Abstract
ABSTRACT Isopods consume feces in laboratory conditions. We investigated the effects of coprophagy on food consumption and assimilation and on isopod biomass to determine the best methodological design for feeding performance experiments. We used three species of isopods representing different eco-morphological groups and two leaves with different nitrogen content. We tested three treatments: (1) free access to feces; (2) periodic removal of feces and (3) net acting as a barrier to the feces. We did not find significant difference in any isopod or leaf species for consumption rate. Assimilation efficiency did not differ significantly for any isopod or leaf either. Only growth rate was significantly different, but only for the species Atlantoscia floridana (Van Name, 1940) with the leaf Machaerium stipitatum, and it may be due to the short duration of experiments and the isopods’ susceptibility to environmental changes. Thus, we recommend the treatment access to study consumption and growth rates since it does not require any special material or extra time. If the focus is assimilation efficiency, we suggest the treatment removal because it provides more accurate values. Furthermore, more fragile species such as A. floridana require larger sample number and/or longer experiment duration for more reliable data analyses.
Highlights
Terrestrial isopods are soil detritivores involved in decomposition and nutrient cycling
The experiment with A. floridana and L. brasiliensis presented a significant difference in the Endpoint Food consumption Food assimilation Biomass change Biomass change Survivorship
We propose the following: 1) For consumption and growth rate, any treatment can be used
Summary
Terrestrial isopods are soil detritivores involved in decomposition and nutrient cycling Due to this functional role, several studies were dedicated to understand isopods’ nutritional requirements (Zimmer, 2002) and contribution to soil processes ( Jones et al, 2006). It may be related to other nutrients that are not sufficiently ingested by litter consumption (Wieser, 1968) or as a source of microorganisms’ enzymes that aid in the breakdown of recalcitrant compounds and as the consumption of microorganisms as food source (Hassall and Rushton, 1982; Carefoot, 1984; Gunnarsson and Tunlid, 1986) These explanations are not mutually exclusive and we cannot explain the coprophagous behavior yet. As there are discussions related to the nutritional significance of this behavior to the animals (Zimmer, 2002), some feeding performance studies deal with this behavior by removing feces periodically from experimental units to avoid coprophagy interference
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
