Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
DOI 10.1007/s10750-014-2154-4
Received: 5 September 2013 / Revised: 25 July 2014 / Accepted: 16 December 2014 / Published online: 15 January 2015
Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015
J. C. Molinero
GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel,
Marine Ecology/Food Webs, Dusternbrooker Weg 20,
24105 Kiel, Germany
Introduction
K.-H. Tsai
Institute of Environmental Health, College of Public
Health, National Taiwan University, Taipei 100, Taiwan,
ROC
C.-C. King
Institute of Epidemiology, National Taiwan University,
Taipei 106, Taiwan, ROC
123
114
123
115
123
116
Results
The M. formosanus predation rate on Aedes mosquito
larvae was 1.6 0.20 larvae ind-1 h-1. The M.
formosanus length and width were 1.16 0.077 and
0.385 0.028 mm, respectively, whereas the mean
length and width of (30-h old) Aedes larvae were
1.72 0.11 and 0.32 0.05 mm, respectively. The
copepods showed a significantly higher attack speed
compared to prey escape movements such as browsing, filtering, and flexing (P \ 0.001). The copepod
attack
speed
and
attack
distance
were
22.80 8.52 mm s-1 and 1.37 0.54 mm, respectively (Table 1).
Aedes aegypti mosquito larval behavior
in the absence of Megacyclops formosanus
The KruskalWallis test results were significant
(KruskalWallis test, v2 (6, N = 101) = 77.38,
P \ 0.0001) for traveled speeds between the prey
and predator movements (Table 1; Fig. 1). The predatory copepod attack speed was significantly higher
than the prey movements (Bonferroni-corrected
P \ 0.0001; Table 1; Fig. 1a), and significant changes
123
117
Number of
observations (n)
Measured values
15
1.16 0.07 mm
15
0.38 0.02 mm
Predation rate
Attack speed
17
Attack distance
17
1.37 0.54 mm
123
118
123
119
Table 2 Principal components extracted by cumulative percent for the mosquito larval behavior in the presence and
absence of M. formosanus
PCs
Eigen value
Proportion
Cumulative
Percent
5.57
0.69
0.69
69.63
0.87
0.10
0.80
80.59
0.64
0.08
0.88
88.59
123
120
0.49
-0.92
-0.68
-0.73
T
B
F
SW
BO
0.92
-0.67
-0.51
-0.88
-0.67
0.56
-0.46
-0.22
-0.55
0.66
-0.90
0.64
0.45
0.88
-0.70
0.58
0.41
0.62
-0.76
-0.62
-0.91
0.46
0.53
S
SW
M
0.32
Discussion
Body size is arguably the most fundamental trait of
an organism as it determines essential processes
including foraging, growth, reproduction, and evolution (Peters, 1983; Brown et al., 2004). In recent
decades, most allometric principles on preypredator
interactions have focused on the size relationship of
the prey with predator. Allometric principles also
influence the range of potential behavioral responses
for a given organism to a specific size of the prey
and predator.
Table 3 Loadings of principal components for mosquito larval behavior with and without M. formosanus
R
PC1
-0.40
-0.30
0.40
0.34
PC2
-0.07
0.53
-0.31
-0.20
SW
BO
-0.41
0.33
0.25
0.40
-0.15
0.20
0.75
-0.63
Loadings stated in bold characters display the important loadings for the principal component analysis (PCs loadings [0.40); where
R, T, B, F, S, SW, M, and BO, respectively, represent resting, thrashing, browsing, filtering, surfacing, side walls, middle, and
bottom
123
121
123
122
101-2611-M-019-011, NSC 102-2611-M-019-003, and NSC
102-2923-B-019-001-MY3 from Ministry of Science and
Technology of Taiwan, ROC. JCM was supported by the NSC
grant 102-2811-B-019-002.
References
Aksnes, D. L., J. Nejstgaard, E. Soedberg & T. Sornes, 2004.
Optimal control of fish on zooplankton populations. Limnology and Oceanography 49: 233238.
Awasthi, A. K., C. H. Wu & J. S. Hwang, 2012a. Diving as an
anti-predator behavior in mosquito pupae. Zoological
Studies 51(8): 12251234.
Awasthi, A. K., C. H. Wu, K. H. Tsai, C. C. King & J. S. Hwang,
2012b. How does the ambush predatory copepod Megacyclops formosanus (Harada 1931) capture mosquito larvae of Aedes aegypti? Zoological Studies 51(7): 927936.
Barnes, C., 2008. Predator and prey body sizes in marine food
webs. Ecology 89: 881.
Barnes, C., D. Maxwell, D. C. Reuman & S. Jennings, 2010.
Global patterns in predatorprey size relationships reveal
size dependency of trophic transfer efficiency. Ecology 91:
222232.
Brackenbury, J. H., 2001. The vortex wake of the free-swimming larva and pupa of Culex pipiens (Diptera). Journal of
Experimental Biology 204: 18551867.
Brooks, J. L. & S. Dodson, 1965. Predation, body size and
composition of plankton. Science 150: 2835.
Brown, J. H., J. F. Gillooly, A. P. Allen, V. M. Savage & G.
B. West, 2004. Toward a metabolic theory of ecology.
Ecology 85: 17711789.
Cooper, W. E., 1998. Conditions favoring anticipatory and
reactive displays deflecting predatory attack. Behavioral
Ecology 9: 598604.
Dhanker, R., R. Kumar & J. S. Hwang, 2012. Predation by
Pseudodiaptomus annandalei (Copepoda: Calanoida) on
rotifer prey: size selection, egg predation and effect of algal
diet. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology
414415: 4453.
Ferrari, M. C. O., F. Messier & D. P. Chivers, 2008. Variable
predation risk and the dynamic nature of mosquito antipredator responses to chemical alarm cues. Chemoecology
17: 223229.
Gilbert, O. M. & E. Buskey, 2005. Turbulence decreases the
hydrodynamic predator sensing ability of the calanoid
copepod Acartia tonsa. Journal of Plankton Research 27:
10671071.
Hammer, ., D. A. T. Harper & P. D. Ryan, 2001. PAST:
paleontological statistics software package for education
and data analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica 4: 9.
Hwang, J. S. & J. R. Strickler, 2001. Can copepods differentiate
prey from predator hydromechanically? Zoological Studies
40: 16.
Hwang, J. S., J. H. Costello & J. R. Strickler, 1994. Copepod
grazing in a turbulent flow: elevated foraging behavior and
habituation of escape responses. Journal of Plankton
Research 16: 421431.
Hwang, J. S., R. Kumar & C. S. Kuo, 2009. Impact of predation
by the cyclopoid copepod (Mesocyclops pehpeiensis) on
123
123
Van Buskirk, J. & S. A. McCollum, 2000. Functional mechanisms of an inducible defence in tadpoles: morphology and
behaviour influence mortality risk from predation. Journal
of Evolutionary Biology 13: 336347.
Walker, E. D. & R. W. Merritt, 1991. Behavior of larval Aedes
triseriatus (Diptera: Culicidae). Journal of Medical Entomology 28: 581599.
Wirtz, K. W., 2012. Who is eating whom? Morphology and
feeding type determine the size relation between planktonic predators and their ideal prey. Marine Ecology Progress Series 445: 112.
Woodward, G. & P. Warren, 2007. Body size and predatory
interactions in freshwaters: scaling from individuals to
communities. In Hildrew, A. G., et al. (eds), Body Size:
The Structure and Function of Aquatic Ecosystems.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 179197.
Wu, C. H., U. W. Dahms, E. J. Buskey, J. R. Strickler & J.
S. Hwang, 2010. Behavioral interactions of the copepod
Temora turbinata with potential ciliate prey. Zoological
Studies 49: 157168.
Ydenberg, R. C. & L. M. Dill, 1986. The economics of fleeing
from predators. Advances in the Study of Behavior 16:
229249.
Yvon-Durocher, G., J. Reiss, J. Blanchard, B. Ebenman, D.
M. Perkins, D. C. Reuman, A. Thierry, G. Woodward & O.
L. Petchey, 2011. Across ecosystem comparisons of size
structure: methods, approaches and prospects. Oikos 120:
550563.
123