acta ethologica

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 59–63 | Cite as

Balancing predation risk, social interference, and foraging opportunities in backswimmers, Notonecta maculata

Original Article
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

Loss of foraging opportunities and intraspecific competition for prey may be important costs of using refuges, because a hiding animal is unable to use or defend its foraging area from conspecific intrusions. Thus, animals should balance antipredator demands with other requirements in deciding when to come out from a refuge after a predator’s unsuccessful attack. Observations on foraging and social interactions of backswimmers Notonecta maculata suggest that foraging may be costly in terms of intraspecific agonistic interactions. When prey density is low, increasing the probability of finding a prey may require active exploration of a larger area, but this also increases the probability of encountering a competitor. After simulated exposure to predators, unfed bugs resumed feeding positions after a significantly shorter hiding period than recently fed bugs. We hypothesized that hiding time may also be reduced by recent interactions with conspecific competitors, due to an increased perceived need to defend feeding opportunities. Thus, when a predator attack occurred immediately after an agonistic conspecific interaction, backswimmers resumed feeding positions more quickly, and closer to the original position from which they were disturbed, suggesting short-term defense of particular positions. We conclude that when foraging, backswimmers balance the benefits of finding prey with the costs of predation risk and social interference in deciding their foraging strategy.

Keywords

Backswimmers Foraging Antipredatory behavior Social interactions 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank M. Milinski and S. Hampton for helpful comments, T. López and J. M. Hernández “Kermi” for taxonomic advice, and “El Ventorrillo” MNCN Field Station for use of their facilities. Financial support was provided by the MCYT project BOS 2002-00547. The experiments comply with the current laws of Spain and the Environmental Agency of the Local Government of Madrid where they were performed.

References

  1. Baena M, Vázquez MA (1986) Catálogo preliminar de los Heterópteros acuáticos Ibéricos. Graellsia 42:61–89Google Scholar
  2. Blaustein L, Kotler BP, Ward D (1995) Direct and indirect effects of a predatory backswimmer (Notonecta maculata) on community structure of desert temporary ponds. Ecol Entomol 20:311–318Google Scholar
  3. Briers RA, Warren PH (1999) Competition between the nymphs of two regionally co-occurring species of Notonecta (Hemiptera: Notonectidae). Freshw Biol 42:11–20Google Scholar
  4. Cockrell BJ (1984) Effects of water depth on choice of spatially separated prey by Notonecta glauca L. Oecologia 62:256–261Google Scholar
  5. Crowley PH, Travers SE, Linton MC, Cohn SL, Sih A, Sargent RC (1991) Mate density, predation risk, and the seasonal sequence of mate choices: a dynamic game. Am Nat 137:567–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Díaz-Uriarte R (1999) Anti-predator behaviour changes following an aggressive encounter in the lizard Tropidurus hispidus. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:2457–2464CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Díaz-Uriarte R (2001) Territorial intrusion risk and antipredator behaviour: a mathematical model. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:1165–1173CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Dill LM, Fraser AHG (1997) The worm re-turns: hiding behavior of a tube-dwelling marine polychaete, Serpula vermicularis. Behav Ecol 8:186–193Google Scholar
  9. Dill LM, Gillett JF (1991) The economic logic of the barnacle Balanus glandula (Darwin) hiding behaviour. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 153:115–127Google Scholar
  10. Giller PS, McNeill S (1981) Predation strategies, resource partitioning and habitat selection in Notonecta (Hemiptera/Heteroptera). J Anim Ecol 50:789–808Google Scholar
  11. Hopper KR (2001) Flexible antipredator behavior in a dragonfly species that coexists with different predator types. Oikos 93:470–476Google Scholar
  12. Jeffries MJ (1996) Effects of Notonecta glauca predation on Cyphon larvae (Coleoptera, Scirtidae) populations in small seasonal ponds. Arch Hydrobiol 136:413–420Google Scholar
  13. Koivula K, Rytkönen S, Orell M (1995) Hunger-dependency of hiding behaviour after a predator attack in dominant and subordinate willow tits. Ardea 83:397–404Google Scholar
  14. Krause J, Loader SP, McDermott J, Ruxton GD (1998) Refuge use by fish as a function of body length-related metabolic expenditure and predation risk. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:2373–2379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Krebs JR (1980) Optimal foraging, predation risk and territory defence. Ardea 68:83–90Google Scholar
  16. Lima SL (1998) Stress and decision making under the risk of predation: recent developments from behavioral, reproductive, and ecological perspectives. Adv Stud Behav 27:215–290Google Scholar
  17. Lima SL, Dill LM (1990) Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 68:619–640Google Scholar
  18. Martín J, López P (1999) When to come out from a refuge: risk-sensitive and state-dependent decisions in an alpine lizard. Behav Ecol 10:487–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Martín J, López P, Cooper WE (2003) When to come out from a refuge: balancing predation risk and foraging opportunities in an alpine lizard. Ethology 109:77–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McPeek MA, Brown JM (2000) Building a regional species pool: diversification of the Enallagma damselflies in eastern North America. Ecology 81:904–920Google Scholar
  21. Sih A (1980) Optimal behavior: can foragers balance two conflicting demands? Science 210:1041–1043Google Scholar
  22. Sih A (1982) Foraging strategies and the avoidance of predation by an aquatic insect: Notonecta hoffmanni. Ecology 63:786–796Google Scholar
  23. Sih A (1986) Antipredator responses and the perception of danger by mosquito larvae. Ecology 67:434–441Google Scholar
  24. Sih A (1992) Prey uncertainty and the balancing of antipredator and foraging needs. Am Nat 139:1052–1069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sih A (1997) To hide or not to hide? Refuge use in a fluctuating environment. Trends Ecol Evol 12:375–376Google Scholar
  26. Sih A, Petranka JW, Kats LB (1988) The dynamics of prey refuge use: a model and tests with sunfish and salamander larvae. Am Nat 132:463–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sih A, Krupa J, Travers S (1990) An experimental study on the effects of predation risk and feeding regime on the mating behavior of the water strider, Gerris remigis. Am Nat 135:284–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sih A, Kats LB, Moore RD (1992) Effects of predatory sunfish on the density, drift and refuge use of stream salamander larvae. Ecology 73:1418–1430Google Scholar
  29. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry, 3rd edn. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Streams FA (1987) Within habitat spatial separation of two Notonecta species: interactive vs. non-interactive resource partitioning. Ecology 68:935–945Google Scholar
  31. Streams FA (1992) Intrageneric predation by Notonecta (Hemiptera: Notonectidae) in the laboratory and in nature. Ann Entomol Soc Am 85:265–273Google Scholar
  32. Wolf NG, Kramer DL (1987) Use of cover and the need to breathe: the effects of hypoxia on vulnerability of dwarf gouramis to predatory snakeheads. Oecologia 73:127–132Google Scholar
  33. Ydenberg RC, Dill LM (1986) The economics of fleeing from predators. Adv Stud Behav 16:229–249Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag and ISPA 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de Ecología EvolutivaMuseo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, CSICMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations