Abstract

Wolf spiders are abundant and voracious predators at the soil-plant interface in cotton crops. Among other prey, they attack late-instar larvae of the cotton bollworm Helicoverpa spp., an economically important pest. Consequently, wolf spiders in transgenic Bt cotton could provide significant biological control of Bt-resistant Helicoverpa larvae that descend to the soil to pupate. The predator-prey interactions between wolf spiders and Helicoverpa could, however, be constrained by the presence of alternative prey and intraguild predators. This study used laboratory enclosures to analyse the effect of alternative prey on predatory selection of the wolf spider Tasmanicosa leuckartii Thorell. The prey included another wolf spider Hogna crispipes Koch (potential intraguild predator), the ground cricket Teleogryllus commodus Walker (minor pest), and Helicoverpa armigera larvae (major pest). We tested if encounter rates, prey vulnerability, and prey nutritional content influenced the likelihood that a prey was attacked. In three-way food webs, Tasmanicosa encountered and attacked Teleogryllus and Helicoverpa in similar frequencies. However, in the presence of a competing intraguild predator and potential prey (Hogna) in a four-way food web, Tasmanicosa did not always attack Teleogryllus at first encounter, but still attacked Helicoverpa at each encounter. Helicoverpa (protein-poor) and Hogna (protein-rich) were consumed by Tasmanicosa in similar proportions, suggesting that Tasmanicosa might benefit from nutrient balance as an outcome of diverse prey in this food web. As Teleogryllus (protein rich) escapes quicker than Helicoverpa and Hogna, Hogna may be an easier protein-rich option than Teleogryllus. Field surveys showed that while Teleogryllus was the most common prey, wolf spiders feed on diverse insect taxa, as well as other spiders. That Tasmanicosa readily attacked Helicoverpa larvae in the presence of alternative prey is an encouraging result that supports the potential of Tasmanicosa predation to assist in the control of Bt-resistant Helicoverpa larvae and thereby inhibit the proliferation and spread of resistance.

Highlights

  • Interactions between a predator and its prey rarely occur in isolation

  • In three-way food webs, there were no differences in the proportions of first encounters between Tasmanicosa and Teleogryllus or Helicoverpa (Pearson χ2 = 0.30, df = 1, p = 0.58; Fig 1)

  • In four-way food webs, there were no differences in the proportions of first encounters between Tasmanicosa and Hogna, Teleogryllus, or Helicoverpa (Pearson χ2 = 2.40, df = 2, p = 0.30, cases in contingency table = 40; Fig 2)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Interactions between a predator and its prey rarely occur in isolation. Predatory interactions usually occur within food webs that involve primary producers, alternative prey, and other predators. When multiple prey are present, predation outcomes may be driven by prey availability (passive selection) or by predator-prey interactions upon prey encounter [1]. Variables influencing passive selection of prey include abundance, prey dispersion [2] and camouflage [3]. Optimal foraging theory combines these factors on predation outcomes, and posits that after predators encounter prey they should aim to maximize their energy intake [12] while minimizing the risks and energy spent in prey capture [13]. Understanding the mechanisms that mediate predation tendencies is crucial to predict the structure and function of food webs

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (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