4.6 Article

Species-Specific Non-Physical Interference Competition among Mosquito Larvae

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0088650

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Individuals of different sex, size or developmental stage can compete differently and hence contribute distinctively to population dynamics. In species with complex life cycles such as insects, competitive ability is often positively correlated with larval developmental stage. Yet, little is known on how the development and survival of early-instars is influenced by interference from late-instar larvae, especially at low densities when exploitative competition is expected to be negligible. Furthermore, the specificity and mechanisms by which interference competition operates are largely unknown. We performed two complementary experiments aiming to quantify the competitive effects of late instar Ochlerotatus caspius on early instar larvae at low densities and under high resource supply rate. The first experiment examined the net effect of interference by 4th on 1st instar O. caspius larvae, relative to the effect of 1st instars on themselves. The second experiment examined the effect of species-specific, non-physical interference competition (i.e., cage larvae) by 4th on 1st instar O. caspius larvae at low or high densities. Specifically, we compared the responses of O. caspius larvae raised in the presence of caged con-or hetero-specific, Culiseta longiareolata, with that of larvae in the empty-cage control group. As expected, interference from late instar larvae had a net negative effect on the development rate of first instars. In contrast, the presence of caged con-specifics (non-physical interference) accelerated the development rate of O. caspius, however, this pattern was only evident at the low density. Notably, no such pattern was detected in the presence of caged hetero-specifics. These results strongly suggest the existence of species-specific growth regulating semiochemicals.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据