2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.jembe.2016.12.012
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Selective foraging of Aratus pisonii (Arthropoda: Sesarmidae) on mangrove leaves in laboratory experiments

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The difference of δ 15 N between the plants (medium value among the tree species RM, LA and AV) and CR (primary consumer) was 3.5‰ in Santa Cruz and 9.4‰ in Vitória Bay, which suggests that the sampled plants consumed by the Vitória Bay crabs may be mixed with sediment that has a higher δ 15 N value as this crab species is a restrictive leaffeeder (Miranda et al, 2017;Rabelo et al, 2009;Yeager et al, 2016). The isotope differences between the crab and fish were 8.5‰ in Santa Cruz and 3.6‰ in Vitória Bay suggesting that in this site the crabs were potentially the key food source for the fish, whereas in Santa Cruz this was not the case, and the shrimp was the main food source as has previously been reported for this species (Cerqueira and Tsuzuki, 2009).…”
Section: Trophic Relationshipsmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…The difference of δ 15 N between the plants (medium value among the tree species RM, LA and AV) and CR (primary consumer) was 3.5‰ in Santa Cruz and 9.4‰ in Vitória Bay, which suggests that the sampled plants consumed by the Vitória Bay crabs may be mixed with sediment that has a higher δ 15 N value as this crab species is a restrictive leaffeeder (Miranda et al, 2017;Rabelo et al, 2009;Yeager et al, 2016). The isotope differences between the crab and fish were 8.5‰ in Santa Cruz and 3.6‰ in Vitória Bay suggesting that in this site the crabs were potentially the key food source for the fish, whereas in Santa Cruz this was not the case, and the shrimp was the main food source as has previously been reported for this species (Cerqueira and Tsuzuki, 2009).…”
Section: Trophic Relationshipsmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…The interaction between mangroves and their herbivores is an ecological process that also drives evolutionary changes of organic compounds that play a role in plant defense and the corresponding adaptations to these toxins by its consumers (Cannicci et al, 2008; Feller et al, 2007; Herrera et al, 2007; Kandil et al, 2004; Lacerda et al, 1986; Robertson, 1991; Silva et al, 2017; Tong et al, 2006). The consequences of herbivory between the interacting species in mangrove ecosystems have been explored in natural systems (Duke, 2002; Feller et al, 2013; Lee, 1999; Menezes & Piexoto, 2009) and under laboratory conditions (Elster et al, 1999; Menezes & Piexoto, 2009; Miranda et al, 2017). Implications at individual, population, and community levels influence abundance, phenotypic traits, and genotypes of interacting species (Cannicci et al, 2008; Erickson et al, 2012; Feller, 2002; Feller & Chamberlain, 2007; Lee, 1999; Offenberg et al, 2004; Santos et al, 2013; Sato, 2018; Silva et al, 2017).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Crabs, mollusks, and insects are the most important herbivores of mangrove forests, usually feeding on leaves, flowers, and propagules. Damages commonly visible on fresh leaves are holes, marginal bites, spots, galls, foliar laminar scrapes, tissue mines, twisted and rolled leaves, and necrosis (Cannicci et al, 2008; Erickson et al, 2012, Erickson et al, 2004; Feller et al, 2013; Kabir et al, 2014; Menezes & Piexoto, 2009; Miranda et al, 2017; Silva et al, 2015). Defoliation impacts by leaf‐feeding insects are usually a quantification of missing leaf area.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%