4.2 Article Proceedings Paper

Aggregation of polyphagous predators in response to multiple prey: ladybirds (Coleoptera : Coccinellidae) foraging in alfalfa

期刊

POPULATION ECOLOGY
卷 49, 期 1, 页码 29-36

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1007/s10144-006-0022-4

关键词

alternative prey; biological control; Coccinella septempunctata; Hippodamia; invasive species; numerical response

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The spatial distribution of polyphagous predators may often reflect the integration of aggregative responses to local densities of multiple species of prey, and as such may have consequences for the indirect linkages among the prey sharing these predators. In a factorial field experiment in which we manipulated local prey densities within a field of alfalfa in Utah (USA), we tested whether aphidophagous ladybirds would aggregate not only in response to their primary aphid prey, but also in response to an abundant alternative prey, the alfalfa weevil (Hypera postica [Gyllenhal]). Native North American ladybirds (primarily Hippodamia convergens Guerin and H. quinquesignata quinquesignata [Kirby]) responded only to spatial variation in aphid density. In contrast, the introduced ladybird, Coccinella septempunctata L., aggregated also at local concentrations of the weevil late in the experiment when weevil density was high and aphid density was relatively low throughout all experimental plots. The results support the hypothesis that C. septempunctata is more responsive than are native ladybirds to the availability of alternative prey in alfalfa, which may account in part for the displacement of native ladybirds from alfalfa by the introduced species as aphid numbers have declined. The differing responses of the native and introduced ladybirds to spatial patterns of the alternative prey underscore the importance of extending the study of predator aggregation to understand better how polyphagous predators distribute themselves in response to spatial patterns of multiple species of potential prey.

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

4.2
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