Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Habitat complexity and sex-dependent predation of mosquito larvae in containers

  • 209 Accesses

  • 35 Citations

Abstract

Studies in aquatic systems have shown that habitat complexity may provide refuge or reduce the number of encounters prey have with actively searching predators. For ambush predators, habitat complexity may enhance or have no effect on predation rates because it conceals predators, reduces prey detection by predators, or visually impairs both predators and prey. We investigated the effects of habitat complexity and predation by the ambush predators Toxorhynchites rutilus and Corethrella appendiculata on their mosquito prey Aedes albopictus and Ochlerotatus triseriatus in container analogs of treeholes. As in other ambush predator-prey systems, habitat complexity did not alter the effects of T. rutilus or C. appendiculata whose presence decreased prey survivorship, shortened development time, and increased adult size compared to treatments where predators were absent. Faster growth and larger size were due to predator-mediated release from competition among surviving prey. Male and female prey survivorship were similar in the absence of predators, however when predators were present, survivorship of both prey species was skewed in favor of males. We conclude that habitat complexity is relatively unimportant in shaping predator-prey interactions in this treehole community, where predation risk differs between prey sexes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

References

  1. Alto BW, Yanoviak SP, Lounibos LP, Drake BG (2005) Effects of elevated atmospheric C02 on water chemistry and mosquito growth under competitive conditions in container habitats. Florida Entomol (in press)

  2. Bedhomme S, Agnew P, Sidobre C, Michalakis Y (2003) Sex-specific reaction norms to intraspecific larval competition in the mosquito Aedes aegypti. J Evol Biol 16:721–730

  3. Bradshaw WE, Holzapfel CM (1983) Predator-mediated, non-equilibrium coexistence of tree-hole mosquitoes in southeastern North America. Oecologia 57:239–256

  4. Briegel H, Timmermann SE (2001) Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae): physiological aspects of development and reproduction. J Med Entomol 38:566–571

  5. Broadie KS, Bradshaw WE (1991) Mechanisms of interference competition in the western treehole mosquito, Aedes sierrensis. Ecol Entomol 16:145–154

  6. Brust RA (1967) Weight and developmental time of different stadia of mosquitoes reared at various constant temperatures. Can Entomol 99:986–993

  7. Campos RE, Lounibos LP (2000) Natural prey and digestion times of Toxorhynchities rutilus (Diptera: Culicidae) in southern Florida. Ann Entomol Soc Am 93:1280–1287

  8. Case TJ, Gilpin ME (1974) Interference competition and niche theory. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 71:3073–3077

  9. Chambers RC (1985) Competition and predation among larvae of three species of treehole breeding mosquitoes. In: Lounibos LP, Rey JR, Frank JH (eds) Ecology of mosquitoes: proceedings of a workshop. Florida Medical Entomology Laboratory, Vero Beach, FL, pp 25–53

  10. Coen LD, Heck KL, Abele LG (1981) Experiments on competition and predation among shrimps of seagrass meadows. Ecology 62:1484–1493

  11. Coull BC, Wells JBJ (1983) Refuges from fish predation: experiments with phytal meiofauna from the New Zealand rocky intertidal. Ecology 64:1599–1609

  12. Flynn AJ, Ritz DA (1999) Effect of habitat complexity and predatory style on the capture success of fish feeding on aggregated prey. J Mar Biol Ass UK 79:487–494

  13. Greenberg LA, Paszkowski CA, Tonn WM (1995) Effects of prey species composition and habitat structure on foraging by two functionally distinct piscivores. Oikos 74:522–532

  14. Grenouillet G, Pont D, Seip KL (2002) Abundance and species richness as a function of food resources and vegetation structure: juvenile fish assemblages in rivers. Ecography 25:641–650

  15. Grill CP, Juliano SA (1996) Predicting species interactions based on behaviour: predation and competition in container-dwelling mosquitoes. J Anim Ecol 65:63–76

  16. Griswold MW, Lounibos LP (2005a) Does differential predation permit invasive and native mosquito larvae to coexist in Florida? Ecol Entomol 30:122–127

  17. Griswold MW, Lounibos LP (2005b) Predator identity and additive effects in a treehole community. Ecology (submitted)

  18. Griswold MW, Lounibos LP (2005c) Competitive outcomes of aquatic container diptera depend on predation and resource levels. Ann Entomol Soc Am (in press)

  19. Hairston NG, Walton WE Jr, Li KT (1983) The causes and consequences of sex-specific mortality in a freshwater copepod. Limnol Oceanogr 28:935–947

  20. Heck KL, 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. Chapman and Hall, NY, pp 281–299

  21. Heck KL, Orth RJ (1980) Seagrass habitats: the roles of habitat complexity, competition and predation in structuring associated fish and motile macroinvertebrate assemblages. In: Kennedy VS (ed) Estuarine perspectives. Academic Press, NY, pp 449–464

  22. James PL, Heck KL (1994) The effects of habitat complexity and light intensity on ambush predators within a simulated seagrass habitat. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 176:187–200

  23. Juliano SA (1989) Geographic variation in vulnerability to predation and starvation in larval treehole mosquitoes. Oikos 56:99–108

  24. Juliano SA (1998) Species introduction and replacement among mosquitoes: interspecific resource competition or apparent competition? Ecology 79:255–268

  25. Juliano SA, Gravel ME (2002) Predation and the evolution of prey behavior: an experiment with tree hole mosquitoes. Behav Ecol 13:301–311

  26. Juliano SA, Reminger L (1992) The relationship between vulnerability to predation and behavior of larval treehole mosquitoes: geographic and ontogenetic differences. Oikos 63:465–476

  27. Kerfoot WC, Sih A (1987) Predation: direct and indirect impacts on aquatic communities. University Press of New England, Hanover, NH

  28. Kesavaraju B, Juliano SA (2004) Differential behavioral responses to water-borne cues to predation in two container-dwelling mosquitoes. Ann Entomol Soc Am 97:194–201

  29. Kleckner CA, Hawley WA, Bradshaw WE, Holzapfel CM, Fisher IJ (1995) Protandry in Aedes sierrensis: the significance of temporal variation in female fecundity. Ecology 76:1242–1250

  30. Kurzava LM, Morin PJ (1998) Tests of functional equivalence: complementary roles of salamanders and fish in community organization. Ecology 79:477–489

  31. Livdahl TP, Willey MS (1991) Prospects for an invasion: competition between Aedes albopictus and native Aedes triseriatus. Science 253:189–191

  32. Lounibos LP (1983) The mosquito community of treeholes in subtropical Florida. In: Frank JH, Lounibos LP (eds) Phytotelmata: terrestrial plants as hosts for aquatic insect communities. Plexus Publishing Inc., NJ, pp 223–246

  33. Lounibos LP (1985) Interactions influencing production of treehole mosquitoes in south Florida. In: Lounibos LP, Rey JR, Frank JH (eds) Ecology of mosquitoes: proceedings of a workshop. Florida Medical Entomology Laboratory, FL, pp 65–77

  34. Lounibos LP, Frank JH, Machado-Allison CE, Ocanto P, Navarro JC (1987) Survival, development and predatory effects of mosquito larvae in Venezuelan phytotelmata. J Trop Ecol 3:221–242

  35. Lounibos LP, O’Meara GF, Escher RL, Nishimura N, Cutwa M, Nelson T, Campos RE, Juliano SA (2001) Testing predictions of displacement of native Aedes by the invasive Asian Tiger mosquito Aedes albopictus in Florida, USA. Biol Invas 3:151–166

  36. Lounibos LP, Suárez S, Menéndez Z, Nishimura N, Escher RL, O’Connell SM, Rey JR (2002) Does temperature affect the outcome of larval competition between Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus? J Vector Ecol 27:86–95

  37. Maly EJ (1970) The influence of predation on the adult sex ratios of two copepod species. Limnol Oceangr 15:566–573

  38. Manatunge J, Asaeda T, Priyadarshana T (2000) The influence of structural complexity on fish-zooplankton interactions: a study using artificial submerged macrophytes. Env Biol Fish 58:425–438

  39. Manly BFJ (1991a) Randomization and Monte Carlo methods in biology. Chapman& Hall, London

  40. Manly BFJ (1991b) RT: a program for randomization testing, version 1:02. West Inc., WY

  41. Morin PJ (1981) Predatory salamanders reverse the outcome of competition among three species of anuran tadpoles. Science 212:1284–1286

  42. Nannini MA, Juliano SA (1998) Effects of the facultative predator Anopheles barberi on population performance of its prey Aedes triseriatus (Diptera: Culicidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 91:33–42

  43. Novak MG, Higley LG, Christiansen CA, Rowley WA (1993) Evaluating larval competition between Aedes albopictus and A. triseriatus (Diptera) through replacement series experiments. Environ Entomol 22:311–318

  44. Nylin S, Wiklund C, Wickman P-O, Garcia-Barros E (1993) Absence of trade-offs between sexual size dimorphism and early male emergence in a butterfly. Ecology 74:1414–1427

  45. O’Flynn MI, Craig GB Jr (1982) Effect of Toxorhynchites brevipalpis on Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) in continuous-breeding laboratory populations. J Med Entomol 19:380–387

  46. O’Meara GF, Vose FE, Carlson DB (1989) Environmental factors influencing oviposition by Culex (Culex) (Diptera: Culicidae) in two types of traps. J Med Entomol 26:528–534

  47. O’Neal ME, Landis DA, Isaacs R (2002) An inexpensive, accurate method for measuring leaf area and defoliation through digital image analysis. J Econ Entomol 95:1190–1194

  48. Peacor SD, Werner EE (1997) Trait-mediated indirect interactions in a simple aquatic food web. Ecology 78:1146–1156

  49. Persson L, Andersson J, Wahlstrom E, Eklov P (1996) Size-specific interactions in lake systems: predator gape limitation and prey growth rate and mortality. Ecology 77:900–911

  50. Ray-Culp M, Davis M, Stoner AW (1999) Predation by xanthid crabs on early post-settlement gastropods: the role of prey size, prey density, and habitat complexity. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 240:303–321

  51. Relyea RA (2000) Trait-mediated indirect effects in larval anurans: reversing competition with the threat of predation. Ecology 81:2278–2289

  52. Rice WR (1989) Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43:223–225

  53. SAS Institute (1989) SAS/STAT user’s guide, version 6, SAS Institute, Cary, NC

  54. Savino JF, Stein RA (1982) Predator-prey interaction between largemouth bass and bluegills as influenced by simulated, submersed vegetation. Trans Am Fish Soc 111:255–266

  55. Scheiner SM (1993) Multiple response variables and multispecies interactions. In: Scheiner SM, Gurevitch J (eds) Design and analysis of ecological experiments. Chapman& Hall, NY, pp 94–112

  56. Sih A, Crowley P, McPeek M, Petranka J, Strohmeier K (1985) Predation, competition, and prey communities: a review of field experiments. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 16:269–311

  57. Spitzer PM, Mattila J, Heck KL (2000) The effects of vegetation density on the relative growth rates of juvenile pinfish, Lagodon rhomboides (Linneaus), in Big Lagoon, Florida. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 244:67–86

  58. Steffan WA, Evenhuis NL (1981) Biology of Toxorhynchites. Ann Rev Entomol 26:159–181

  59. Steinwascher K (1982) Relationship between pupal mass and adult survivorship and fecundity for Aedes aegypti. Environ Entomol 11:150–153

  60. Suutari E, Rantala MJ, Salmela J, Suhonen J (2004) Intraguild predation and interference competition on the endangered dragonfly Aeschna viridis. Oecologia 140:135–139

  61. Svensson J-E (1997) Chaoborus predation and sex-specific mortality in a copepod. Limnol Oceanogr 42:572–577

  62. Teng HJ, Apperson CS (2000) Development and survival of immature Aedes albopictus and Aedes triseriatus (Diptera: Culicidae) in the laboratory: effects of density, food, and competition in response to temperature. J Med Entomol 37:40–52

  63. Wellborn GA (2002) Trade-off between competitive ability and antipredator adaptation in a freshwater amphipod species complex. Ecology 83:129–136

  64. Werner EE, Anholt BR (1996) Predator-induced behavioral indirect effects: consequences to competitive interactions in anuran larvae. Ecology 77:157–169

  65. Werner EE, Gilliam JF (1984) The ontogenetic niche and species interactions in size-structured populations. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 15:393–425

  66. Wiklund C, Fagerström T (1977) Why do males emerge before females? A hypothesis to explain the incidence of protandry in butterflies. Oecologia 31:153–158

  67. Wilbur HM, Morin PJ, Harris RH (1983) Salamander predation and the structure of experimental communities: anuran responses. Ecology 64:1423–1429

  68. ZijIstra WG, Kesbeke F, Zwaan BJ, Brakefield PM (2002) Protandry in the butterfly Bicyclus anynana. Evol Ecol Res 4:1229–1240

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank H. Lynn for providing us with T. rutilus larvae; R. Escher and N. Nishimura for help in the initial set-up and daily maintenance of the experiments; J. Butler for additional laboratory space; S. Juliano, and S. Yanoviak for useful discussions and ideas leading to habitat complexity manipulation; A. Ellis, G. O’Meara, J. Rey, and S. Yanoviak for helpful comments on the manuscript. All experiments were performed in compliance with the current laws of the USA. This research was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health (R01-AI-44793). This is Florida Agricultural Experiment Station Journal Series R-10851.

Author information

Correspondence to Barry W. Alto.

Additional information

Communicated by Jay Rosenheim

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Alto, B.W., Griswold, M.W. & Lounibos, L.P. Habitat complexity and sex-dependent predation of mosquito larvae in containers. Oecologia 146, 300–310 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-005-0198-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Container mosquitoes
  • Population growth measurements
  • Predator–prey interactions