Ontogenetic shifts in the functional response and interference interactions of Rhyacophila dorsalis larvae (Trichoptera)

Abstract

Summary1. Ontogenetic shifts in predator behaviour can affect the assessment of food‐web structure and the development of predator–prey models. Therefore, it is important to establish if the functional response and interference interactions differ between life‐stages. These hypotheses were tested by (i) comparing the functional response of second, third, fourth and fifth larval instars of Rhyacophila dorsalis, using three stream tanks with one Rhyacophila larva per tank and one of 10 prey densities between 20 and 200 larvae of Chironomus sp.; (ii) using other experiments to assess interference within instars (two to five larvae of the same instar per tank), and between pairs of different instars (one, two or three larvae per instar; total predator densities of two, four or six larvae per tank).2. The first hypothesis was supported. The number of prey eaten by each instar increased with prey density, the relationship being described by a type II model. The curvilinear response was stronger for fourth and fifth instars than for second and third instars. Mean handling time did not change significantly with prey density, and increased with decreasing instar number from 169 s for fifth instars to 200 s for second instars. Attack rate decreased progressively with decreasing instar number. Handling time varied considerably for each predator–prey encounter, but was normally distributed for each predator instar. Variations in attack rate and handling time were related to differences in activity between instars, fourth and fifth instars being more active and aggressive than second and third instars, and having a higher food intake.3. The second hypothesis was partially supported. In the interference experiments between larvae of the same instar or different instars, mean handling time did not change significantly with increasing predator density, and attack rate did not change for second and third instars but decreased curvilinearly for fourth and fifth instars. Interference between some instars could not be studied because insufficient second instars were available at the same time as fourth and fifth instars, and most third instars were eaten by fourth and fifth instars in the experiments. Prey capture always decreased with decreasing attack rate. Therefore, interference reduced prey consumption in fourth and fifth instars, but not in second and third instars. The varying feeding responses of different instars should be taken into account when assessing their role in predator–prey relationships in the field.