Advertisement

Colony size, habitat structure, and prey size shape the predation ecology of a social pseudoscorpion from a tropical savanna

  • Renan Fernandes Moura
  • Everton Tizo-Pedroso
  • Kleber Del-Claro
Original Article

Abstract

Predation strategies are driven by habitat structure, prey’s nutritional value, and/or by predator characteristics such as developmental stage. Here, we evaluated the feeding habits of the social pseudoscorpion Paratemnoides nidificator in two areas of a Brazilian Cerrado savanna. These pseudoscorpions live under tree bark trunks of varying sizes; habitat structure could interfere with pseudoscorpion ambushing behavior and prey accessibility. We therefore assessed the hypotheses that (i) small and large colonies of P. nidificator will capture prey of distinct amounts and sizes; (ii) habitat structure will limit the captured prey size; (iii) there will be an age-dependent prey choice in P. nidificator. We evaluated the prey items, colony composition, and habitat structure of pseudoscorpions and determined whether P. nidificator presents age-dependent feeding preferences by offering prey items of different sizes. Colonies with more individuals captured more prey items and those prey presented a wider size variety. P. nidificator can capture a high variety of prey sizes by using openings in tree bark as a trap; however, only tree barks of intermediate size amplitude may be used for trapping most prey. Nymphs showed no preference for prey size, while adults mainly fed on larger ants. Tree bark may play a role as a phenotype extension by easing the process of large prey capture, which is considered a crucial factor for social species. Small prey might be a complementary food resource for nymphs, reducing intraspecific competition and their exposure to larger, dangerous prey.

Significance statement

Habitat structure and prey’s traits such as size affect the predation strategies of several animals. How these features interfere in the feeding habits and prey accessibility of social arachnids is a matter of question. We showed that habitat structure and colony size drive the prey size preference of a social pseudoscorpion. Paratemnoides nidificator lives under tree trunk barks that vary in size, depth, and shape. The tree bark openings may play a crucial role by easing the capture process of different prey sizes, including large prey, which is considered a crucial factor for social species. According to the prey size hypothesis, social species require, collectively, higher amounts of food energy. Thus, we propose that the bark openings are related to the evolution of P. nidificator’s social behavior as they potentially allow the capture of larger and more nutritious prey.

Keywords

Extended phenotype Foraging Habitat heterogeneity Predator choice Prey capture Social behavior 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Eduardo Novaes Ramires, Vanessa Stefani, Egon Vilela, and three anonymous reviewers for corrections and suggestions in this manuscript.

Funding information

RFM thanks CAPES for a master fellowship. KDC thanks CNPq and FAPEMIG for research grants.

Supplementary material

265_2018_2518_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (15 kb)
ESM 1 (XLSX 15 kb)

References

  1. Alonso H, Almeida A, Granadeiro JP, Catry P (2015) Temporal and age-related dietary variations in a large population of yellow-legged gulls Larus michahellis: implications for management and conservation. Eur J Wildl Res 61:819–829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Avilés L, Agnarsson I, Salazar PA, Purcell J, Iturralde G, Yip EC, Powers KS, Bukowski TC (2007) Altitudinal patterns of spider sociality and the biology of a new midelevation social Anelosimus species in Ecuador. Am Nat 170:783–792CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Babbitt KJ, Tanner GW (1998) Effects of cover and predator size on survival and development of Ranautricularia tadpoles. Oecologia 114:258–262CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnard CJ (2004) Animal behavior: mechanism, development, function, and evolution. Pearson Education, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  5. Belleggia M, Figueroa DE, Irusta G, Bremec C (2014) Spatio-temporal and ontogenetic changes in the diet of the Argentine hake Merluccius hubbsi. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 94:1701–1171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boggs CL (2009) Understanding insect life histories and senescence through a resource allocation lens. Funct Ecol 23:27–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brechbühl R, Casas J, Bacher S (2011) Diet choice of a predator in the wild: overabundance of prey and missed opportunities along the prey capture sequence. Ecosphere 2:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Byk J, Del-Claro K (2011) Ant-plant interaction in the Neotropical savanna: direct beneficial effects of extrafloral nectar on ant colony fitness. Popul Ecol 53:327–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chase JM, Abrams PA, Grover JP, Diehl S, Chesson P, Holt RD, Richards SA, Nisbet RM, Case TJ (2002) The interaction between predation and competition: a review and synthesis. Ecol Lett 5:302–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen X, Jiang Y (2006) Diet of Chinese skink, Eumeces chinensis: is prey size important? Integr Zool 1:59–66CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Conway DVP, Coombs SH, Lindley JA, Llewellyn CA (1999) Diet of mackerel (Scomber scombrus) larvae at the shelf-edge to the south-west of the British Isles and the incidence of piscivory and coprophagy. Vie Milieu 49:213–220Google Scholar
  12. Del-Claro K & Tizo-Pedroso E (2009) Ecological and evolutionary pathways of social behavior in Pseudoscorpions (Arachnida: Pseudoscorpiones). Acta Ethologica, 12:13–22Google Scholar
  13. Dietl GP (2003) Coevolution of a marine gastropod predator and its dangerous bivalve prey. Biol J Linn Soc 80:409–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dugatkin LA (2014) Principles of animal behavior. W. W. Norton & Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Ebert D (1998) Behavioral asymmetry in relation to body weight and hunger in the tropical social spider Anelosimus eximius (Araneae, Theridiidae). J Arachnol 26:70–80Google Scholar
  16. Field IC, Bradshaw CJA, van den Hoff J, Burton HR, Hindell MA (2007) Age-related shifts in the diet composition of southern elephant seals expand overall foraging niche. Mar Biol 150:1441–1452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Folsom TC, Collins NC (1984) The diet and foraging behavior of the larval dragonfly Anax junius (Aeshnidae), with an assessment of the role of refuges and prey activity. Oikos 42:105–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Forbes LS (1989) Prey defences and predator handling behaviour: the dangerous prey hypothesis. Oikos 55:155–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fossette S, Gleiss AC, Casey JP, Lewis AR, Hays GC (2011) Does prey size matter? Novel observations of feeding in the leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) allow a test of predator-prey size relationships. Biol Lett rsbl20110965Google Scholar
  20. Gese EM, Ruff RL, Crabtree RL (1996) Intrinsic and extrinsic factors influencing coyote predation of small mammals in Yellowstone National Park. Can J Zool 74:784–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gonzaga MDO, Vasconcellos-Neto J (2002) Influence of collective feeding on weight gain and size variability of Anelosimus jabaquara Levi 1956 (Araneae: Theridiidae). Behaviour 139:1431–1442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. González-Bernal E, Brown GP, Cabrera-Guzmán E, Shine R (2011) Foraging tactics of an ambush predator: the effects of substrate attributes on prey availability and predator feeding success. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:1367–1375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Greene CH (1986) Patterns of prey selection: implications of predator foraging tactics. Am Nat 128:824–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Griffiths D (1980) Foraging costs and relative prey size. Am Nat 116:743–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hamilton IM, Barclay RMR (1998) Diets of juvenile, yearling, and adult big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus) in southeastern Alberta. J Mammal 79:764–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harper DG, Blake RW (1988) Energetics of piscivorous predator-prey interactions. J Theor Biol 134:59–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Heck K Jr, Crowder LB (1991) Habitat structure and predator: prey interactions in vegetated aquatic systems. In: Bell SS, McCoy ED, Mushinsky HR (eds) Habitat structure: the physical arrangement of objects in space. Springer, London, pp 281–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Higgins LE, Buskirk RE (1992) A trap-building predator exhibits different tactics for different aspects of foraging behaviour. Anim Behav 44:485–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Houston AI, McNamara JM (1999) Models of adaptive behaviour: an approach based on state. Cambridge University Press, UKGoogle Scholar
  30. Judson ML (2016) Pseudoscorpions (Arachnida, Chelonethi) in Mexican amber, with a list of extant species associated with mangrove and Hymenaea trees in Chiapas. Bol Soc Geol Mex 68:57–79Google Scholar
  31. Kamil AC, Krebs JR, Pulliam HR (1987) Foraging behavior. Plenum Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kovalenko KE, Thomaz SM, Warfe DM (2012) Habitat complexity: approaches and future directions. Hydrobiologia 685:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Krebs JR, Davies NB (1993) An introduction to behavioural ecology. Blackwell Scientific Publications, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  34. Křivan V (1996) Optimal foraging and predator-prey dynamics. Theor Popul Biol 49:265–290CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Manatunge J, Asaeda T, Priyadarshana T (2000) The influence of structural complexity on fish-zooplankton interactions: a study using artificial submerged macrophytes. Environ Biol Fish 58:425–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McCoy ED, Bell SS (1991) Habitat structure: the evolution and diversification of a complex topic. In: Bell SS, McCoy ED, Mushinsky HR (eds) Habitat structure: the physical arrangement of objects in space. Springer, London, pp 3–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nelson WG, Bonsdorff E (1990) Fish predation and habitat complexity: are complexity thresholds real? J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 141:183–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. O’Brien WJ, Browman HI, Evans BI (1990) Search strategies of foraging animals. Am Sci 78:152–160Google Scholar
  39. Powers KS, Avilés L (2007) The role of prey size and abundance in the geographical distribution of spider sociality. J Anim Ecol 76:995–1003CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Purcell J (2011) Geographic patterns in the distribution of social systems in terrestrial arthropods. Biol Rev 86:475–491CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Rovero F, Hughes RN, Chelazzi G (2000) When time is of the essence: choosing a currency for prey-handling costs. J Anim Ecol 69:683–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rutten AL, Oosterbeek K, Ens BJ, Verhulst S (2006) Optimal foraging on perilous prey: risk of bill damage reduces optimal prey size in oystercatchers. Behav Ecol 17:297–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Scharf I, Lubin Y, Ovadia O (2011) Foraging decisions and behavioural flexibility in trap-building predators: a review. Biol Rev 86:626–639CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Shochat E, Stefanov WL, Whitehouse MEA, Faeth SH (2004) Urbanization and spider diversity: influences of human modification of habitat structure and productivity. Ecol Appl 14:268–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stephens DW (2008) Decision ecology: foraging and the ecology of animal decision making. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci 8:475–484CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Stephens DW, Krebs JR (1986) Foraging theory. Princeton University Press, UKGoogle Scholar
  47. Tizo-Pedroso E, Del-Claro K (2005) Matriphagy in the neotropical pseudoscorpion Paratemnoides nidificator (Balzan 1888) (Atemnidae). J Arachnol 33:873–877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tizo-Pedroso E, Del-Claro K (2007) Cooperation in the neotropical pseudoscorpion, Paratemnoides nidificator (Balzan, 1888): feeding and dispersal behavior. Insect Soc 54:124–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tizo-Pedroso E, Del-Claro K (2011) Is there division of labor in cooperative pseudoscorpions? An analysis of the behavioral repertoire of a tropical species. Ethology 117:498–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tizo-Pedroso E, Del-Claro K (2014) Social parasitism: emergence of the cuckoo strategy between pseudoscorpions. Behav Ecol 25:335–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tizo-Pedroso E, Del-Claro K (2018) Capture of large prey and feeding priority in the cooperative pseudoscorpion Paratemnoides nidificator. Acta Ethol 21:109–117.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10211-018-0288-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Velasque M, Del-Claro K (2016) Host plant phenology may determine the abundance of an ecosystem engineering herbivore in a tropical savanna. Ecol Entomol 41:421–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vilela AA, Torezan-Silingardi HM, Del-Claro K (2014) Conditional outcomes in ant-plant-herbivore interactions influenced by sequential flowering. Flora 209:359–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Vincent TLS, Scheel D, Brown JS, Vincent TL (1996) Trade-offs and coexistence in consumer-resource models: it all depends on what and where you eat. Am Nat 148:1038–1058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ward A, Webster M (2016) Social foraging and predator-prey interactions. In: Ward A, Webster M (eds) Sociality: the behaviour of group-living animals, 1st edn. Springer, Switzerland, pp 1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Winemiller KO (1989) Ontogenetic diet shifts and resource partitioning among piscivorous fishes in the Venezuelan ilanos. Environ Biol Fish 26:177–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Yip EC, Powers KS, Avilés L (2008) Cooperative capture of large prey solves scaling challenge faced by spider societies. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105:11818–11822CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia e Conservação de Recursos NaturaisUniversidade Federal de UberlândiaUmuaramaBrazil
  2. 2.Laboratório de Ecologia Comportamental de AracnídeosUniversidade Estadual de GoiásMorrinhosBrazil
  3. 3.Laboratório de Ecologia Comportamental e de InteraçõesUniversidade Federal de UberlândiaUmuaramaBrazil

Personalised recommendations