Antipredator behaviours of a spider mite in response to cues of dangerous and harmless predators.

Cleide Rosa Dias,Renato Almeida Sarmento,Jussara Mencalha,Arne Janssen,Caelum Woods Carvalho Freitas,Ana Maria Guimarães Bernardo,Angelo Pallini

doi:10.1007/s10493-016-0042-5

Cleide Rosa Dias, Renato Almeida Sarmento + Show 5 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10493-016-0042-5

Copy DOI

Abstract

Prey are known to invest in costly antipredator behaviour when perceiving cues of dangerous, but not of relatively harmless predators. Whereas most studies investigate one type of antipredator behaviour, we studied several types (changes in oviposition, in escape and avoidance behaviour) in the spider mite Tetranychus evansi in response to cues from two predatory mites. The predator Phytoseiulus longipes is considered a dangerous predator for T. evansi, whereas Phytoseiulus macropilis has a low predation rate on this prey, thus is a much less dangerous predator. Spider mite females oviposited less on leaf disc halves with predator cues than on clean disc halves, independent of the predator species. On entire leaf discs, they laid fewer eggs in the presence of cues of the dangerous predator than on clean discs, but not in the presence of cues of the harmless predator. Furthermore, the spider mites escaped more often from discs with cues of the dangerous predator than from discs without predator cues, but they did not escape more from discs with cues of the harmless predator. The spider mites did not avoid plants with conspecifics and predators. We conclude that the spider mites displayed several different antipredator responses to the same predator species, and that some of these antipredator responses were stronger with cues of dangerous predators than with cues of harmless predators.

Highlights

Predator–prey interactions are important for population dynamics, species composition (Paine 1966) and species distributions (Sih 1980; Kats and Dill 1998; Lima 1998)
We conclude that the spider mites displayed several different antipredator responses to the same predator species, and that some of these antipredator responses were stronger with cues of dangerous predators than with cues of harmless predators
When comparing the response of T. evansi to both predator species, there was no significant difference in oviposition behaviour (GLM: F1,36 \ 0.001, p = 0.98; Fig. 1a)

Summary

Introduction

Predator–prey interactions are important for population dynamics, species composition (Paine 1966) and species distributions (Sih 1980; Kats and Dill 1998; Lima 1998). Predators affect the behaviour of prey through their sheer presence or through cues associated with them. Prey can respond directly to attacks by predators by trying to escape, defending themselves and by counterattacking predators. They can perceive the presence of predators before an actual attack through cues associated with the presence of predators to subsequently avoid an encounter. Many prey can perceive chemical cues that are associated with the presence of predators and subsequently change their behaviour to reduce predation risk (Chivers and Smith 1998; Kats and Dill 1998; Peckarsky et al 2008; Paterson et al 2013). In response to chemical cues, prey can seek refuge (Ives and Dobson 1987; Venzon et al 2000; Faraji et al 2001, 2002), avoid areas with predators (Gore 1966; Brown et al 1995; Pallini et al 1999; Magalhaes et al 2002; Nomikou et al 2003; Meng et al 2006), increase their vigilance (Sweitzer and Berger 1992), and change their habitat (Lima and Dill 1990; Bolker et al 2003)

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion