FORAGING PATCH RESIDENCE TIME DECISIONS IN WOLF SPIDERS - IS PERCEIVING PREY AS IMPORTANT AS EATING PREY

Citation
Mh. Persons et Gw. Uetz, FORAGING PATCH RESIDENCE TIME DECISIONS IN WOLF SPIDERS - IS PERCEIVING PREY AS IMPORTANT AS EATING PREY, Ecoscience, 4(1), 1997, pp. 1-5
Citations number
23
Categorie Soggetti
Ecology
Journal title
ISSN journal
11956860
Volume
4
Issue
1
Year of publication
1997
Pages
1 - 5
Database
ISI
SICI code
1195-6860(1997)4:1<1:FPRTDI>2.0.ZU;2-5
Abstract
Many studies have found that prey capture rates significantly affect h ow long foraging spiders remain in an area. Perceptual information on prey, even without prey capture, has also been shown to significantly influence spider foraging patch residence time. However, the values of each type of information (e.g., perception, capture, handling and ing estion) in the foraging decision rules have never been compared. This study examines the value of feeding experience versus perceiving food in the residence time decisions of wolf spiders. Spiders were exposed to four experimental treatments: 1) a foraging patch with a dead crick et to be consumed; 2) a patch with 12 live crickets behind a transpare nt screen, but no cricket for consumption; 3) a patch with both Live c rickets behind a screen and a single dead cricket for consumption; and 4) an empty patch serving as a control. Although feeding resulted in significantly longer patch residence times than the control, the perce ption of prey was the single most important factor influencing residen ce time. Results showed no significant difference in residence time be tween the sensory only treatment and the treatment with both prey cons umption and the perception of prey. Analysis of residence times after the spider has fed on a single cricket indicates no significant effect of the experience of feeding in a patch and subsequent visits to that patch. These results suggest that potential energy value weighs more heavily than current or past energy consumed in a patch and that post- ingestive feedback information is less important than pre-ingestive se nsory cues.