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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Ecology (Durham) 2023-04, Vol.104 (4), p.e4007-n/a
Hauptverfasser: 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.
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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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