A1 Vertaisarvioitu alkuperäisartikkeli tieteellisessä lehdessä
Predation risk estimated on live and artificial insect prey follows different patterns
Tekijät: Zvereva Elena L., Kozlov Mikhail V.
Kustantaja: WILEY
Julkaisuvuosi: 2023
Journal: Ecology
Tietokannassa oleva lehden nimi: ECOLOGY
Lehden akronyymi: ECOLOGY
Artikkelin numero: e3943
Sivujen määrä: 13
ISSN: 0012-9658
eISSN: 1939-9170
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.3943
Verkko-osoite: https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ecy.3943
Rinnakkaistallenteen osoite: https://research.utu.fi/converis/portal/detail/Publication/178577487
Models mimicking prey organisms are increasingly used in ecological studies, including testing fundamental ecological and evolutionary theories. The general consensus is that predation risk estimated on artificial models may not quantitatively correspond to predation pressure on live prey, but it still can be used in various comparisons. We tested whether the use of live and artificial prey reveals the same patterns of variation in predation risk. We exposed live prey (blowfly larvae and puparia) and plasticine models of blowfly puparia in two boreal forest sites, both openly and in ant- and bird-exclusion treatments, and we quantified attacks by both avian and invertebrate predators. Bird attack rates were always higher on live puparia than on their plasticine models, but the magnitude of this difference declined from 8.4-fold in early summer to 2-fold in mid- and late-summer. We attribute these changes to different responses to prey by experienced adult birds that dominate the bird communities in early summer versus explorative juvenile birds that are abundant later in the season. Invertebrate daily predation rates on maggots decreased from 56% in early summer to 28% in late summer, but invertebrate attacks on plasticine models showed no seasonal changes. Overall, invertebrate predation on maggots was 67-fold greater than their predation on models. Observations showed that wood ants did not attack plasticine models and did not leave on them any damage marks. Estimates based on artificial prey indicate a much greater role of bird predation than invertebrate predation, while estimates based on live prey suggest the opposite pattern. Thus, using live and artificial prey may lead to different conclusions about relative importance of different predator groups in a locality. Moreover, for both avian and invertebrate predators, predation risk based on artificial and live prey shows different seasonal changes and may potentially demonstrate different spatial patterns.
Ladattava julkaisu This is an electronic reprint of the original article. |  |
