Advertisement

Prey-predator interactions between two intraguild predators modulate their behavioral decisions

  • Welton Dionisio-da-SilvaEmail author
  • André Felipe de Araujo Lira
  • Cleide Maria Ribeiro de Albuquerque
Original Paper
  • 27 Downloads

Abstract

Intraguild predators can have behavioral mechanisms to maximize foraging and/or avoid predation. However, there is a lack of information about the influence of such prey-predator interactions on the daily activity of the species involved. Therefore, we investigated the daily activity of two intraguild predators, Tityus pusillus Pocock, 1893 and Ananteris mauryi Lourenço, 1982, in the presence and absence of each other. Animals were observed in three experimental conditions, containing individuals of T. pusillus (control 1), A. mauryi (control 2), and both species (treatment). In addition, we evaluated the correlation between the number of active individuals with air temperature and humidity. Our results showed that T. pusillus and A. mauryi have similar daily activity between 18:00 and 05:00 h. However, T. pusillus was more active and shifted from a sit-and-wait hunting mode to actively hunting when in the presence of A. mauryi. In contrast, under predation risk, A. mauryi did not change its level of activity but became more vigilant by reducing the frequency of rest, hydration, and mating attempts. Activity of A. mauryi was positively correlated with air humidity whereas activity of T. pusillus was negatively correlated. This work highlights the influence of intraguild predators in the behavioral decisions during daily activities of each other, indicating adaptive behaviors in both prey and predator.

Keywords

Adaptive behavior Adaptive foraging Antipredator behavior Daily activity Intraguild predation Scorpions 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are also very grateful to the military command of the CIMNC for permission to use the area for our study and to Divisão de Transportes da Universidade Federal de Pernambuco for all technical support.

Funding information

This work was supported by the Fundação de Amparo à Ciência e Tecnologia de Pernambuco (FACEPE) (grant number: APQ-0.437-2.04/15) and the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) for a financial support to CMR Albuquerque (grant number: 307759/2015-6). We are grateful to Fundação de Apoio à Pesquisa do Estado da Paraíba (FAPESQ) for granting a doctoral scholarship to W. Dionisio-da-Silva (grant number: 519/18) and to Fundação de Amparo à Ciência e Tecnologia do Estado de Pernambuco (FACEPE) for postdoctoral scholarship (BFP-0010-2.05/19) to A.F.A. Lira.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article did not contain any studies with human participants and also did not involve endangered or protected species. It was approved by Sistema de Autorização e Informação em Biodiversidade/Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade (SISBIO/ICMBIO no. 36336-1) and complied with Brazilian law. All procedures of this work were determined to assure the animals’ welfare. Animal collection and handling was conducted with the use of tweezers without harming the animals. The experiments were conducted with only healthy animals. Water supply and shelters were made available for the animals during the experimental trials, and food was also made available during their rearing. Application of non-toxic paint markings on the individuals during the experiments is a minimally invasive technique. The animals were returned to the wild after the study.

Informed consent

This article did not contain any studies with human participants.

References

  1. Abushama FT (1964) On the behaviour and sensory physiology of the scorpion Leiurus quinquestriatus (H. & E.). Anim Behav 12(1):140–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altmann J (1974) Observational study of behavior: sampling methods. Behaviour 49(3):227–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Belgrad BA, Griffen BD (2016) Predator–prey interactions mediated by prey personality and predator hunting mode. Proc R Soc B 283:20160408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Binz H, Kraft EF, Entling MH, Menzel F (2016) Behavioral response of a generalist predator to chemotactile cues of two taxonomically distinct prey species. Chemoecology 26(4):153–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown CA, O’Connell DJ (2000) Plant climbing behavior in the scorpion Centruroides vittatus. Am Midl Nat 144(2):406–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brownell PH, Farley RD (1979) Prey localization behaviour of the nocturnal scorpion, Paruroctonus mesaensis: orientation to substrate vibrations. Anim Behav 27:185–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carlson BE, Rowe MP (2009) Temperature and desiccation effects on the antipredator behavior of Centruroides vittatus (Scorpiones: Buthidae). J Arachnol 37(3):321–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cloudsley-Thompson JL (1962) Microclimates and the distribution of terrestrial arthropods. Annu Rev Entomol 7(1):199–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dievel M, Janssens L, Stoks R (2016) Short-and long-term behavioural, physiological and stoichiometric responses to predation risk indicate chronic stress and compensatory mechanisms. Oecologia 181(2):347–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dionisio-da-Silva W, Lira AFA, Albuquerque CMR (2018) Distinct edge effects and reproductive periods of sympatric litter-dwelling scorpions (Arachnida: Scorpiones) in a Brazilian Atlantic forest. Zoology 129:17–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fausch KD, Nakano S, Kitano S (1997) Experimentally induced foraging mode shift by sympatric charrs in a Japanese mountain stream. Behav Ecol 8(4):414–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fulton CJ, Bellwood DR (2002) Patterns of foraging in labrid fishes. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 226:135–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gavrilov I, Pusev R (2014) normtest: tests for normality. R package version 1.1. Available from: <https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=normtest>. Accessed 01 Feb 2019
  14. Hadley NF (1974) Adaptational biology of desert scorpions. J Arachnol 2(1):11–23Google Scholar
  15. Harrell Jr. FE (2019) Hmisc: Harrell Miscellaneous. R package version 4.2-0. Available from: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=Hmisc. Accessed: 02 April 2019
  16. Hettyey A, Tóth Z, Thonhauser KE, Frommen JG, Penn DJ, Van Buskirk J (2015) The relative importance of prey-borne and predator-borne chemical cues for inducible antipredator responses in tadpoles. Oecologia 179(3):699–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hjelle TJ (1990) Anatomy and morphology. In: Polis GA (ed) The biology of scorpions, pp. 5-30Google Scholar
  18. Holt RD, Polis GA (1997) A theoretical framework for intraguild predation. Am Nat 149(4):745–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Huey RB, Pianka ER (1981) Ecological consequences of foraging mode. Ecology 62(4):991–999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kalinkat G, Brose U, Rall BC (2013) Habitat structure alters top-down control in litter communities. Oecologia 172(3):877–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kondoh M (2003) Foraging adaptation and the relationship between food-web complexity and stability. Science 299(5611):1388–1391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kondoh M (2007) Anti-predator defence and the complexity–stability relationship of food webs. P Roy Soc Lond B Bio 274(1618):1617–1624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kondoh M (2008) Building trophic modules into a persistent food web. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105(43):16631–16635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lira AFA, DeSouza AM, Silva Filho AAC, Albuquerque CMR (2013) Spatio-temporal microhabitat use by two co-occurring species of scorpions in Atlantic rainforest in Brazil. Zoology 116(3):182–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lira AFA, DeSouza AM, Albuquerque CMR (2017a) Report of intraguild predation and cannibalism in scorpions (Scorpiones: Buthidae) in the Brazilian Atlantic forest. North-West J Zool e167302Google Scholar
  26. Lira AFA, Pordeus LM, Albuquerque CMR (2017b) A new species of Ananteris (Scorpiones: Buthidae) from Caatinga biome, Brazil. Acta Arachnol 66(1):9–15Google Scholar
  27. Lira AFA, DeSouza AM, Albuquerque CMR (2018) Environmental variation and seasonal changes as determinants of the spatial distribution of scorpion (Arachnida: Scorpiones) in Neotropical forests. Can J Zool 96(9):963–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lourenço WR (2002) Scorpions of Brazil. Les editions de l’If, ParisGoogle Scholar
  29. Lourenço WR (2012) Humiculous scorpions: on the genera Ananteris Thorell, 1891 and Microananteris Lourenço, 2004 (Scorpiones: Buthidae), with the description of a new species from French Guiana. C R Biol 335(8):555–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lourenço WR (2015) Comments on the Ananterinae Pocock, 1900 (Scorpiones: Buthidae) and description of a new remarkable species of Ananteris from Peru. C R Biol 338(2):134–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Machan L (1968) Spectral sensitivity of scorpion eyes and the possible role of shielding pigment effect. J Exp Biol 49(1):95–105Google Scholar
  32. Mattoni CI, García-Hernández S, Botero-Trujillo R, Ochoa JA, Ojanguren-Affilastro AA, Pinto-da-Rocha R, Prendini L (2015) Scorpion sheds ‘tail’ to escape: consequences and implications of autotomy in scorpions (Buthidae: Ananteris). PLoS One 10(1):e0116639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Miller AL, Formanowicz DR (2011) Friend or foe: behavioral responses to conspecifics in the northern scorpion, Paruroctonus boreus (Scorpionida: Vaejovidae). J Ethol 29(2):251–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Moreno-González JA, Hazzi NA (2012) Intraguild predation case: Tityus forcipula Gervais, 1843 (Scorpiones, Buthidae) feeding on Chactas vanbenedeni Gervais, 1843 (Scorpiones, Chactidae) in Colombia. Rev Iber Aracnol 20:117–120Google Scholar
  35. Nime MF, Casanoves F, Vrech DE, Mattoni CI (2013) Relationship between environmental variables and surface activity of scorpions in the Arid Chaco ecoregion of Argentina. Invertebr Biol 132(2):145–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nisani Z, Honaker A, Jenne V, Loya F, Moon H (2018) Evidence of airborne chemoreception in the scorpion Paruroctonus marksi (Scorpiones: Vaejovidae). J Arachnol 46(1):40–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Okuyama T (2002) The role of antipredator behavior in an experimental community of jumping spiders with intraguild predation. Popul Ecol 44(2):121–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Olivero PA, Mattoni CI, Peretti AV (2017) Differences in mating behavior between two allopatric populations of a Neotropical scorpion. Zoology 123:71–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pears JB, Emberts Z, Bateman PW (2018) The scent of danger: the impact of predator chemical cues on emergence from refuge and willingness to autotomize limbs in the house cricket (Acheta domesticus). J Insect Behav 31:416–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Persons MH, Walker SE, Rypstra AL, Marshall SD (2001) Wolf spider predator avoidance tactics and survival in the presence of diet-associated predator cues (Araneae: Lycosidae). Anim Behav 61(1):43–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Persons MH, Walker SE, Rypstra AL (2002) Fitness costs and benefits of antipredator behavior mediated by chemotactile cues in the wolf spider Pardosa milvina (Araneae: Lycosidae). Behav Ecol 13(3):386–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Polis GA, McCormick SJ (1986) Patterns of resource use and age structure among species of desert scorpion. J Anim Ecol 55:59–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Polis GA, McCormick SJ (1987) Intraguild predation and competition among desert scorpions. Ecology 68(2):332–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Polis GA, Sissom WD, McCormick SJ (1981) Predators of scorpions: field data and a review. J Arid Environ 4:309–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Polis GA, Myers CA, Holt RD (1989) The ecology and evolution of intraguild predation: potential competitors that eat each other. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 20(1):297–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Preisser EL, Orrock JL, Schmitz OJ (2007) Predator hunting mode and habitat domain alter nonconsumptive effects in predator–prey interactions. Ecology 88(11):2744–2751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Queiroz M, Gasnier TR (2017) Strong negative effect of diurnal rainfall on nocturnal activity of a wandering spider in Central Amazonia. Rev Biol Trop 65(3):1152–1160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Riddle WA, Crawford CS, Zeitone AM (1976) Patterns of hemolymph osmoregulation in three desert arthropods. J Comp Physiol 112(3):295–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. RStudio Team (2019) RStudio: integrated development for R. RStudio, Inc., Boston. Available from: <http://www.rstudio.com/>. Accessed: 01 Feb 2019
  50. Ryan D, Cantrell RS (2015) Avoidance behavior in intraguild predation communities: a cross-diffusion model. Discrete Cont Dyn S 35:1641–1663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sampaio EVDSB, Dall’Olio A, Nunes KS, Lemos EEP (1993) A model of litterfall, litter layer losses and mass transfer in a humid tropical forest at Pernambuco, Brazil. J Trop Ecol 9(3):291–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sánchez-Piñero F, Urbano-Tenorio F (2016) Watch out for your neighbor: climbing onto shrubs is related to risk of cannibalism in the scorpion Buthus cf. occitanus. PloS One 11(9):e0161747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Santos GCSG, Dionisio-da-Silva W, Souza-Alves JP, Albuquerque CMR, Lira AFA (2018) Random or clumped: how litter dwelling scorpions are distributed in a fragment of Brazilian Atlantic forest. Eur J Entomol 115:445–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Scharf I, Nulman E, Ovadia O, Bouskila A (2006) Efficiency evaluation of two competing foraging modes under different conditions. Am Nat 168(3):350–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schmidt JM, Rypstra AL (2010) Opportunistic predator prefers habitat complexity that exposes prey while reducing cannibalism and intraguild encounters. Oecologia 164(4):899–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schmidt JM, Sebastian P, Wilder SM, Rypstra AL (2012) The nutritional content of prey affects the foraging of a generalist arthropod predator. PLoS One 7(11):e49223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schmidt JM, Crist TO, Wrinn K, Rypstra AL (2014) Predator interference alters foraging behavior of a generalist predatory arthropod. Oecologia 175(2):501–508Google Scholar
  58. Schmitz OJ (2008) Effects of predator hunting mode on grassland ecosystem function. Science 319(5865):952–954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sharpe PB, Van Horne B (1998) Influence of habitat on behavior of Townsend’s ground squirrels (Spermophilus townsendii). J Mammal 79(3):906–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Snyder WE, Wise DH (2000) Antipredator behavior of spotted cucumber beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in response to predators that pose varying risks. Environ Entomol 29(1):35–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stockmann R (2015) Introduction to scorpion biology and ecology. In: Gopalakrishnakone P (ed), Scorpion Venoms, Springer Netherlands, pp.25–59Google Scholar
  62. Stoks R, Block MD, Slos S, Doorslaer WV, Rolff J (2006) Time constraints mediate predator-induced plasticity in immune function, condition, and life history. Ecology 87(4):809–815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Stouffer DB, Bascompte J (2010) Understanding food-web persistence from local to global scales. Ecol Lett 13(2):154–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tchabovsky AV, Krasnov B, Khokhlova IS, Shenbrot GI (2001) The effect of vegetation cover on vigilance and foraging tactics in the fat sand rat Psammomys obesus. J Ethol 19(2):105–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tobler I, Stalder J (1988) Rest in the scorpion—a sleep-like state? J Comp Physiol A 163(2):227–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Toolson EC, Hadley NF (1977) Cuticular permeability and epicuticular lipid composition in two Arizona vejovid scorpions. Physiol Zool 50(4):323–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Urbani P, Ramos-Jiliberto R (2010) Adaptive prey behavior and the dynamics of intraguild predation systems. Ecol Model 221(22):2628–2633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Webber MM, Gibbs AG, Rodríguez-Robles JA (2015) Hot and not-so-hot females: reproductive state and thermal preferences of female Arizona Bark Scorpions (Centruroides sculpturatus). J Evol Biol 28(2):368–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wilkinson EB, Grabowski JH, Sherwood GD, Yund PO (2015) Influence of predator identity on the strength of predator avoidance responses in lobsters. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 465:107–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ISPA, CRL 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciências Biológicas, Departamento de Sistemática e Ecologia, Centro de Ciências Exatas e da NaturezaUniversidade Federal da ParaíbaJoão PessoaBrazil
  2. 2.Programa de Pós-graduação em Biologia Animal, Departamento de Zoologia, Centro de BiociênciasUniversidade Federal de PernambucoRecifeBrazil
  3. 3.Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciência Animal Tropical, Departamento de Morfologia e Fisiologia AnimalUniversidade Federal Rural de PernambucoRecifeBrazil

Personalised recommendations