Ignacio Castellanos

Do leaf shelters always protect caterpillars from invertebrate predators

Abstract 1. All larval instars of Epargyreus clarus, the silver‐spotted skipper, construct and inhabit leaf shelters that are presumed to protect them from predator attack.

Predatory wasps learn to overcome the shelter defences of their larval prey

Abstract Larvae of Epargyreus clarus (Hesperiidae), the silver-spotted skipper, inhabit leaf-and-silk shelters that they construct on their leguminous host plants. In the field, Polistes spp. (Vespidae) wasps land on the shelters, quickly extracting and killing the larvae within. In marked contrast, wasps that emerge from field-collected colonies maintained in the laboratory visit and examine leaflets bearing sheltered caterpillars, but only rarely do they extract and kill the sheltered larvae. To examine whether learning is involved in the development of the ability of Polistes wasps to forage successfully on sheltered E. clarus larvae, we tested the responses of P. fuscatus and P. dominulus wasps to sheltered E. clarus larvae before and after their exposure to unsheltered larvae that were visible either on an opened host-leaf shelter ( P. fuscatus and P. dominulus ) or on a nonhost leaf in the absence of a shelter ( P. fuscatus ). After killing and processing an unsheltered larva that was visible on an opened leaf shelter, a majority of foragers subsequently extracted and killed larvae from closed shelters. Wasps that killed and processed an unsheltered larva on a nonhost leaf, on the other hand, generally did not later open shelters. Thus, it seems that experience with an exposed larva in the context of its shelter is necessary for a wasp to be able to prey on sheltered larvae. We conclude that the wasps must learn to associate the taste of the larva with shelter-related cues, such as presence of leaf damage and silk. In nature, this initial exposure may occur when the larva is visible in or near its shelter, perhaps when feeding or constructing a new shelter. Learning opportunities will thus depend on larval density. Our results show that invertebrate predators can learn to overcome their preys defences, and are therefore able to make use of previously inaccessible prey.

Quantifying insect predation with predator exclusion cages: the role of prey antipredator behavior as a source of bias

There are limitations imposed by current methodologies to detect and quantify insect predation. However, there has been relatively little effort to experimentally document the sources of biases associated with the various methodologies. In this study, we examined how predation estimates in the field using predator exclusion cages may be biased when one fails to account for antipredator behavioral responses. To do this, we did the usual comparison of the number of insects missing from plants where predators were allowed access to the number missing from plants where predators were excluded, but also determined how many of the missing insects reacted to predators by dropping from plants and how many were actually preyed upon. Our results provide evidence that estimates of insect mortality in the field are significantly reduced if prey antipredator behavior is taken into account. As it is commonly assumed that prey missing in the field are predated, documenting the incidence of predator‐mediated ‘disappearance’ and capturing insect prey before they escape can provide with a relevant estimate of bias.

Characteristics of nest-sites of the southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans) in a pine-oak forest of central Mexico

Abstract We characterized nest-sites of the southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans) in a pine-oak forest located in Hidalgo, Mexico, and compared habitat variables between plots with nests and random plots without observed nests. We also compared areas of mature forest with forested areas under management. We detected 31 leaf nests or dreys along two streams in mature forest and none in forest under management; 93.6% of dreys were constructed on branches of live oaks (Quercus laurina). Plots with nests had significantly more snags, more rocks, and steeper slopes than plots without observed nests. No difference was found in the number of trees. In plots with nests, oaks were the dominant trees, mainly Q. laurina, while pines (Pinus) were more abundant in plots without observed nests. Given the propensity for these squirrels to build leaf-nests, availability of snags and cavities in this region may not be a limiting factor for G. volans as has been suggested previously.

Number of hummingbird visits determines flower mite abundance on hummingbird feeders.

Members of several genera of mites from the family Melicharidae (Mesostigmata) use hummingbirds as transport host to move from flower to flower, where they feed on pollen and nectar. The factors that influence hummingbird flower mite abundance on host plant flowers are not currently known. Here we tested whether hummingbird flower mite abundance on an artificial nectar source is determined by number of hummingbird visits, nectar energy content or species richness of visiting hummingbirds. We conducted experiments employing hummingbird feeders with sucrose solutions of low, medium, and high energy concentrations, placed in a xeric shrubland. In the first experiment, we recorded the number of visiting hummingbirds and the number of visiting hummingbird species, as well as the abundance of hummingbird flower mites on each feeder. Feeders with the highest sucrose concentration had the most hummingbird visits and the highest flower mite abundances; however, there was no significant effect of hummingbird species richness on mite abundance. In the second experiment, we recorded flower mite abundance on feeders after we standardized the number of hummingbird visits to them. Abundance of flower mites did not differ significantly between feeders when we controlled for hummingbird visits. Our results suggest that nectar energy concentration determines hummingbird visits, which in turn determines flower mite abundance in our feeders. Our results do not support the hypothesis that mites descend from hummingbird nostrils more on richer nectar sources; however, it does not preclude the possibility that flower mites select for nectar concentration at other spatial and temporal scales.