Abstract

This study aimed to determine the association between herbivore behavior and cues from producers. We used stream grazer Glossosoma larvae and determined their crawling direction in relation to chemical and visual cues from microalgae. The experimental treatments included control (no cue), particulate (chemical and particulate cues), and dissolved (chemical cue) cues from microalgae. The experimental water samples were randomly placed into either arm of a Y-shaped channel, and the crawling direction of the grazers was determined. Although the grazers crawled toward the arm containing either particulate or dissolved cues, they preferred the arm with particulate cues. This suggested that grazers responded well to both particulate (i.e., drifting algal cells) and chemical (algal smell) cues, and that particulate cues were more important for foraging. In natural habitats, grazers detect cues from producers and change their behaviors to maintain a balance between top-down and bottom-up cues.

Highlights

  • Chemical and visual cues play important roles in species interactions (Lima, 1998a; Lima, 1998b; Burks & Lodge, 2002; Van Donk, Ianora & Vos, 2011)

  • Numerous studies have established that these cues are important in predator–prey interactions (e.g., Turner & Montgomery, 2003; Takahara et al, 2012; Takahara et al, 2013)

  • chlorophyll a (Chl a) concentrations were significantly different among the control, dissolved, and particulate microalgal cue waters

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Chemical and visual cues play important roles in species interactions (Lima, 1998a; Lima, 1998b; Burks & Lodge, 2002; Van Donk, Ianora & Vos, 2011). Numerous studies have established that these cues are important in predator–prey interactions (e.g., Turner & Montgomery, 2003; Takahara et al, 2012; Takahara et al, 2013). The detection of cues occurs between predators (herbivores) and primary producers. Many studies have shown that morphological changes occur in primary producers on the basis of cues from predators (Lurling & Von Elert, 2001; Selander et al, 2011; Van Donk, Ianora & Vos, 2011). Few studies have investigated the herbivore responses to producer cues, and these studies have been limited to consumption (Poulet & Marsot, 1978; DeMott, 1986), habitat use (Doi, Katano & Kikuchi, 2006), and foraging behavior (Katano, Doi & Oishi, 2009)

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

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