Refine
Document Type
- Article (3)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3) (remove)
Keywords
- cannibalism (3) (remove)
The regular or obligate aphytophagy of certain lycaenid butterflies (Lepidoptera) is discussed within the framework of the most recent general classification of the family. A summary survey of all Lycaenidae known to be aphytophagous is presented, together with a brief account of cannibalism and other opportunistic aphytophagy exhibited by normally phytophagous butterflies. The range of food sources (plants, animals, excretions and regurgitations) exploited by lycaenids is reviewed with emphasis falling on the ecology of myrmecophilous early stages and the significance of their ant-related adaptations. Adult feeding and oviposition behaviour reveal further associations with ants. Specificity oflycaenid/ant relationships and the possible biological effects ofaphytophagy on the Lycaenidae are discussed. Finally, speculations concerning the evolution of aphytophagy by these bulterflies are critically presented.
Spiders are powerful predators, but the threats confronting them are numerous. A survey is presented of the many different arthropods which waylay spiders in various ways. Some food-specialists among spiders feed exclusively on spiders. Kleptoparasites are found among spiders as well as among Mecoptera, Diptera, Lepidoptera, and Heteroptera. Predators are found within spiders’ own population (cannibalism), among other spider species (araneophagy), and among different species of Heteroptera, Odonata, and Hymenoptera. Parasitoids are found in the orders Hymenoptera and Diptera. The largest insect order, Coleoptera, comprises a few species among the Carabidae which feed on spiders, but beetles are not represented among the kleptoparasites or parasitoids.
Spiders leave draglines, faeces and other secretions behind when traveling through their microhabitat. The presence of these secretions may unintentionally inform other animals, prey as well as predators, about a recent and possible current predation risk or food availability. For a wolf spider, other spiders including smaller conspecifics, form a substantial part of their prey, and larger wolf spiders, again including conspecifics, are potential predators. We tested two hypotheses: that large wolf spiders may locate patches of potential spider prey through the presence of silk threads and/or other secretions; and that prey spiders may use secretions from large wolf spiders to avoid patches with high predation risk. We used large (subadult or adult) Pardosa saltans to provide predator cues and mixed dwarf spiders or small (juvenile) P. saltans to provide prey cues. Subadult wolf spiders were significantly attracted to litter contaminated by dwarf spiders or small conspecifics after 6 hours but no longer after 24 hours. In contrast, neither dwarf spiders nor small P. saltans showed significant avoidance of substrate contaminated by adult P. saltans. However, small P. saltans showed different activity patterns on the two substrates. The results indicate that wolf spiders are able to increase the efficiency of foraging by searching preferentially in patches with the presence of intraguild prey. The lack of a clear patch selection response of the prey in spite of a modified activity pattern may possibly be associated with the vertical stratification of the beech litter habitat: the reduced volume of spaces in the deeper layers could make downward rather than horizontal movement a fast and safe tactic against a large predator that cannot enter these spaces.