242–272CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Werner EE, Peacor SD (2003) A review of trait-mediated interactions in ecological communities. Ecology 84:1083–1100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wooster D, Sih A (1995) A review of the drift and activity responses of stream prey to predator presence. Oikos 73:3–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Reut Loria
    • 1
  • Inon Scharf
    • 1
  • Aziz Subach
    • 1
  • Ofer Ovadia
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Life SciencesBen-Gurion University of the NegevBeer-ShevaIsrael

Personalised recommendations