Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorWissinger, Scott A.
dc.contributor.authorWhissel, John C.
dc.contributor.authorEldermire, Charles
dc.contributor.authorBrown, Wendy S.
dc.date.accessioned2018-02-06T15:41:21Z
dc.date.available2018-02-06T15:41:21Z
dc.date.issued2006-02-07
dc.identifier.citationWissinger, S.A., Whissel, J.C., Eldermire, C., and Brown, W.S. (2006). Predator defense along a permanence gradient: roles of case structure, behavior, and developmental phenology in caddisflies. Oecologia 147(4): 667-678. doi:10.1007/s00442-005-0303-1en_US
dc.identifier.issn0029-8549
dc.identifier.issne1432-1939
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10456/45613
dc.description.abstractSpecies replacements along freshwater permanence gradients are well documented, but underlying mechanisms are poorly understood for most taxa. In subalpine wetlands in Colorado, the relative abundance of caddisfly larvae shifts from temporary to permanent basins. Predators on caddisflies also shift along this gradient; salamanders (Ambystoma tigrinum nebulosum) in permanent ponds are replaced by predaceous diving beetles (Dytiscus dauricus) in temporary habitats. We conducted laboratory and field experiments to determine the effectiveness of caddisfly cases in reducing vulnerability to these predators. We found that larvae of a temporary-habitat caddisfly (Asynarchus nigriculus) were the most vulnerable to salamanders. Two relatively invulnerable species (Limnephilus externus, L. picturatus) exhibited behaviors that reduced the likelihood of detection and attack, whereas the least vulnerable species (Agrypnia deflata) was frequently detected and attacked, but rarely captured because cases provided an effective refuge. Vulnerability to beetle predation was also affected by cases. The stout cases of L. externus larvae frequently deterred beetle larvae, whereas the tubular cases of the other species were relatively ineffective. Two of these vulnerable species (A. nigriculus and L. picturatus) often co-occur with beetles; thus, case construction alone is insufficient to explain patterns of caddisfly coexistence along the permanence gradient. One explanation for the coexistence of these two species with beetles is that they develop rapidly during early summer and pupate before beetle larvae become abundant. One species (L. picturatus) pupates by burying into soft substrates that serve as a refuge. The other (A. nigriculus) builds stone pupal cases, which in field experiments, more than doubles survival compared to organic pupal cases. The combined results of these experiments suggest that caddisfly distributions along permanence gradients depend on a suite of primary and secondary predator defenses that include larval and pupal case structure, predator-specific escape behaviors, and the phenology of larval development.en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherSpringer-Verlagen_US
dc.relation.ispartofOecologiaen_US
dc.relation.isversionofhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-005-0303-1en_US
dc.rightsThis article was selected and published in Oecologia © 2006 Wissinger, Whissel, Eldermire, and Brown. All rights reserved.en_US
dc.subjectpermanence gradienten_US
dc.subjectCaddisfly casesen_US
dc.subjectpredator defenseen_US
dc.subjectcommunity structureen_US
dc.titlePredator defense along a permanence gradient: roles of case structure, behavior, and developmental phenology in caddisflies.en_US
dc.description.versionOriginal manuscript prior to peer review (preprint)en_US
dc.contributor.departmentBiologyen_US
dc.citation.volume147en_US
dc.citation.issue4en_US
dc.citation.spage667en_US
dc.citation.epage678en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00442-005-0303-1
dc.contributor.avlauthorWissinger, Scott A.


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record