Prey detection by some predatory Coleoptera (Carabidae and Staphylinidae)

Abstract

The prey detection methods of 12 species of Carabidae and one species of Staphylinidae were investigated using video and orientation techniques. The species examined were Cicindela campestris, Cychrus caraboides, Carabus problematicus, C. violaceus, Calosoma maderae, Nebria complanata, Scarites abbreviates, Broscus cephaloles, Pterostichus madidus, P. melanarius, P. niger, Abax parallelepipedus and Staphylinus olens. All the species examined were seen to respond to prey upon contact (either by tactile or gustatory reception) during locomotor activity. Tests using orientation chambers showed that some of the species would orientate towards prey in the absence of contact. Some species orientated using vision (C. campestris, C. maderae, S. abbreviates, A. parallelepipedus). This was most frequent when tested with fast‐moving prey. In others, orientation towards prey occurred when olfactory cues were available (P. madidus, P. melanarius, P. niger and A.parallelepipedus). All of the species employing this method of prey detection belonged to the Pterostichini and it appears that the receptors involved are situated on the antennae. Although some species did not orientate towards prey in the absence of contact cues, some of these species were found to respond to slug mucus (C. caraboides, C. problematicus, C. violaceus and S. abbreviates). The receptors for this are probably situated on the terminal ends of the palps. The method of prey detection used is discussed in relation to the ecology of the species.

Effects of Turfgrass Endophytes (Clavicipitaceae: Ascomycetes) on White Grub (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) Larval Development and Field Populations

“…In fact, a signiÞcant insecticide ϫ time interaction in the repeated measures ANOVA for carabid activity (WilksÕ F ϭ 3.00; df ϭ 16, 26; P Ͻ 0.05) appears to be most evident from a transient Ϸ3-fold increase in trap catches in bifenthrin-treated plots in the week after each application. Pitfall traps jointly measure activity and population densities of these predators (Thomas et al 1998), so this increase in capture would be consistent with increased activity of carabids in response to exposure from bifenthrin, either through irritation or in response to starvation resulting from the loss of prey items (Wheater 1991). Larval E. orientalis populations found in October were positively correlated with carabid populations trapped from 10 July to 12 August (r ϭ 0.37; P Ͻ 0.05) and negatively correlated with staphylinid populations (r ϭ Ϫ0.68; P Ͻ 0.05).…”

Antennal sensilla of the ground beetle Platynus dorsalis (Pontoppidan, 1763) (Coleoptera, carabidae)

“…Whereas many ground beetles presumably find their food via random search, several diurnal species hunt by sight. Other species use chemical cues from aphids, springtails, or snails to find prey (Kielty et al, 1996;Lövei and Sunderland, 1996;Wheater, 1989). Even in some diurnal ground beetles, such as Bembidion lampros, which are considered to find their prey by sight (Ekbom and Wiktelius, 1985;Morwinsky and Bauer, 1997;Pollet and Desender, 1986), the occurrence of abundant trichoid and basiconic olfactory sensilla on their antennae suggests that, in this species, olfaction is involved in their prey-searching behaviour (Merivee et al, 2000).…”

The role of vision and color in the close proximity foraging behavior of four coccinellid species

“…Many major insect predators use visual cues to ®nd prey, including some carabids (Wheater 1989), Heteroptera (Ambrose et al 1991;Awan et al 1989), and mantids (Bowdish and Bultman 1993). There was a long-held view that coccinellids could not detect prey until contact and therefore that vision is not an important factor in closeproximity foraging (Fleschner 1950;Robinson 1952;Banks 1954Banks , 1957Putnam 1955;Dixon 1959;Kaddou 1960;Kehat 1968;Hodek 1973;Storch 1976).…”