Experimental considerations support the use of artificial sentinel prey—a comment on Rodriguez‐Campbell et al
Journal of Biogeography,
Journal Year:
2024,
Volume and Issue:
51(11), P. 2152 - 2155
Published: July 10, 2024
Predation
is
a
crucial
interaction
in
ecosystems,
transferring
energy
between
trophic
levels,
enhancing
ecosystem
stability
through
its
impact
on
herbivore
populations,
promoting
species
diversity,
and
exerting
evolutionary
pressure.
may
also
provide
benefits
for
humans:
preying
pest
translates
into
biological
control
with
enormous
economic
value.
Ecologists
have
long
sought
to
quantify
predation,
which
challenging,
especially
by
invertebrates.
One
of
the
approaches
sentinel
method,
when
known
number
prey
items
exposed
under
field
conditions
specific
period
(usually
24
h),
subsequently
recording
numbers
that
been
attacked,
consumed
or
disappeared.
Such
can
be
real
artificial.
Speight
Lawton
(1976)
Drosophila
pupae
from
their
rate
disappearance
attempted
beetle
predation
wheat
fields.
Turner
(1961)
used
artificial
sentinels
made
mixture
flour
lard
insectivorous
bird
differently
coloured
prey.
The
use
creates
more
"natural"
set
conditions,
while
allow
identification
predators
attack
marks
(Howe
et
al.,
2009).
Since
formal
description
method
2009),
there
numerous
articles
virtually
all
continents
identify
various
aspects
(Lövei
&
Ferrante,
2017).
has
recommended
characterise
natural
as
an
service
(Meyer
2015).
In
international
experiment,
Rodriguez-Campbell
al.
(2024)
measured
rates
using
live
dead
Zophobas
morio
larvae
caterpillars
modelling
clay
intention
"validating"
efficacy
They
found
no
significant
differences
larvae,
whereas
patterns
were
not
always
consistent
those
recorded
ones.
authors
concluded
are
inadequate
comparing
across
sites
suggested
this
approach
should
abandoned
biogeographical
studies.
commentary,
we
aim
highlight
certain
logical
fallacies
study
(2024),
discuss
some
misunderstandings
regarding
prey,
recommendations
best
practice.
first
fallacy
assumption
actual
levels
because
"Live
most
closely
reflect
wild
prey;
realistic
visual
scent
cues
but
lack
movement
behavioural
cues;
only
coarsely
cues."
acknowledge
"clay
appeal
subset
potential
predators".
However,
same
valid
any
including
Once
chosen,
features
either
help
hinder
recognising
it
deciding
attack.
obvious
feature
status
(dead,
alive
artificial),
different
types
possess
distinct
chemical
profiles,
many
rely
hunting.
will
size,
shape,
texture,
colouration,
behaviour
(or
it,
if
immobilised/dead)
taste.
Because
such
differences,
inconsistent
been,
unsurprisingly,
observed
studies
employing
multiple
(McHugh
2020).
Comparing
results
obtained
assuming
one
serve
true
baseline
validate
other
futile;
evidence
result
(see,
example,
Figure
2d–f
invertebrate
predators).
It
worth
stressing,
though
does
at
obtaining
absolute
estimates
2009)
intends
relative
comparisons
(more
later).
Using
additional
information
they
could
(non-overlapping
partly
overlapping)
subsets
predators.
Finally,
interpreted
measure
scavenging
rather
than
produce
patterns,
even
did
not.
second
must
record
able
draw
useful
conclusion.
According
authors,
models
among
sites…but
possible
exception
target
appropriate
predator
group"
still
assessing
within
sites…However,
caution
used…whenever
importance
guilds
likely
vary".
If
attacked
guild
(e.g.
invertivorous
birds),
compare
them
sites,
habitats,
treatments.
Predator
communities
rarely
static,
between-
within-sites,
make
suitable
ones,
less
useful.
Imagine
experiment
where
researcher
was
simultaneously
two
habitats
(a
b)
types:
(1)
releasing
large
accurately
fate
h
later
(which
course
impossible
life)
(2)
immobilised
(as
real-life
cases).
both
community
consists
predators,
web-building
spider,
having
identical
killing
per
capita.
Habitat
(a),
birds
up
80%
spiders
20%,
(b),
20%
(Figure
1).
Both
consume
freely
moving
caterpillars,
do
actively
search
After
h,
free
would
(albeit
due
contributions
each
guild),
higher
(a)
habitat.
Of
course,
cases,
about
exact
composition
preference
types.
Yet,
fundamental
question
is:
part
useless
(supposedly
"closer
predation")?
We
claim
gave
pressure
exerted
these
habitats.
This
very
efficiency
management
intervention
encourage
biocontrol
agents.
aspect
clearly
articulated
original
caterpillar
believe
need
quantification
advance
our
understanding
ecological
processes
farming
practices
conservation
interventions).
intended,
used,
treatments
When
combination
biodiversity
sampling
and/or
sentinels,
different,
complementary
information.
Most
often
challenge
find
techniques
standardised
way
replicated
sufficient
perform
robust
statistical
analyses.
Ultimately,
aims
relying
applicability
repeatability
monitoring
tools.
applies
functions
(Ferrante
2022).
To
fulfil
important
requirements,
essence
scientific
us
obtain
comparable
results,
ecologists
"unnatural"
agree
necessarily
situation,
experiments
simplification
reality
interest
answering
central
question.
premise
accepted,
makes
sense
look
allows
controlling
variables
type
density,
distribution,
exposure
time),
easy
replicable
sample
sizes,
cost-effective,
provides
identity
Artificial
enable
standardisation,
since
produced
material
characteristics
coloration
size),
vary
terms
composition,
taste,
smell,
age,
(live
die
abiotic
factors,
cause
time
collects
results);
cost-effective
manufactured
quantities
ensuring
high
replicability
robustness;
(3)
varying
taxonomic
resolution.
this,
thus
despite
(recognised)
limitations.
Z.
Central
South
America,
global
study,
advantages
limitations
emerged.
Tethering
given
substrate
influence
searching
behaviour;
attaching
glue,
thread,
pins
bulldog
clips
popsicle
sticks
(the
latter
al.)
potentially
introduce
biases
measurements
acknowledged.
M.F.
G.L.L.
conceived
comment.
wrote
draft.
All
contributed
submitted
revised
version
manuscript.
Open
Access
funding
enabled
organized
Projekt
DEAL.
declare
conflict
interest.
Data
sharing
applicable
article
datasets
generated
analysed
during
current
study.
Marco
Ferrante
postdoctoral
fellow
Functional
Agrobiodiversity
Agroecology
group,
University
Göttingen,
Germany.
His
research
interests
include
arthropod
ecology,
conservation,
services
disservices,
sustainable
agriculture.
Andy
G.
Howe
Research
Fellow
Sunshine
Coast,
Australia.
addresses
insect
interactions
(predation,
parasitism)
invasions
forest,
urban
agricultural
ecosystems.
Gabor
L.
Lövei
Senior
Scientist
Emeritus
Aarhus
University,
Denmark
Professor
Hungarian
Agriculture
Life
Sciences,
Godollo,
Hungary.
covers
agroecology,
biosafety
invasion
biology.
Language: Английский
Seasonality, vegetation structure, and prey location modulate predation rates in the field margins of horticultural farms
Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems,
Journal Year:
2025,
Volume and Issue:
unknown, P. 1 - 20
Published: March 24, 2025
Language: Английский
Geographic Gradients in Species Interactions: From Latitudinal Patterns to Ecological Mechanisms
Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics,
Journal Year:
2024,
Volume and Issue:
55(1), P. 369 - 393
Published: Aug. 14, 2024
The
idea
that
species
interactions
are
more
ecologically
and
evolutionarily
important
toward
lower
latitudes
underpins
seminal
theories
in
ecology
evolution.
Recent
global
studies
have
found
the
predicted
latitudinal
gradients
interactions,
particularly
predation.
However,
patterns
alone
do
not
reveal
why
vary
geographically
so
provide
strong
predictions
space
(e.g.,
for
specific
ecosystems)
or
time
forecasting
responses
to
change).
Here,
I
review
theory
identify
a
clearer,
mechanistic,
testable
framework
predicting
geographic
variation
importance
of
interactions.
competing
metrics
importance,
proximate
mechanisms
can
increase
interaction
environmental
could
generate
predictable
(climate
extremes
stability,
warmer
temperatures,
productivity,
biodiversity).
Strong
empirical
tests
accumulating
thanks
rise
experiments
datasets;
renewed
focus
on
testing
spatially
will
help
move
field
from
identifying
understanding
broader
mechanisms.
Language: Английский
Olfaction foraging in visually oriented tropical arboreal ants Oecophylla smaragdina: Implications for insect predation studies using artificial sentinel prey
Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata,
Journal Year:
2024,
Volume and Issue:
172(10), P. 910 - 918
Published: June 14, 2024
Abstract
Because
of
the
brief
and
cryptic
nature
predatory
behavior,
sentinel
prey
has
been
widely
adopted
as
an
indirect
way
to
identify
predators
understand
trophic
interactions.
However,
presents
only
static
visual
cues,
potentially
biasing
toward
visually
oriented
while
ignoring
those
that
utilize
other
sensory
cues
for
foraging.
Despite
this,
effectiveness
rarely
tested.
In
this
study,
we
focused
on
weaver
ant
Oecophylla
smaragdina
Fabricius
(Hymenoptera:
Formicidae),
a
keystone
predator
widespread
in
Asian
Australian
tropics.
As
species
large
eyes
is
known
navigate
its
arboreal
habitats,
hypothesized
it
relies
forage
behavior
will
be
captured
by
caterpillar‐shaped
prey.
Ants
were
collected
colonies,
preference
trials
baits
conducted
using
combinations
olfactory
including
caterpillar
shape.
Surprisingly,
O.
showed
little
or
no
absence
did
not
differentiate
shapes
regardless
cues.
Our
results
indicate
likely
make
decisions
based
primarily
whereas
might
used
behaviors.
Furthermore,
left
out
predation
studies
models,
which
particularly
alarming
considering
dominant
role
interactions
tropical
rainforests.
study
demonstrates
morphological
characteristics,
do
necessarily
suggest
use
decisions.
We
models
should
alone
when
are
unlikely
Language: Английский
Microtopography and vegetation generate uneven predation pressure on forest insects
Acta Oecologica,
Journal Year:
2024,
Volume and Issue:
125, P. 104031 - 104031
Published: Sept. 27, 2024
Language: Английский
Predation on Live and Artificial Insect Prey Shows Different Global Latitudinal Patterns
Global Ecology and Biogeography,
Journal Year:
2024,
Volume and Issue:
33(11)
Published: Aug. 16, 2024
ABSTRACT
Aim
Long‐standing
theory
predicts
that
the
intensity
of
biotic
interactions
increases
from
high
to
low
latitudes.
Studies
addressing
geographic
variation
in
predation
on
insect
prey
have
often
relied
models,
which
lack
many
characteristics
live
prey.
Our
goals
were
explore
global
latitudinal
patterns
predator
attack
rates
standardised
and
compare
insects
with
those
plasticine
models.
Location
Global
forested
areas.
Time
Period
2021–2023.
Major
Taxa
Arthropods,
birds.
Methods
We
measured
43
locations
distributed
across
five
continents
34.1°
S
69.5°
N
latitude.
At
each
location,
we
exposed
20
sets
three
bait
types,
one
set
per
tree.
Each
included
fly
larvae
(maggots),
puparia
models
puparia.
used
glue
rings
isolate
half
non‐flying
predators.
Results
Arthropod
decreased
linearly
latitudes,
whereas
maggots
had
a
U
shaped
distribution,
lowest
at
temperate
latitudes
highest
tropical
boreal
This
difference
emerged
intensive
attacks
maggots,
but
not
sites.
Site‐specific
arthropod
predators
correlated.
In
contrast,
bird
positively
correlated,
did
show
significant
changes.
Main
Conclusions
Latitudinal
differ
between
major
groups
types
Poleward
decreases
both
combined
do
mirror
our
prey,
latter
likely
reflecting
real
risk
better
than
artificial
Language: Английский