Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Selection of aphid prey by a generalist predator

Electronic data

  • Nesbit_et_al_2015_EE_acepted

    Rights statement: This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: NESBIT, C. M., WILBY, A., ROBERTS, M. R. and MENÉNDEZ, R. (2015), Selection of aphid prey by a generalist predator: do prey chemical defences matter?. Ecological Entomology, 40: 767–775. doi: 10.1111/een.12253 which has been published in final form at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/een.12253/abstract This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance With Wiley Terms and Conditions for self-archiving.

    Accepted author manuscript, 167 KB, PDF document

    Available under license: CC BY-NC: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Selection of aphid prey by a generalist predator: do prey chemical defences matter?

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Published
<mark>Journal publication date</mark>12/2015
<mark>Journal</mark>Ecological Entomology
Issue number6
Volume40
Number of pages9
Pages (from-to)767-775
Publication StatusPublished
Early online date23/09/15
<mark>Original language</mark>English

Abstract

1. For predators, prey selection should maximise nutrition and minimise fitness costs. In the present study, it was investigated whether a generalist predator [Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) lacewing larvae] rejected harmful, chemically-defended prey [Brevicoryne brassicae (Linnaeus) aphids] when non-defended prey [Myzus persicae (Sulzer) aphids] were available. 2. It was tested: (i) whether consuming different prey species affects predator mortality; (ii) whether naïve predators reject chemically-defended prey while foraging when non-defended prey are available; (iii) whether the relative abundance of each prey affects the predator's prey choice; and (iv) whether predators learn to avoid consuming chemically-defended prey after exposure to both prey species. 3. Consumption of B. brassicae yielded greater C. carnea mortality than M. persicae consumption, but naïve C. carnea did not reject B. brassicae in favour of M. persicae during foraging. When presented at unequal abundances, naïve predators generally consumed each aphid species according to their initial relative abundance, although, predation of non-defended prey was less than expected when defended prey were initially more abundant, indicating a high consumption of B. brassicae impeded M. persicae consumption. With experience, C. carnea maintained predation of both aphid species but consumed more M. persicae than B. brassicae, indicating a change in behaviour. 4. Although prey choice by C. carnea may change with experience of available prey, prey chemical defences do not appear to influence prey choice by naïve predators. This inability to avoid harmful prey could facilitate wider, indirect interactions. Myzus persicae may benefit where high consumption of B. brassicae hinders predators in the short term, and in the long term, increases predator mortality.

Bibliographic note

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: NESBIT, C. M., WILBY, A., ROBERTS, M. R. and MENÉNDEZ, R. (2015), Selection of aphid prey by a generalist predator: do prey chemical defences matter?. Ecological Entomology, 40: 767–775. doi: 10.1111/een.12253 which has been published in final form at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/een.12253/abstract This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance With Wiley Terms and Conditions for self-archiving.