Innate prey preference overridden by familiarisation with detrimental prey in a specialised myrmecophagous predator
Jazyk angličtina Země Německo Médium print-electronic
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, práce podpořená grantem
- MeSH
- chemická stimulace MeSH
- pavouci fyziologie MeSH
- predátorské chování fyziologie MeSH
- preference v jídle fyziologie MeSH
- zvířata MeSH
- Check Tag
- zvířata MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- práce podpořená grantem MeSH
Prey-specialised spiders often do not have brood care and may not deposit eggs in the proximity of the preferred prey. Thus, naïve spiderlings are left to their own to find their focal prey. Our aim was to reveal whether the choice of a specific prey is innate and whether familiarisation with a certain prey will condition prey choice. We used the myrmecophagous spider Euryopis episinoides, which specialises on Messor ants. It finds ants using chemical cues deposited on the substrate. Naïve spiderlings were offered chemical cues from Messor and Myrmica ants and Drosophila flies. They chose significantly more chemical cues from Messor ants than those from Drosophila flies. Then spiderlings were assigned to three prey treatments: fed with Messor ants only (optimal prey), fed with Myrmica ants only (suboptimal prey) or fed with Drosophila flies only (detrimental prey) until adulthood. Every 2 weeks, all spiders from all treatments were offered chemical cues from the three prey types and the frequency of choice and latency to assuming a posture were recorded. Experienced spiderlings preferred chemical cues from the prey in which they were raised. They suffered high mortality on Drosophila flies and attained largest size on the optimal prey. We show here that majority of spiderlings are born with an innate preference to their focal prey, which can be altered by familiarisation with alternative prey, irrespective of whether such a prey is beneficial.
Zobrazit více v PubMed
Science. 2005 Jan 7;307(5706):111-3 PubMed
Annu Rev Entomol. 2001;46:703-27 PubMed
Stat Med. 2004 Mar 30;23(6):859-74; discussion 875-7,879-80 PubMed
Behav Processes. 2002 Jun 28;58(3):177-181 PubMed
Naturwissenschaften. 2008 Mar;95(3):233-9 PubMed
Science. 1966 Jan 7;151(3706):108-9 PubMed
Behaviour. 1971;40(3):282-94 PubMed