Mosquito Larvae (Culiseta longiareolata) Prey Upon and Compete with Toad Tadpoles (Bufo viridis)

Blaustein, Leon; Margalit, J.

doi:10.2307/5261

Cited by 68 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Under such conditions, the predator may actually benefit the population by reducing intra-specific and interspecific competition Wilbur, 1997). Bufo viridis tadpoles metamorphose at a smaller size under conditions of strong inter-and intra-specific competition (Blaustein & Margalit, 1994;Blaustein & Margalit, 1996;Stav, 2003). Size at metamorphosis affects future fitness.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Direct and indirect effects of dragonfly (Anax imperator) nymphs on green toad (Bufo viridis) tadpoles

2006

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We conducted an artificial pond experiment to assess the direct and indirect effects of predation on Bufo viridis tadpoles. We ran three treatments: free Anax (unrestrained predatory dragonfly nymph Anax imperator), caged Anax (non-consumptive effects), and control (no Anax). Anax showed both strong consumptive and non-consumptive effects on Bufo tadpoles. Free Anax eliminated all of the tadpoles within six days. Tadpoles preferred the shady side of the ponds. Caged Anax caused tadpoles to increase their spatial preferences. Tadpoles avoided the center of the pond, and in the presence of the caged predator, they were found in the center even less. Tadpoles also showed a strong preference for crowding together, and in the presence of a caged Anax, they tended to crowd more. Moreover, Bufo metamorphosed earlier and at a larger size in the caged Anax ponds, possibly by providing extra food resources due to the extra organic matter excreted by the predators.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Direct and indirect effects of dragonfly (Anax imperator) nymphs on green toad (Bufo viridis) tadpoles

2006

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Connell, 1983;Schoener, 1983;Sih et al, 1985). One common misinterpretation of community organization is to regard two species as either predator or prey or as competitors, but not both (Blaustein and Margalit, 1994). However, many predator species are 'intraguild' predators and they may prey on their competitors when they are, for example, larger than their competitors and have a size advantage (Polis et al, 1989).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interspecific competition and predation between immature Amblyseius fallacis, Amblyseius andersoni, Typhlodromus occidentalis and Typhlodromus pyri (Acari: Phytoseiidae)

Zhang

Croft

1995

Exp Appl Acarol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interspecific competition and predation in immature Amb~seiusfallacis (Garman), Amb~-seius andersoni Chant, Typhlodromus occidentalis (Nesbitt) and Typhlodromus pyri Scheuten were examined in small cages at three egg densities (0, 20 and 80) of two-spotted spider mite, Tetranychus urticae Koch, in the laboratory at 25 + I°C,-80% RH and 16L: 8D photoperiod. For the six possible between-species comparisons, the large polyphagous A. andersoni always outeompeted the other three predator species, which were either smaller and/or less polyphagous; the small oligophagous T. occidentalis was always eliminated by the other three predator species, which were either larger and/or more polyphagous. The small and polyphagous T. pyr/ tied with the large and oligophagous A. fallacis. The outcome of the interaction was generally similar at the three prey densities except in (1) the A. fallacis-A, andersoni system where the advantage of A. andersoni over A. fallacis was reduced when 20 or 80 eggs per cage were present at the start of the interaction and (2) the A. faUacis-T, occidentalis system where the advantage of A. fallacis over T. occidentalis increased with prey density. This study indicates that predator size, predator degree of polyphagy and prey density can affect the competitiveness of immature phytoseiids.

show abstract

“…Salamander larvae are obligate predators and anuran larvae can also be predatory (Schiesari et al 2009). Previous work found that larval mole salamanders Anuran larvae may also reduce mosquito survival through competition for resources (Blaustein and Margalit 1994;Mokany and Shine 2003b). Together, these studies suggest that larval amphibians may be an underappreciated source of mosquito control, but more data are needed.…”

mentioning

confidence: 88%

“…Competitive ability likely scales with size as well. Previous research has found tadpoles can be strong competitors for shared resources (such algae and detritus) with mosquitoes, as well as preyed upon by mosquito larvae at small sizes (Blaustein and Margalit 1994;Mokany and Shine 2003b). Whether tadpoles prey on, are preyed upon, or compete with mosquito larvae depends on the order in which the organisms colonize (Blaustein and Margalit 1996), and the tadpole and mosquito species present.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Larval salamanders are as effective at short-term mosquito predation as mosquitofish

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biological control of mosquitoes can have unintended ecological consequences. One example is the introduction of mosquitofish (Gambusia spp.) into ponds and wetlands.Mosquitofish are invasive in many parts of the world and have the potential to alter ecosystems by changing trophic interactions and extirpating amphibians. We sought to determine whether larval amphibians are capable of consuming larval mosquitoes as effectively as mosquitofish.We tested the predation ability of larval spotted salamanders (Ambystoma maculatum Shaw, 1802; n = 13), southern leopard frog tadpoles (Lithobates sphenocephalus Cope, 1886; n = 12) and mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis Baird and Girard, 1853; n = 13) across a range of body sizes in laboratory experiments. Our results showed that over a 24-h period, salamander larvae (mean ± SE; 238 ± 14) and mosquitofish (195 ± 17) consumed a statistically equivalent number of mosquito larvae, while tadpoles consumed a large number (113 ± 14) but significantly less. All species had significant (or marginally significant) positive relationships between body size and rate of mosquito consumption. Further studies into the ability of native larval amphibians to consume mosquito larvae are needed to assess whether amphibians can be successful at mosquito control instead of introducing nonnative species to new areas. third instar mosquito larvae in 24 h. However, mosquitofish can disrupt food webs through competition for resources and predation (Pyke 2008;Shulse et al. 2013). Introduction of mosquitofish into water bodies that previous lacked them can has been shown to negatively impact amphibian (Shulse and Semlitsch 2014) and fish populations (Blanco et al. 2004). In fact, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) lists mosquitofish among the 100 worst invasive species worldwide (Lowe et al. 2000).Introductions of mosquitofish also may be unnecessary, as amphibians could potentially reduce mosquitoes on their own. Salamander larvae are obligate predators and anuran larvae can also be predatory (Schiesari et al. 2009). Previous work found that larval mole salamanders Anuran larvae may also reduce mosquito survival through competition for resources (Blaustein and Margalit 1994;Mokany and Shine 2003b). Together, these studies suggest that larval amphibians may be an underappreciated source of mosquito control, but more data are needed.Our aim was to compare the predatory ability of tadpoles, larval salamanders, and mosquitofish across the body size gradients found in natural systems. We hypothesized there would be differences in mosquito consumption across our three test species. Salamander larvae are predators that can have strong effects on lower trophic levels in fishless ponds (Morin 1983;Holomuzki et al. 1994), thus we predicted they would have a similar predation ability as fish.The limited information on tadpoles indicates they could be weak predators of mosquito larvae.Specifically, we predicted mosquitofish and salamander larvae would consume equivalent numbe...

show abstract

Mosquito Larvae (Culiseta longiareolata) Prey Upon and Compete with Toad Tadpoles (Bufo viridis)

Cited by 68 publications

References 42 publications

Direct and indirect effects of dragonfly (Anax imperator) nymphs on green toad (Bufo viridis) tadpoles

Direct and indirect effects of dragonfly (Anax imperator) nymphs on green toad (Bufo viridis) tadpoles

Interspecific competition and predation between immature Amblyseius fallacis, Amblyseius andersoni, Typhlodromus occidentalis and Typhlodromus pyri (Acari: Phytoseiidae)

Larval salamanders are as effective at short-term mosquito predation as mosquitofish

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About