Auditory predator cues decrease herbivore survival and plant damage
The high fitness cost of predation selects prey capable of detecting risk cues and responding in ways that reduce their vulnerability. While the impacts of auditory predator cues have been extensively researched in vertebrate prey, much less is known about invertebrate species' responses and th...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Ecology (Durham) 2023-04, Vol.104 (4), p.e4007-n/a |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | n/a |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | e4007 |
container_title | Ecology (Durham) |
container_volume | 104 |
creator | Lee, Zachary A. Cohen, Caroline B. Baranowski, Alex K. Berry, Kristen N. McGuire, Maxwell R. Pelletier, Tyler S. Peck, Brendan P. Blundell, Jacqueline J. Preisser, Evan L. |
description | The high fitness cost of predation selects prey capable of detecting risk cues and responding in ways that reduce their vulnerability. While the impacts of auditory predator cues have been extensively researched in vertebrate prey, much less is known about invertebrate species' responses and their potential to affect the wider food web. We exposed larvae of Spodoptera exigua, a slow‐moving and vulnerable herbivore hunted by aerial predators, to recordings of wasp buzzing (risk cue), mosquito buzzing (no‐risk cue), or a no‐sound control in both laboratory and field settings. In the laboratory, wasp buzzing (but not mosquito buzzing) reduced survival relative to the control; there was, however, no effect on time to or weight at pupation in survivors. In the field, wasp buzzing reduced caterpillar herbivory and increased plant biomass relative to the control treatment. In contrast, mosquito buzzing reduced herbivory less than wasp buzzing and had no effect on plant biomass. The fact that wasp cues evoked strong responses in both experiments, while mosquito buzzing generally did not, indicates that caterpillars were responding to predation risk rather than sound per se. Such auditory cues may have an important but largely unappreciated impacts on terrestrial invertebrate herbivores and their host plants. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/ecy.4007 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2778979252</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2793876815</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2647-fcc7ccc340b2b856782a7158bb5ae18163caed45950128377c4a806f92a2c36a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kEtLw0AURgdRbK2Cv0ACbtykziPzWkqoDyi40YWrYTK50ZSkqTNNJf_eqa0KgrO5szgcDh9C5wRPCcb0GtwwzTCWB2hMNNOpJhIfojHGhKZacDVCJyEscHwkU8doxITCkjA-RvlNX9brzg_JykNp4y9xPYSkBOfBBkjewBf1pvOQhN5v6o1tErssk1Vjl-uktK19hVN0VNkmwNn-TtDz7ewpv0_nj3cP-c08dVRkMq2ck845luGCFooLqaiVhKui4BaIIoI5C2XGNY_ZiknpMquwqDS11DFh2QRd7bwr373HyLVp6-CgiSnQ9cFQKZWWmnIa0cs_6KLr_TLWRUozJYUi_FfofBeCh8qsfN1aPxiCzXZYE4c122EjerEX9kUL5Q_4vWQE0h3wUTcw_Csys_zlS_gJJtKAIQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2793876815</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Auditory predator cues decrease herbivore survival and plant damage</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><creator>Lee, Zachary A. ; Cohen, Caroline B. ; Baranowski, Alex K. ; Berry, Kristen N. ; McGuire, Maxwell R. ; Pelletier, Tyler S. ; Peck, Brendan P. ; Blundell, Jacqueline J. ; Preisser, Evan L.</creator><creatorcontrib>Lee, Zachary A. ; Cohen, Caroline B. ; Baranowski, Alex K. ; Berry, Kristen N. ; McGuire, Maxwell R. ; Pelletier, Tyler S. ; Peck, Brendan P. ; Blundell, Jacqueline J. ; Preisser, Evan L.</creatorcontrib><description>The high fitness cost of predation selects prey capable of detecting risk cues and responding in ways that reduce their vulnerability. While the impacts of auditory predator cues have been extensively researched in vertebrate prey, much less is known about invertebrate species' responses and their potential to affect the wider food web. We exposed larvae of Spodoptera exigua, a slow‐moving and vulnerable herbivore hunted by aerial predators, to recordings of wasp buzzing (risk cue), mosquito buzzing (no‐risk cue), or a no‐sound control in both laboratory and field settings. In the laboratory, wasp buzzing (but not mosquito buzzing) reduced survival relative to the control; there was, however, no effect on time to or weight at pupation in survivors. In the field, wasp buzzing reduced caterpillar herbivory and increased plant biomass relative to the control treatment. In contrast, mosquito buzzing reduced herbivory less than wasp buzzing and had no effect on plant biomass. The fact that wasp cues evoked strong responses in both experiments, while mosquito buzzing generally did not, indicates that caterpillars were responding to predation risk rather than sound per se. Such auditory cues may have an important but largely unappreciated impacts on terrestrial invertebrate herbivores and their host plants.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0012-9658</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1939-9170</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/ecy.4007</identifier><identifier>PMID: 36807135</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Animals ; auditory cue ; Biomass ; Caterpillars ; Cues ; Food Chain ; Food chains ; Food webs ; Hearing ; Herbivores ; Herbivory ; Host plants ; Invertebrates ; Laboratories ; Larva - physiology ; Larvae ; Lepidoptera ; Mosquitoes ; nonconsumptive effects ; Plant biomass ; Plants ; Predation ; Predators ; Predatory Behavior ; Prey ; Pupation ; Risk ; Sound ; Survival ; Vertebrates ; Wasps</subject><ispartof>Ecology (Durham), 2023-04, Vol.104 (4), p.e4007-n/a</ispartof><rights>2023 The Ecological Society of America.</rights><rights>2023 The Ecological Society of America</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2647-fcc7ccc340b2b856782a7158bb5ae18163caed45950128377c4a806f92a2c36a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2647-fcc7ccc340b2b856782a7158bb5ae18163caed45950128377c4a806f92a2c36a3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-8737-5619</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fecy.4007$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fecy.4007$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,1418,27928,27929,45578,45579</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36807135$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lee, Zachary A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cohen, Caroline B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baranowski, Alex K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Berry, Kristen N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McGuire, Maxwell R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pelletier, Tyler S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peck, Brendan P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blundell, Jacqueline J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Preisser, Evan L.</creatorcontrib><title>Auditory predator cues decrease herbivore survival and plant damage</title><title>Ecology (Durham)</title><addtitle>Ecology</addtitle><description>The high fitness cost of predation selects prey capable of detecting risk cues and responding in ways that reduce their vulnerability. While the impacts of auditory predator cues have been extensively researched in vertebrate prey, much less is known about invertebrate species' responses and their potential to affect the wider food web. We exposed larvae of Spodoptera exigua, a slow‐moving and vulnerable herbivore hunted by aerial predators, to recordings of wasp buzzing (risk cue), mosquito buzzing (no‐risk cue), or a no‐sound control in both laboratory and field settings. In the laboratory, wasp buzzing (but not mosquito buzzing) reduced survival relative to the control; there was, however, no effect on time to or weight at pupation in survivors. In the field, wasp buzzing reduced caterpillar herbivory and increased plant biomass relative to the control treatment. In contrast, mosquito buzzing reduced herbivory less than wasp buzzing and had no effect on plant biomass. The fact that wasp cues evoked strong responses in both experiments, while mosquito buzzing generally did not, indicates that caterpillars were responding to predation risk rather than sound per se. Such auditory cues may have an important but largely unappreciated impacts on terrestrial invertebrate herbivores and their host plants.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>auditory cue</subject><subject>Biomass</subject><subject>Caterpillars</subject><subject>Cues</subject><subject>Food Chain</subject><subject>Food chains</subject><subject>Food webs</subject><subject>Hearing</subject><subject>Herbivores</subject><subject>Herbivory</subject><subject>Host plants</subject><subject>Invertebrates</subject><subject>Laboratories</subject><subject>Larva - physiology</subject><subject>Larvae</subject><subject>Lepidoptera</subject><subject>Mosquitoes</subject><subject>nonconsumptive effects</subject><subject>Plant biomass</subject><subject>Plants</subject><subject>Predation</subject><subject>Predators</subject><subject>Predatory Behavior</subject><subject>Prey</subject><subject>Pupation</subject><subject>Risk</subject><subject>Sound</subject><subject>Survival</subject><subject>Vertebrates</subject><subject>Wasps</subject><issn>0012-9658</issn><issn>1939-9170</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kEtLw0AURgdRbK2Cv0ACbtykziPzWkqoDyi40YWrYTK50ZSkqTNNJf_eqa0KgrO5szgcDh9C5wRPCcb0GtwwzTCWB2hMNNOpJhIfojHGhKZacDVCJyEscHwkU8doxITCkjA-RvlNX9brzg_JykNp4y9xPYSkBOfBBkjewBf1pvOQhN5v6o1tErssk1Vjl-uktK19hVN0VNkmwNn-TtDz7ewpv0_nj3cP-c08dVRkMq2ck845luGCFooLqaiVhKui4BaIIoI5C2XGNY_ZiknpMquwqDS11DFh2QRd7bwr373HyLVp6-CgiSnQ9cFQKZWWmnIa0cs_6KLr_TLWRUozJYUi_FfofBeCh8qsfN1aPxiCzXZYE4c122EjerEX9kUL5Q_4vWQE0h3wUTcw_Csys_zlS_gJJtKAIQ</recordid><startdate>202304</startdate><enddate>202304</enddate><creator>Lee, Zachary A.</creator><creator>Cohen, Caroline B.</creator><creator>Baranowski, Alex K.</creator><creator>Berry, Kristen N.</creator><creator>McGuire, Maxwell R.</creator><creator>Pelletier, Tyler S.</creator><creator>Peck, Brendan P.</creator><creator>Blundell, Jacqueline J.</creator><creator>Preisser, Evan L.</creator><general>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</general><general>Ecological Society of America</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8737-5619</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202304</creationdate><title>Auditory predator cues decrease herbivore survival and plant damage</title><author>Lee, Zachary A. ; Cohen, Caroline B. ; Baranowski, Alex K. ; Berry, Kristen N. ; McGuire, Maxwell R. ; Pelletier, Tyler S. ; Peck, Brendan P. ; Blundell, Jacqueline J. ; Preisser, Evan L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2647-fcc7ccc340b2b856782a7158bb5ae18163caed45950128377c4a806f92a2c36a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>auditory cue</topic><topic>Biomass</topic><topic>Caterpillars</topic><topic>Cues</topic><topic>Food Chain</topic><topic>Food chains</topic><topic>Food webs</topic><topic>Hearing</topic><topic>Herbivores</topic><topic>Herbivory</topic><topic>Host plants</topic><topic>Invertebrates</topic><topic>Laboratories</topic><topic>Larva - physiology</topic><topic>Larvae</topic><topic>Lepidoptera</topic><topic>Mosquitoes</topic><topic>nonconsumptive effects</topic><topic>Plant biomass</topic><topic>Plants</topic><topic>Predation</topic><topic>Predators</topic><topic>Predatory Behavior</topic><topic>Prey</topic><topic>Pupation</topic><topic>Risk</topic><topic>Sound</topic><topic>Survival</topic><topic>Vertebrates</topic><topic>Wasps</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lee, Zachary A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cohen, Caroline B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baranowski, Alex K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Berry, Kristen N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McGuire, Maxwell R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pelletier, Tyler S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peck, Brendan P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blundell, Jacqueline J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Preisser, Evan L.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Ecology (Durham)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lee, Zachary A.</au><au>Cohen, Caroline B.</au><au>Baranowski, Alex K.</au><au>Berry, Kristen N.</au><au>McGuire, Maxwell R.</au><au>Pelletier, Tyler S.</au><au>Peck, Brendan P.</au><au>Blundell, Jacqueline J.</au><au>Preisser, Evan L.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Auditory predator cues decrease herbivore survival and plant damage</atitle><jtitle>Ecology (Durham)</jtitle><addtitle>Ecology</addtitle><date>2023-04</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>104</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>e4007</spage><epage>n/a</epage><pages>e4007-n/a</pages><issn>0012-9658</issn><eissn>1939-9170</eissn><abstract>The high fitness cost of predation selects prey capable of detecting risk cues and responding in ways that reduce their vulnerability. While the impacts of auditory predator cues have been extensively researched in vertebrate prey, much less is known about invertebrate species' responses and their potential to affect the wider food web. We exposed larvae of Spodoptera exigua, a slow‐moving and vulnerable herbivore hunted by aerial predators, to recordings of wasp buzzing (risk cue), mosquito buzzing (no‐risk cue), or a no‐sound control in both laboratory and field settings. In the laboratory, wasp buzzing (but not mosquito buzzing) reduced survival relative to the control; there was, however, no effect on time to or weight at pupation in survivors. In the field, wasp buzzing reduced caterpillar herbivory and increased plant biomass relative to the control treatment. In contrast, mosquito buzzing reduced herbivory less than wasp buzzing and had no effect on plant biomass. The fact that wasp cues evoked strong responses in both experiments, while mosquito buzzing generally did not, indicates that caterpillars were responding to predation risk rather than sound per se. Such auditory cues may have an important but largely unappreciated impacts on terrestrial invertebrate herbivores and their host plants.</abstract><cop>Hoboken, USA</cop><pub>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</pub><pmid>36807135</pmid><doi>10.1002/ecy.4007</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8737-5619</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0012-9658 |
ispartof | Ecology (Durham), 2023-04, Vol.104 (4), p.e4007-n/a |
issn | 0012-9658 1939-9170 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2778979252 |
source | MEDLINE; Access via Wiley Online Library |
subjects | Animals auditory cue Biomass Caterpillars Cues Food Chain Food chains Food webs Hearing Herbivores Herbivory Host plants Invertebrates Laboratories Larva - physiology Larvae Lepidoptera Mosquitoes nonconsumptive effects Plant biomass Plants Predation Predators Predatory Behavior Prey Pupation Risk Sound Survival Vertebrates Wasps |
title | Auditory predator cues decrease herbivore survival and plant damage |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-17T09%3A42%3A54IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Auditory%20predator%20cues%20decrease%20herbivore%20survival%20and%20plant%20damage&rft.jtitle=Ecology%20(Durham)&rft.au=Lee,%20Zachary%20A.&rft.date=2023-04&rft.volume=104&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=e4007&rft.epage=n/a&rft.pages=e4007-n/a&rft.issn=0012-9658&rft.eissn=1939-9170&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/ecy.4007&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2793876815%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2793876815&rft_id=info:pmid/36807135&rfr_iscdi=true |