Summary
A number of studies on the feeding behaviour of sucking predators have estimated the weight of biomass the predator extracts from the prey by measuring the weight change occurring in the prey. This method does not consider that a proportion of the prey weight change is lost to the immediate environment. I examined the spider Diaea sp. feeding on the fruit fly Drosophila immigrans and found that the prey lost approximately 28% more weight than the predator gained. This difference was largely explained by water loss from the prey. My results suggest that water loss, which is not available to the predator, is an important part of prey weight loss. To avoid overestimating predator biomass gain it is necessary to measure the predator weight gain directly or take into account water loss as a component of prey weight change.
References
Cheverton J, Kacelnik A, Krebs JR (1985) Optimal foraging: constraints and currencies. Fortsch Zool 31:109–126
Freed AN (1984) Foraging behaviour in the jumping spider Phidippus audax: bases for selectivity. J Zool Lond 203:49–61
Givens RP (1978) Dimorphic foraging strategies of a salticid spider (Phidippus audax). Ecology 59:309–321
Griffiths D (1980) The feeding biology of ant-lion larvae: prey capture, handling and utilization. J Anim Ecol 49:99–125
Gross LJ (1986) An overview of foraging theory. In: Hallam TG, Levin SA (eds) Mathematical Ecology: an introduction. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York pp 37–57
Holling CS (1966) The functional response of invertebrate predators to prey density. Mem Entomol Soc Can 48:1–86
Lucas JR (1985) Partial prey consumption by antlion larvae. Anim Behav 33:945–958
Morse DH (1979) Prey capture by the Crab Spider Misumena calycina (Araneae: Thomisidae). Oecologia (Berlin) 39:309–319
Pyke GH (1984) Optimal foraging theory: a critical review. Ann Review Ecol Syst 15:523–575
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pollard, S.D. Partial consumption of prey: the significance of prey water loss on estimates of biomass intake. Oecologia 76, 475–476 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00377046
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00377046