Testing the link between perceived and actual risk of predation: mosquito oviposition site selection and egg predation by native and introduced fish

Abstract

Summary According to the threat‐sensitivity hypothesis, prey avoidance behaviour should reflect the magnitude of predation risk. Since predation can strongly affect reproduction success, ovipositing females are expected to adaptively adjust their predator avoidance response, or local breeding patch selectivity, in accordance with the perceived level of threat posed for their progeny by specific predators. However, association between avoidance and predation can be disrupted when the prey and the predator lack spatiotemporal opportunities to co‐evolve, such as in cases of non‐native predator introductions. We examined the interactions between mosquitoes (from the genus Culex) and three species of sympatric predaceous freshwater fish, a native cyprinid Barbus paludinosus, a cichlid Pseudocrenilabrus philander and an introduced poeciliid, the western mosquitofish Gambusia affinis. In an outdoor mesocosm experiment, we quantified patterns of Culex oviposition site selection across fish species using free‐roaming, caged and fish‐free treatments. In a complementary laboratory experiment, we tested the effectiveness of each fish species as predators of mosquito eggs and larvae. Synthesis and applications. We found evidence for: (i) mosquito egg raft predation by free‐roaming fish; (ii) fish‐specific avoidance by ovipositing Culex; and (iii) a positive association between fish‐specific oviposition avoidance and fish‐specific efficiency as an egg predator. These results contribute towards a better understanding of predator–prey co‐evolution, predator‐borne cue recognition, and suggest local native fish, the southern mouthbrooder Pseudocrenilabrus philander, as an alternative to Gambusia for the biocontrol of Culex mosquitoes.

Coagulation-Flocculation: A potential Application for Mosquito Larval Source Management (LSM) with No Insecticide Resistance

“…Three of four periods through mosquito's life (egg, larva and pupa) are in the water environment, during which their survival depends on various factors such as competitors [8], light [9], temperature [10], food availability [11,12], predator [13,14] and characteristics of water environment (such as pH, ammonia, chloride, dissolved oxygen, etc.) [15][16][17][18].…”

Predator, prey, and substrate interactions: the role of faunal activity and substrate characteristics

“…The overall effect of non‐native predators may therefore be enhanced if they possess predation strategies that prey do not recognize or are ill‐equipped to counter (Sol and Maspons , Segev et al. ). Understanding the behavioral adaptions that taxa employ to successfully evade and survive predation pressures by native and non‐native taxa is therefore important in the context of managing contemporary ecosystems.…”

Contágio espacial resultante do risco de predação na seleção de sí­tios de oviposição por mosquito

“…Os indivíduos tendem a evitar manchas de hábitat com predadores dependendo do risco de predação conferido a eles (Silberbush & Blaustein 2011;Segev et al 2017).…”

“…Diferentes espécies de predadores podem gerar diferentes impactos sobre as comunidades, modificando, por exemplo, a abundância de presas (Chalcraft & Resetarits 2003) e a estrutura de comunidades (McPeeK 1998). Assim, predadores de diferentes espécies são potenciais em diferir no consumo de presas (Kweka et al 2011;Morrison et al 2016;Segev et al 2017). Nesse contexto, a identidade do predador, quando relacionada especificamente à taxa de predação, pode ser descrita como o desempenho ou a voracidade do predador no consumo de presas por unidade de tempo.…”

“…Como diferentes espécies de predadores podem diferir quanto à taxa de predação, consequentemente, as espécies podem refletir diferentes riscos de predação às presas. Conforme já foi demonstrado em experimento de seleção de sítio de oviposição por mosquitos do gênero Culex que depositaram mais jangadas de ovos nas manchas de hábitat que tinham predadores menos vorazes (i.e., menor taxa de predação) do que nas manchas que tinham predadores mais vorazes (i.e., maior taxa de predação; Segev et al 2017).…”