2013
DOI: 10.1007/s00040-013-0313-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Benefits of aggregation in woodlice: a factor in the terrestrialization process?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

1
71
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 57 publications
(72 citation statements)
references
References 173 publications
1
71
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These benefits, such as a reduction of predator danger and ease of finding suitable shelter, could be similar to those proposed for terrestrial isopods (Broly et al. ), but the possibility remains that gregarious behavior serves a different set of adaptive functions in marine isopods compared to terrestrial isopods. Why individuals of C. harfordi seek the company of conspecifics is still unknown.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 57%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…These benefits, such as a reduction of predator danger and ease of finding suitable shelter, could be similar to those proposed for terrestrial isopods (Broly et al. ), but the possibility remains that gregarious behavior serves a different set of adaptive functions in marine isopods compared to terrestrial isopods. Why individuals of C. harfordi seek the company of conspecifics is still unknown.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 57%
“…; Broly et al. ). It has been proposed that a primary reason that terrestrial isopods evolved gregarious and closely aggregative behavior was to reduce evaporative surface area and reduce desiccation (Allee ; Edney , ; Broly et al.…”
mentioning
confidence: 97%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Attraction through chemical cues may constitute an efficient way to promote aggregation in suitable habitats (Pawlik, 1992;Robinson, Larsen, & Kerr, 2011;Silva-Filho, Bailez, & Viana-Bailez, 2012), indirectly increasing the strength of densitydependent regulation mechanisms of founder populations. Positive density-dependent interactions include the mitigation of abiotic stress in crowding intertidal invertebrates (Jurgens & Gaylord, 2016;Minchinton, 1997), caterpillars (Klok & Chown, 1999), and plants (Vogt et al, 2014); enhanced reproduction, such as fruit dispersal in plants (Blendinger, Loiselle, & Blake, 2008) and fertilization in marine invertebrates (Kent, Hawkins, & Doncaster, 2003;Levitan, Sewell, & Chia, 1992) and terrestrial woodlice (Broly, Deneubourg, & Devigne, 2013); and diminishing of predation risk in invertebrates (Denno & Benrey, 1997;Turchin & Kareiva, 1989) and vertebrates (Blumstein & Daniel, 2003;Carrascal, Alonso, & Alonso, 1990). Negative interactions usually lie in some sort of intraspecific competition, which may reach unsustainable levels under conditions of very high-population density (Branch, 1975;Chisholm & Muller-Landau, 2011;Gerla & Mooij, 2014;Hart & Marshall, 2009;Robins & Reid, 1997).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In order to maintain a correct balance of their body fluids, they depend on effective behavioural patterns such as aggregation and avoidance of unsuitable habitats (Warburg, 1968;Broly et al, 2013). Isopods' tolerance to desiccation has been investigated and several degrees of susceptibility to dry conditions were already identified among this group (Warburg, 1968).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%