2004
DOI: 10.1007/s00442-004-1559-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Intraguild predation and interference competition on the endangered dragonfly Aeshna viridis

Abstract: We examined the effects of intraguild predation (IGP) and interference competition on an endangered dragonfly, Aeshna viridis Eversm. (Odonata: Anisoptera). A. viridis is rare in Europe due to the decrease in suitable habitats harboring the macrophyte Stratiotes aloides L. Stratiotes plants are the principal oviposition substrate for A. viridis females and protect the larvae of A. viridis from fish predation. In our study lakes A. viridis larvae are sympatric with larvae of Aeshna grandis and Aeshna juncea. Th… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
32
1

Year Published

2005
2005
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 35 publications
(33 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
32
1
Order By: Relevance
“…We show that preference for vegetation with a complex structure did not change when the larvae were removed from their natural habitat and placed in an environment without predators, prey and con-specifics. This contrasts with reports of the behaviour of other species of Odonata, in which habitat preferences of the larvae change in the absence of biotic interactions (Heads, 1986;Elkin & Baker, 2000;Suutari et al, 2004).…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 53%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…We show that preference for vegetation with a complex structure did not change when the larvae were removed from their natural habitat and placed in an environment without predators, prey and con-specifics. This contrasts with reports of the behaviour of other species of Odonata, in which habitat preferences of the larvae change in the absence of biotic interactions (Heads, 1986;Elkin & Baker, 2000;Suutari et al, 2004).…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 53%
“…Habitat preference could also be resource-based, since the larvae may be attracted to habitats with a high diversity and abundance of prey (Chilton, 1990) or mainly present in macrophytes with an architecture in which they are most efficient in capturing prey (Walsh, 1995). Finally, larvae may use vegetation as a refuge from predators (Dionne et al, 1990;Tolonen et al, 2003;Warfe & Barmuta, 2006) or because they are subject to less inter-or intra-specific competition in such habitats (Elkin & Baker, 2000;Suutari et al, 2004). These explanations are not mutually exclusive, which is one of the difficulties encountered when the structural complexity of a habitat is used to explain the differential use of structurally simple and complex macrophytes by macro-invertebrates.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Aggressive pelagic interference was also found to be responsible for reduced vertical space use by Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) living in sympatry with cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii) (Hindar et al 1988). Furthermore, size is an important factor determining competitive displacements in predator communities in which intraguild predation occurs (Fedriani et al 2000;Suutari et al 2004), thus underlining the possibility of asymmetric interference competition between the larger pikeperch (55 cm maximum L T ) and the smaller perch (39.5 cm maximum L T ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…There are several possible explanations for the observed distributions of L. forficatus and S. sexspinosus at our field sites. Non-random spatial patterns can result from abiotic factors and differences in microhabitat use (Auerbach 1951;Lee 1980;Blackburn et al 2002), competition for contested resources (Hairston 1980;Blackburn et al 2002;Hickerson et al 2004), predator avoidance (Murray et al 2004), and intraguild predation (Suutari et al 2004). The outcomes of competitive interactions can be strongly affected by the physical attributes of the environments in which they occur (Park 1954;Connell 1961).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%