Skip Navigation



Behavioral Ecology Advance Access published online on February 22, 2006
Behavioral Ecology, doi:10.1093/beheco/arj053
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Lay Summary
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
17/3/405    most recent
arj053v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Morse, D. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Morse, D. H.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org
Received October 19, 2005
Revised January 6, 2006
Accepted January 15, 2006

Article

Fine-scale substrate use by a small sit-and-wait predator

Douglass H. Morse 1 *

1 Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Box G-W, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912, USA

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Douglass H. Morse, E-mail: d_morse{at}brown.edu


  Abstract

Substrate choice is one of the most important decisions that sit-and-wait predators must make. Not only may it dictate the prey available but also the cover for the predator which may conceal it from prey or its own predators. However, while on a particular substrate the behavior and use of that substrate may vary widely. When naïve, newly emerged crab spiderlings Misumena vatia (Thomisidae) occupied flowering goldenrod Solidago canadensis, their behavior differed markedly on inflorescences with relatively sparse and densely packed flower heads as well as on experimentally thinned and unthinned inflorescences. Initially, the spiderlings most often hunted at the thinned sites and hid among the dense flower heads at the unthinned sites, a difference that disappeared in all broods tested after 2-3 h, possibly because of the growing hunger of the initially concealed individuals. Prey capture (dance flies) in the thinned sites initially significantly exceeded that in unthinned sites but subsequently did not differ. However, spiderlings encountered their principal predator, the jumping spider Pelegrina insignis, significantly more often on unthinned than thinned inflorescences. Even though usage patterns initially differed strikingly, spiderlings did not differ in their rates of quitting the two types of sites. These results suggest a trade-off between foraging and predator avoidance that changes in response to increasing hunger over time.

Keywords: crab spider; foraging; Misumena vatia; predator avoidance; substrate use.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.