Predator detection and avoidance by lotic mayfly nymphs of different size

Tikkanen, Pertii; Muotka, Timo; Huhta, Arto

doi:10.1007/bf00627737

Cited by 53 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Responses to live predators as used in this study may dier to that of predator cues only (e.g. Tikkanen et al 1994Tikkanen et al , 1996. Nevertheless Andersson et al (1986), in a unreplicated experiment conducted in the StampenbaÈ cken stream, found that G. pulex drift Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Effects of a benthivorous and a drift-feeding fish on a benthic stream assemblage

Dahl¹

1998

Oecologia

111

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I assessed the impact of both drift-feeding (Salmo trutta, brown trout) and benthic-feeding (Cottus gobio, bullhead) fish on a benthic assemblage during a 1-month-long field experiment. I used enclosures containing cobble/gravel substrata with 6-mm mesh net that allowed invertebrates to drift freely in and out of enclosures. Four treatments, arranged in a factorial design, were tested: a predator-free control, bullheads only (2.67 bullheads/m, two per enclosure), brown trout only (2.67 brown trout/m, two per enclosure), and bullheads and brown trout together (2.67 fish/m, one of each). Bullheads reduced the densities of seven invertebrate taxa (Gammarus pulex amphipods, Baetis rhodani mayfly nymphs, Leuctra spp. stonefly nymphs, Polycentropus spp. caddis larvae, Pacifastacus leniusculus signal crayfishes, Simuliidae, blackfly larvae, and Limnephilidae, caddis larvae) whereas brown trout only affected one taxon (B. rhodani). The weaker effect of brown trout on benthic prey was probably related to its heavy reliance on terrestrial prey. Dietary analyses showed that more than 80% of prey consumed by brown trout were terrestrial animals, whereas bullhead only consumed benthic prey. Neither bullhead nor brown trout affected the absolute number of immigrating or emigrating invertebrates in enclosures, but bullhead affected the per capita emigration rates of G. pulex. Direct predation by bullhead was more important than avoidance behaviour (drift) in determining densities of six of the seven taxa; only G. pulex densities were equally affected by avoidance behaviour and direct predation. Direct predation by brown trout was also more important in determining densities of B. rhodani. The presence of bullhead raised periphyton biomass, presumably mediated via their consumption of grazers. Brown trout had no effect on periphyton biomass and these results indicate that the presence of alternative prey, in this case terrestrial animals, may have repercussions for fish-benthic macroinvertebrate-periphyton interactions and may potentially explain some of the variable impacts of fish on benthic macroinvertebrates that have been reported in the literature.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Effects of a benthivorous and a drift-feeding fish on a benthic stream assemblage

Dahl¹

1998

Oecologia

111

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bluegills (Lepomis macrochirus) and striped shiners (Luxilus chrysocephalus) are predatory ®sh that forage from the water column and substrates surface. Visual cues are an important component of the foraging behavior of bluegills (Werner and Hall 1974;O'Brien et al 1976;Gerking 1994), and many cyprinids are active during the day, presumably using visual cues to detect prey (Tikkanen et al 1994;Moyle and Cech 1996). Twolined salamanders (Eurycea bislineata) are relatively small benthic predators that prey on a variety of invertebrates, including amphipods (Petranka 1984).…”

Section: Study Animalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Amphipod ( Gammarus minus ) responses to predators and predator impact on amphipod density

Wooster

1998

Oecologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent theoretical work suggests that predator impact on local prey density will be the result of interactions between prey emigration responses to predators and predator consumption of prey. Whether prey increase or decrease their movement rates in response to predators will greatly influence the impact that predators have on prey density. In stream systems the type of predator, benthic versus water-column, is expected to influence whether prey increase or decrease their movement rates. Experiments were conducted to examine the response of amphipods (Gammarus minus) to benthic and water-column predators and to examine the interplay between amphipod response to predators and predator consumption of prey in determining prey density. Amphipods did not respond to nor were they consumed by the benthic predator. Thus, this predator had no impact on amphipod density. In contrast, amphipods did respond to two species of water-column predators (the predatory fish bluegills, Lepomis macrochirus, and striped shiners, Luxilus chrysocephalus) by decreasing their activity rates. This response led to similar positive effects on amphipod density at night by both species of predatory fish. However, striped shiners did not consume many amphipods, suggesting their impact on the whole amphipod "population" was zero. In contrast, bluegills consumed a significant number of amphipods, and thus had a negative impact on the amphipod "population". These results lend support to theoretical work which suggests that prey behavioral responses to predators can mask the true impact that predators have on prey populations when experiments are conducted at small scales.

show abstract

“…Intermediate hosts most often rely on various sensory modalities, such as vision, olfaction, and sound and vibration detection, to locate and avoid predators (Tikkanen et al, 1994;Wudkevich et al, 1997;Abjörnsson et al, 2000;Popper et al, 2001). Modifying more than one sensory modality may then increase the vulnerability of infected intermediate hosts to predation by final hosts.…”

Section: Adaptive Explanations For Multidimensionality In Pipasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multidimensionality in parasite-induced phenotypic alterations: ultimateversusproximate aspects

Cézilly

Favrat

Perrot‐Minnot

2013

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryIn most cases, parasites alter more than one dimension in their host phenotype. Although multidimensionality in parasite-induced phenotypic alterations (PIPAs) seems to be the rule, it has started to be addressed only recently. Here, we critically review some of the problems associated with the definition, quantification and interpretation of multidimensionality in PIPAs. In particular, we confront ultimate and proximate accounts, and evaluate their own limitations. We end up by introducing several suggestions for the development of future research, including some practical guidelines for the quantitative analysis of multidimensionality in PIPAs.

show abstract

Predator detection and avoidance by lotic mayfly nymphs of different size

Cited by 53 publications

References 50 publications

Effects of a benthivorous and a drift-feeding fish on a benthic stream assemblage

Effects of a benthivorous and a drift-feeding fish on a benthic stream assemblage

Amphipod ( Gammarus minus ) responses to predators and predator impact on amphipod density

Multidimensionality in parasite-induced phenotypic alterations: ultimateversusproximate aspects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About