Understanding predator densities for successful co‐existence of alien predators and threatened prey

The high failure rate of threatened species translocations has prompted many managers to fence areas to protect wildlife from introduced predators. However, conservation fencing is expensive, restrictive and exacerbates prey naïveté reducing the chance of future co‐existence between native prey and introduced predators. Here, we ask whether two globally threatened mammal species protected in fenced reserves, with a history of predation‐driven decline and reintroduction failure, could co‐exist with introduced predators. We defined co‐existence as population persistence for at least 3 years and successful recruitment. We manipulated the density of feral cats within a large fenced paddock and measured the impact on abundance and reproduction of 353 reintroduced burrowing bettongs and 47 greater bilbies over 3 years. We increased cat densities from 0.038 to 0.46 per square km and both threatened species survived, reproduced and increased their population size. However, a previous reintroduction trial of 66 bettongs into the same paddock found one red fox (Vulpes vulpes), at a density of 0.027 per square km, drove the bettong population extinct within 12 months. Our results show that different predator species vary in their impact and that despite a history of reintroduction failure, threatened mammal species can co‐exist with low densities of feral cats. There may be a threshold density below which it is possible to maintain unfenced populations of reintroduced marsupials. Understanding the numerical relationships between population densities of introduced predators and threatened species is urgently needed if these species are to be re‐established at landscape scales. Such knowledge will enable a priori assessment of the risk of reintroduction failure thereby increasing the likelihood of reintroduction success and reducing the financial and ethical cost of failed translocations.     

Density‐dependent and ‐independent effects on the joint use of space by predators and prey in terrestrial arthropod food‐webs

The spatial distribution of predators and their prey is affected by their joint use of space. While the formation of such spatial patterns may be driven by density‐dependent and ‐independent factors our knowledge on the contribution of different land‐use activities on the formation of spatial patterns between predators and prey remains very limited. Agriculture is one of the most prevailing land‐use activities with strong effects on invertebrate densities and structural habitat conditions. Here, we used replicated conventionally and organically managed winter wheat fields to investigate the effects of agricultural land‐use on the spatial patterns of generalist predators and decomposer prey. We then identified the explanatory power of density‐dependent (prey and predator activity density) and density‐independent (vegetation structure) predictors for the observed spatial patterns. Generalist predators were regularly distributed only in conventionally managed fields and this pattern intensified with decreasing Collembola prey availability and increasing spider activity density. Segregation between carabid and spider predators was strongest in fields with lowest wheat plant height, suggesting more intense intraguild interactions in structurally less complex habitats. Collembola were aggregated independent of management and aggregation was strongest in fields with highest Collembola and carabid activity density. Spiders and Collembola prey were associated, but higher aphid densities under conventional management weakened or interrupted this spatial relationship. We conclude that active control of crop plant physiognomy by growth hormones and herbicides in conventionally managed fields promotes predator–predator segregation and that a high availability of aphid prey seems to decouple predator–Collembola prey associations. Our results emphasise the need for a more mechanistic understanding of the effects of land‐use on the formation of spatial patterns and species interactions, especially under scenarios of environmental change and an ongoing loss of biodiversity.     

Plant–animal interactions between carnivorous plants,sheet‐web spiders,and ground‐running spiders as guild predators in a wet meadow community

1. Plant–animal interactions are diverse and widespread shaping ecology, evolution, and biodiversity of most ecological communities. Carnivorous plants are unusual in that they can be simultaneously engaged with animals in multiple mutualistic and antagonistic interactions including reversed plant–animal interactions where they are the predator. Competition with animals is a potential antagonistic plant–animal interaction unique to carnivorous plants when they and animal predators consume the same prey.
2. The goal of this field study was to test the hypothesis that under natural conditions, sundews and spiders are predators consuming the same prey thus creating an environment where interkingdom competition can occur.
3. Over 12 months, we collected data on 15 dates in the only protected Highland Rim Wet Meadow Ecosystem in Kentucky where sundews, sheet‐web spiders, and ground‐running spiders co‐exist. One each sampling day, we attempted to locate fifteen sites with: (a) both sheet‐web spiders and sundews; (b) sundews only; and (c) where neither occurred. Sticky traps were set at each of these sites to determine prey (springtails) activity–density. Ground‐running spiders were collected on sampling days. DNA extraction was performed on all spiders to determine which individuals had eaten springtails and comparing this to the density of sundews where the spiders were captured.
4. Sundews and spiders consumed springtails. Springtail activity–densities were lower, the higher the density of sundews. Both sheet‐web and ground‐running spiders were found less often where sundew densities were high. Sheet‐web size was smaller where sundew densities were high.
5. The results of this study suggest that asymmetrical exploitative competition occurs between sundews and spiders. Sundews appear to have a greater negative impact on spiders, where spiders probably have little impact on sundews. In this example of interkingdom competition where the asymmetry should be most extreme, amensalism where one competitor experiences no cost of interaction may be occurring.

     

Top–down limits on prey populations may be more severe in larger prey species,despite having fewer predators

Variation in the vulnerability of herbivore prey to predation is linked to body size, yet whether this relationship is size‐nested or size‐partitioned remains debated. If size‐partitioned, predators would be focused on prey within their preferred prey size range. If size‐nested, smaller prey species should become increasingly more vulnerable because increasingly more predators are capable of catching them. Yet, whether either of these strategies manifests in top–down prey population limitation would depend both on the number of potential predator species as well as the total mortality imposed. Here we use a rare ecosystem scale ‘natural experiment’ comparing prey population dynamics between a period of intense predator persecution and hence low predator densities and a period of active predator protection and population recovery. We use three decades of data on herbivore abundance and distribution to test the role of predation as a mechanism of population limitation among prey species that vary widely in body size. Notably, we test this within one of the few remaining systems where a near‐full suite of megaherbivores occur in high density and are thus able to include a thirtyfold range in herbivore body size gradient. We test whether top–down limitation on prey species of particular body size leads to compositional shifts in the mammalian herbivore community. Our results support both size‐nested and size‐partitioning predation but suggest that the relative top–down limiting impact on prey populations may be more severe for intermediate sized species, despite having fewer predators than small species. In addition we show that the gradual recovery of predator populations shifted the herbivore community assemblage towards large‐bodied species and has led to a community that is strongly dominated by large herbivore biomass.     

Functional and numerical responses of four lemming predators in high arctic Greenland

The high‐arctic tundra ecosystem has the world's simplest vertebrate predator–prey community, with only four predators preying upon one rodent species, the collared lemming (Dicrostonyx groenlandicus). We document the functional and numerical responses of all the four predators in NE Greenland. Using these data, we assess the impact of predation on the dynamics of the collared lemming with a 4 yr cycle and >100‐fold difference between maximum and minimum densities. All predator species feed mostly (>90%) on lemmings when lemming density is >1 ha^?1, but the shapes of the predators’ responses vary greatly. The snowy owl (Nyctea scandiaca) is present and breeds only when lemming densities at snowmelt are >2 ha^?1, giving rise to a step‐like numerical response. The long‐tailed skua (Stercorarius longicaudus) has a type III functional response and shifts from alternate food (mainly berries and insects) to lemmings with increasing lemming density. The skua surpasses all the other predators in summer by its total response. The type III functional response of the Arctic fox (Alopex lagopus) starts to increase at much lower lemming densities than the responses of the avian predators, but it has only a weak numerical response. Finally, the stoat (Mustela erminea) is the most specialized predator and the only one with a clearly delayed numerical response. According to their specific functional and numerical responses, each predator plays a key role at some point of the lemming cycle, but only the stoat has the potential to drive the lemming cycle. Stoat predation is greatly reduced in the winter preceding the lemming peak, and it reaches a maximum in the winter preceding the lowest lemming summer density. Stoat predation appears to maintain low lemming densities for at least two successive years. Our study provides empirical support for the specialist predator hypothesis about small mammal population cycles.     

Prey: predator ratio dependence in the functional response of a freshwater amphipod

1. First known for their shredding activity, freshwater amphipods also behave as active predators with consequences for prey population regulation and amphipod coexistence in the context of biological invasions. 2. A way to quantify predation is to determine the average consumption rate per predator, also known as its functional response (FR). 3. Although amphipods are gregarious and can display social interactions that can alter per capita consumption rates, previous studies using the FR approach to investigate amphipod predation ignored such potential mutual interference because they did not consider variations in predator density. 4. We investigated the FR of Echinogammarus berilloni feeding on dipteran larvae with joint variations in prey and predator densities. This bivariate experimental design allowed us to estimate interference and to compare the fits of the three main classes of theoretical FR models, in which the predation rate is a function of prey density alone (prey‐dependent models), of both prey and predator densities (predator‐dependent models) or of the prey‐to‐predator ratio (ratio‐dependent models). 5. The Arditi–Ginzburg ratio‐dependent FR model provided the best representation of the FR of E. berilloni, whose predation rate showed a decelerating rise to a horizontal asymptote as prey abundance increased. 6. Ratio dependence means that mutual interference between amphipods leads to prey sharing. Mutual interference is likely to vary between amphipod species, depending on their level of aggressiveness.     

Mortality and lamb body mass growth in free‐ranging domestic sheep – environmental impacts including lethal and non‐lethal impacts of predators

The management and recovery of large predator populations in areas where human persecution has driven them to ecological extinction requires a solid understanding of the effects of both predation and food limitation on prey populations. We used 11 yr of data on reported losses among 17.3 million free‐ranging sheep Ovis aries in the Norwegian farming industry to elucidate the relative roles of climate, vegetation characteristics, sheep densities, lamb body mass and densities of predators and alternative prey on the number of lambs and ewes lost on summer pastures. We first examined whether predator densities predicted autumn lamb body mass through possible impacts of predators on body growth (non‐lethal effects) but found no evidence for such effects in our study system. This might be due to weak anti‐predator behavioral responses in domesticated sheep. However, autumn lamb body mass was predicted by both sheep density and winter and spring weather conditions, probably through food availability. Losses of both lambs and ewes were positively and strongly related to the density of Eurasian lynx Lynx lynx, wolverine Gulo gulo and brown bear Ursus arctos. In addition, food availability and spring weather conditions were associated to losses of lambs, while precipitation in May predicted losses of ewes. There was little evidence for interaction effects of predator species on losses, suggesting that most of the effects of the predators were additive to each other. Given the strong effect of predator densities on sheep losses, we conclude that changing livestock husbandry practices towards a system that actively protects sheep and/or active management of predator densities may be necessary to reduce sheep losses where predators are recolonizing.     

Trait-mediated interactions: influence of prey size, density and experience

1. The role of non-consumptive predator effects in structuring ecological communities has become an important area of study for ecologists. Numerous studies have shown that adaptive changes in prey in response to a predator can improve survival in subsequent encounters with that predator. 2. Prey-mediated changes in the shapes of predators' functional response surfaces determine the qualitative predictions of theoretical models. However, few studies have quantified the effects of adaptive prey responses on the shape of predator functional responses. 3. This study explores how prey density, size and previous predator experience interact to change the functional response curves of different-sized predators. 4. We use a response surface design to determine how previous exposure to small or large odonate predators affected the short-term survival of squirrel tree frog (Hyla squirella) tadpoles across a range of sizes and densities (i.e. the shape of odonate functional response curves). 5. Predator-induced tadpoles in a given size class did not differ in shape, although induction changed tadpole behaviour significantly. Induced tadpoles survived better in lethal encounters with either predator than did similar-sized predator-naive tadpoles. 6. Induction by either predator resulted in increased survival with both predators at a given size. However, different mechanisms led to increased survival for induced tadpoles. Attack rate for the small predators, whereas handling time increased for the large predators.     

Amphipod (Gammarus minus) responses to predators and predator impact on amphipod density

Recent theoretical work suggests that predator impact on local prey density will be the result of interactions between prey emigration responses to predators and predator consumption of prey. Whether prey increase or decrease their movement rates in response to predators will greatly influence the impact that predators have on prey density. In stream systems the type of predator, benthic versus water-column, is expected to influence whether prey increase or decrease their movement rates. Experiments were conducted to examine the response of amphipods (Gammarus minus) to benthic and water-column predators and to examine the interplay between amphipod response to predators and predator consumption of prey in determining prey density. Amphipods did not respond to nor were they consumed by the benthic predator. Thus, this predator had no impact on amphipod density. In contrast, amphipods did respond to two species of water-column predators (the predatory fish bluegills, Lepomis macrochirus, and striped shiners, Luxilus chrysocephalus) by decreasing their activity rates. This response led to similar positive effects on amphipod density at night by both species of predatory fish. However, striped shiners did not consume many amphipods, suggesting their impact on the whole amphipod “population” was zero. In contrast, bluegills consumed a significant number of amphipods, and thus had a negative impact on the amphipod “population”. These results lend support to theoretical work which suggests that prey behavioral responses to predators can mask the true impact that predators have on prey populations when experiments are conducted at small scales. Received: 21 March 1997 / Accepted: 15 December 1997     

Foraging responses of Coccinella septempunctata,Hippodamia variegata and Chrysoperla carnea to changing in density of two aphid species

The successful use of predators in classical biocontrol programmes needs several background laboratory investigations, one of which is the evaluation of predator behavioural responses to changes in the density of their prey. The impact effect of the density of two prey species [Myzus persicae Sulzer and Aphis craccivora Koch (Hemiptera: Aphididae)] on the predation rates of third-instar Chrysoperla carnea Stephens (Chrysopidae: Neuroptera) and fourth-instar Coccinella septempunctata L. and Hippodamia variegata Goeze (Coccinellidae: Coleoptera) larvae was studied. Although prey species, predator species, prey density, and their interactions all had significant effects on the numbers of aphids consumed, the type of functional response did not vary, remaining a type II response in all treatments. However, the type II parameters differed among predator species on the same prey species, and for each predator species on the two prey species. Chrysoperla. carnea on M. persicae and H. variegata on A. craccivora were more voracious than other predators. In the context of functional response and biological control, the release of these predators, that show inverse density-dependent mortality, has to be started in early season to build up their population on low aphid densities and attack later high aphid populations.     

Effects of the probability of a predator catching prey on predator–prey system stability

To understand the effect of the probability of a predator catching prey, P_catch, on the stability of the predator–prey system, a spatially explicit lattice model consisting of predators, prey, and grass was constructed. The predators and prey randomly move on the lattice space, and the grass grows according to its growth probability. When a predator encounters prey, the predator eats the prey in accordance with the probability P_catch. When a prey encounters grass, the prey eats the grass. The predator and prey give birth to offspring according to a birth probability after eating prey or grass, respectively. When a predator or prey is initially introduced or newly born, its health state is set at a high given value. This health state decreases by one with every time step. When the state of an animal decreases to less than zero, the individual dies and is removed from the system. Population densities for predator and prey fluctuated significantly according to P_catch. System stability was characterized by the standard deviation ? of the fluctuation. The simulation results showed that ? for predators increased with an increase of P_catch; ? for prey reached a maximum at P_catch = 0.4; and ? for grass fluctuated little regardless of P_catch. These results were due to the tradeoff between P_catch and the predator–prey encounter rate, which represents the degree of interaction between predator and prey and the average population density, respectively.     

The effect of density and mutual interference by a Predator: A laboratory study of predation by the Nudibranch Coryphella rufibranchialis on the hydroid Tubularia larynx

The nudibranch Coryphella rufibranchialis (JOHNSTON) feeds on a variety of hydroids, including Tubularia larynx Ellis & Solander. Experiments in which density of prey and predators were altered showed that more prey were eaten as prey density increased. However, more prey were consumed at low predator densities, presumably because of mutual interference among nudibranchs at the higher predator densities. The number of prey consumed per nudibranch was maximal with low predator densities and a ratio of 25–50 polyps per predator. Coryphella seems to show an opportunistic feeding strategy involving solitary predators rapidly depleting hydroid colonies and moving on to new colonies.     

Feedback between size balance and consumption strongly affects the consequences of hatching phenology in size‐dependent predator–prey interactions

In many size‐dependent predator–prey systems, hatching phenology strongly affects predator–prey interaction outcomes. Early‐hatched predators can easily consume prey when they first interact because they encounter smaller prey. However, this process by itself may be insufficient to explain all predator–prey interaction outcomes over the whole interaction period because the predator–prey size balance changes dynamically throughout their ontogeny. We hypothesized that hatching phenology influences predator–prey interactions via a feedback mechanism between the predator–prey size balance and prey consumption by predators. We experimentally tested this hypothesis in an amphibian predator–prey model system. Frog tadpoles Rana pirica were exposed to a predatory salamander larva Hynobius retardatus that had hatched 5, 12, 19 or 26 days after the frog tadpoles hatched. We investigated how the salamander hatch timing affected the dynamics of prey mortality, size changes of both predator and prey, and their subsequent life history (larval period and size at metamorphosis). The predator–prey size balance favoured earlier hatched salamanders, which just after hatching could successfully consume more frog tadpoles than later hatched salamanders. The early‐hatched salamanders grew rapidly and their accelerated growth enabled them to maintain the predator‐superior size balance; thus, they continued to exert strong predation pressure on the frog tadpoles in the subsequent period. Furthermore, frog tadpoles exposed to the early‐hatched salamanders were larger at metamorphosis and had a longer larval period than other frog tadpoles. These results suggest that feedback between the predator‐superior size balance and prey consumption is a critical mechanism that strongly affects the impacts of early hatching of predators in the short‐term population dynamics and life history of the prey. Because consumption of large nutrient‐rich prey items supports the growth of predators, a similar feedback mechanism may be common and have strong impacts on phenological shifts in size‐dependent trophic relationships.     

Do predators limit the abundance of alternative prey? Experiments with vole‐eating avian and mammalian predators

Predation has been invoked as a factor synchronizing the population oscillations of sympatric prey species, either because predators kill prey unselectively (the Shared Predation Hypothesis; hereafter SPH), or because predators switch to alternative prey after a density decline in their main prey (the Alternative Prey Hypothesis; APH). A basic assumption of the APH is that the impact of predators on alternative prey depends more on the density of main prey than on the predator/alternative prey ratio. Both SPH and APH assume that the impact of predators on alternative prey is at least periodically strong enough to depress prey populations. To examine these assumptions, we utilized data from replicated field experiments in large areas where we reduced the breeding densities of avian predators during three years and the numbers of least weasels (Mustela nivalis) in two years when vole populations declined. In addition, we reduced the breeding densities of avian predators in two years when vole populations were high. The reduction of least weasels increased the abundance of their alternative prey, small birds breeding on the ground, but did not affect the abundance of common shrews (Sorex araneus). In years when vole populations declined, the reduction of avian predators increased the abundance of their alternative prey, common shrews and small birds. Therefore, vole‐eating predators do at least periodically depress the abundance of their alternative prey. At high vole densities, the reduction of avian predators did not increase the abundance of common shrews, although the ratio of avian predators to alternative prey was similar to years when vole populations declined, which supported APH. In contrast, the abundance of small birds increased after the reduction of avian predators also at high vole densities, which supported SPH. The manipulations had no obvious effect on the number of game birds, which are only occasionally killed by these small‐sized predators. We conclude that in communities where most predators are small or specialize on a single prey type, the synchronizing impact of predation is restricted to a few similar‐sized species.     

Density-dependent prey behaviours and mutable predator foraging modes induce Allee effects and over-prediction of prey mortality rates

1. Predator–prey models are often used to represent consumptive interactions between species but, typically, are derived using simple experimental systems with little plasticity in prey or predator behaviours. However, many prey and predators exhibit a broad suite of behaviours. Here, we experimentally tested the effect of density-dependent prey and predator behaviours on per capita relative mortality rates using Florida bass (Micropterus floridanus) consuming juvenile Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus).
2. Experimental ponds were stocked with a factorial design of low, medium, and high prey and predator densities. Prey mortality, prey–predator behaviours, and predator stomach contents were recorded over or after 7 days. We assumed the mortality dynamics followed foraging arena theory. This pathologically flexible predator–prey model separates prey into invulnerable and vulnerable pools where predators can consume prey in the latter. As this approach can represent classic Lotka–Volterra and ratio-dependent dynamics, we fit a foraging arena predator–prey model to the number of surviving prey.
3. We found that prey exhibited density-dependent prey behaviours, hiding at low densities, shoaling at medium densities, and using a provided refuge at high densities. Predators exhibited ratio-dependent behaviours, using an ambush foraging mode when one predator was present, hiding in the shadows at low prey–high predator densities, and shoaling at medium and high prey–high predator densities. The foraging arena model predicted the mortality rates well until the high prey–high predator treatment where group vigilance prey behaviours occurred and predators probably interfered with one another resulting in the model predicting higher mortality than observed.
4. This is concerning given the ubiquity of predator–prey models in ecology and natural resource management. Furthermore, as Allee effects engender instability in population regulation, it could lead to inaccurate predictions of conservation status, population rebuilding or harvest rates.

     

Mixed encounters, limited perception and optimal foraging

This article demonstrates how perceptual constraints of predators and the possibility that predators encounter prey both sequentially (one prey type at a time) and simultaneously (two or more prey types at a time) may influence the predator attack decisions, diet composition and functional response of a behavioural predator-prey system. Individuals of a predator species are assumed to forage optimally on two prey types and to have exact knowledge of prey population numbers (or densities) only in a neighbourhood of their actual spatial location. The system characteristics are inspected by means of a discrete-time, discrete-space, individual-based model of the one-predator-two-prey interaction. Model predictions are compared with ones that have been obtained by assuming only sequential encounters of predators with prey and/or omniscient predators aware of prey population densities in the whole environment. It is shown that the zero-one prey choice rule, optimal for sequential encounters and omniscient predators, shifts to abruptly changing partial preferences for both prey types in the case of omniscient predators faced with both types of prey encounters. The latter, in turn, become gradually changing partial preferences when predator omniscience is considered only local.     

The effectiveness of post-contact defenses in a prey with no pre-contact detection

Most empirical and theoretical papers on prey–predator interactions are for animals with long-range detection, animals that can detect and react to predators long before these touch the prey. Heavy-bodied and chemically defended harvestmen (Arachnida, Opiliones) are an exception to this general pattern and rely on contact to detect arthropod predators. We examined the interactions between the Brazilian wandering spider Ctenus ornatus with harvestmen (Mischonyx cuspidatus) or control prey (Gryllus sp. and M. cuspidatus immature, both with soft integuments). Considering a prey–predator system in which fleeing from or reacting to a predator at a distance is not possible, we predicted both a high survival value of near-range defense mechanisms and that mortality would be higher in the absence of such defense mechanisms. We also expected the predator to behave differently when interacting with harvestmen or with a control prey without such defense mechanisms. Our results from laboratory experiments partially matched our predictions: First of all, histological sections showed that the integument of adult harvestmen is thicker than that of immature harvestmen and that of crickets. Adult harvestmen were less preyed upon than the control prey; the heavy armature increases the survival rate but the secretions from the scent glands do not. The predator did behave differently when attacking harvestmen compared to crickets. Despite the large size difference between predator and harvestmen, the protection provided by the armature allowed some of the harvestmen to survive encounters without pre-contact detection, thus greatly reducing the reliance on long-range detection to survive encounters with predators. Harvestmen call for theoretical and empirical work on prey–predator interactions that take into account the possibility that prey may not detect the predator before contact is established.     

A review of predation as a limiting factor for bird populations in mesopredator‐rich landscapes: a case study of the UK

The impact of increasing vertebrate predator numbers on bird populations is widely debated among the general public, game managers and conservationists across Europe. However, there are few systematic reviews of whether predation limits the population sizes of European bird species. Views on the impacts of predation are particularly polarised in the UK, probably because the UK has a globally exceptional culture of intensive, high‐yield gamebird management where predator removal is the norm. In addition, most apex predators have been exterminated or much depleted in numbers, contributing to a widely held perception that the UK has high numbers of mesopredators. This has resulted in many high‐quality studies of mesopredator impacts over several decades. Here we present results from a systematic review of predator trends and abundance, and assess whether predation limits the population sizes of 90 bird species in the UK. Our results confirm that the generalist predators Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) and Crows (Corvus corone and C. cornix) occur at high densities in the UK compared with other European countries. In addition, some avian and mammalian predators have increased numerically in the UK during recent decades. Despite these high and increasing densities of predators, we found little evidence that predation limits populations of pigeons, woodpeckers and passerines, whereas evidence suggests that ground‐nesting seabirds, waders and gamebirds can be limited by predation. Using life‐history characteristics of prey species, we found that mainly long‐lived species with high adult survival and late onset of breeding were limited by predation. Single‐brooded species were also more likely to be limited by predation than multi‐brooded species. Predators that depredate prey species during all life stages (i.e. from nest to adult stages) limited prey numbers more than predators that depredated only specific life stages (e.g. solely during the nest phase). The Red Fox and non‐native mammals (e.g. the American Mink Neovison vison) were frequently identified as numerically limiting their prey species. Our review has identified predator–prey interactions that are particularly likely to result in population declines of prey species. In the short term, traditional predator‐management techniques (e.g. lethal control or fencing to reduce predation by a small number of predator species) could be used to protect these vulnerable species. However, as these techniques are costly and time‐consuming, we advocate that future research should identify land‐use practices and landscape configurations that would reduce predator numbers and predation rates.     

Behavioral responses to prey density by three acarine predator species with different degrees of polyphagy

Behavioral responses by three acarine predators, Phytoseiulus persimilis, Typhlodromus occidentalis, and Amblyseius andersoni (Acari: Phytoseiidae), to different egg and webbing densities of the spider mite Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae) on rose leaflets were studied in the laboratory. Prey patches were delineated by T. urticae webbing and associated kairomones, which elicit turning back responses in predators near the patch edge. Only the presence of webbing affected predator behavior; increased webbing density did not increase patch time. Patch time increased with increased T. urticae egg density in the oligophagous P. persimilis, but was density independent in the polyphagous species T. occidentalis and A. andersoni. Patch time in all three species was more strongly correlated with the number of prey encounters and attacks than with the actual prey number present in the patch. Patch time was determined by (a) the turning back response near the patch edge; this response decayed through time and eventually led to the abandonment of the patch, and (b) encounters with, and attacks upon, prey eggs; these prolonged patch time by both an increment of time spent in handling or rejecting prey and an increment of time spent searching between two successive prey encounters or attacks. Although searching efficiency was independent of prey density in all three species, the predation rate by P. persimilis decreased with prey density because its searching activity (i.e. proportion of total patch time spent in searching) decreased with prey density. Predation rates by T. occidentalis and A. andersoni decreased with prey density because their searching activity and success ratio both decreased with prey density. The data were tested against models of predator foraging responses to prey density. The effects of the degree of polyphagy on predator foraging behavior were also discussed.     

Predation and searching efficiency of a ladybird beetle, Coccinella septempunctata Linnaeus in laboratory environment

The predation and searching efficiency of fourth instar of predatory C. septempunctata at various densities of mustard aphid, Lipaphis erysimi (Kaltenbach) and predator was investigated under laboratory conditions. The feeding rate of predatory stage decreased at increased prey- and predator densities. Highest percent (92.80%) prey consumption was observed at initial prey density and lowest percent (40.86%) prey consumption at highest prey density by the fourth instar, though the total prey consumption increased with increase in either prey- or predator densities. Similarly, the individual prey consumption was also highest at initial predator density and lowest at highest predator density owing to the mutual interference between the predators at higher densities. The area of discovery (searching efficiency) also decreased with increase in prey- and predator densities. Handling time of predator was highest at lower prey densities, which decreased with increased prey densities. The highest percentage of prey consumption at the prey density of 50 revealed that 1:50 predator-prey ratio was the best to reduce the pest population.