Abstract

Detritus (decaying organic matter) and phyllodes of mosses are two main components in the diet of groundhoppers (Orthoptera: Tetrigidae). We studied the energy balance of consumed food under laboratory conditions in the detrito-bryophagous groundhopper, Tetrix subulata (Linnaeus, 1758). The results indicated that the energy food budget of this detrito-bryophagous groundhopper was comparable to those of small herbivorous grasshoppers (Acrididae: Gomphocerinae, Melanoplinae), which have a similar energy food budget of approximately 800–1,100 J/g. T. subulata consumed four times more detritus than mosses, although both components provided similar amounts of energy (ca. 15–16 kJ/g). However, in contrast with detritus, moss fragments passed through the digestive tract without a distinct change in their mass or a loss in their energy value. We assume that moss may cause the longer retention of semifluid mass of partly digested food in the alimentary tract; hence, the digestion and efficiency of nutrient absorption from detritus could be more effective.

Highlights

  • Optimal foraging theory predicts that a foraging organism will maximize its fitness by maximizing its net energy intake per unit of time (Stephens & Krebs, 1986) and will more often choose the available food components that yield the most calories for the effort it takes to locate, catch, or consume them (Stephens & Krebs, 1986)

  • The Tukey HSD test confirmed that the calorific values of detritus and Brachythecium rutabulum, and Calliergonella cuspidata mosses were similar, but the calorific values of B. rutabulum moss were slightly different from those of C. cuspidata moss (Table 3)

  • Based on the gravimetric method that relies on ingestion, we confirmed that energy food budgets differ between two dominant food components in the detrito-bryophagous groundhopper Tetrix subulata

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Optimal foraging theory predicts that a foraging organism will maximize its fitness by maximizing its net energy intake per unit of time (Stephens & Krebs, 1986) and will more often choose the available food components that yield the most calories for the effort it takes to locate, catch, or consume them (Stephens & Krebs, 1986). This theory explains natural foraging selection through quantitative models.

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