ArticleRoyal Society open science2015
Can differential nutrient extraction explain property variations in a predatory trap?
Article in Royal Society open science, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Species identification of livefood flightless fly (Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- Changes in predator exposure, but not in diet, induce phenotypic plasticity in scorpion venom.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2017Article
- Spider web and silk performance landscapes across nutrient space.Scientific reports · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Predators exhibit flexible foraging to facilitate taking prey that offer important nutrients. Because trap-building predators have limited control over the prey they encounter, differential nutrient extraction and trap architectural flexibility may be used as a means of prey selection. Here, we tested whether differential nutrient extraction induces flexibility in architecture and stickiness of a spider's web by feeding Nephila pilipes live crickets (CC), live flies (FF), dead crickets with the web stimulated by flies (CD) or dead flies with the web stimulated by crickets (FD). Spiders in the CD group consumed less protein per mass of lipid or carbohydrate, and spiders in the FF group consumed less carbohydrates per mass of protein. Spiders from the CD group built stickier webs that used less silk, whereas spiders in the FF group built webs with more radii, greater catching areas and more silk, compared with other treatments. Our results suggest that differential nutrient extraction is a likely explanation for prey-induced spider web architecture and stickiness variations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.