Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28878255›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2017

Adaptive aggregation by spider mites under predation risk.

Lena Dittmann, Peter Schausberger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Lena DittmannGroup of Arthropod Ecology and Behavior, Department of Crop Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Gregor-Mendel-Straße 33, 1180, Vienna, Austria.
Peter SchausbergerGroup of Arthropod Ecology and Behavior, Department of Crop Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Gregor-Mendel-Straße 33, 1180, Vienna, Austria. peter.schausberger@univie.ac.at.ORCID 0000-0002-1529-3198

Funding

Austrian Science Fund FWF P 25876
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Grouping together is a commonly observed anti-predator strategy. Possible anti-predator benefits of aggregation include the encounter/avoidance effect for visually hunting predators and the dilution effect, together dubbed attack abatement. Possible costs opposing the dilution effect are easier detection of aggregated than scattered individuals. The benefits of attack abatement, and opposing costs after group detection, are poorly understood for chemosensory predator-prey interactions. We tackled this issue by assessing the aggregation behavior of spider mites Tetranychus urticae under predation risk emanating from predatory mites Phytoseiulus persimilis. We examined whether adult spider mite females aggregate more tightly when perceiving predator cues (traces left and eggs), representing graded risk levels, and whether grouping enhances survival in physical predator presence. The spider mites aggregated more tightly and were more active in presence than absence of predator cues. Grouped spider mites were less likely and later detected and attacked than scattered spider mites. Moreover, encounter and attack of one group member did not increase the risk of other members to be attacked, as compared to scattered spider mites. To the best of our knowledge, our study is the first rigorous documentation of the adaptive benefit of tightened prey aggregation towards a purely chemosensorily hunting predator.

Indexed as

Behavior, AnimalMitesPredatory BehaviorAnimals

Identifiers

PMID28878255
PMCPMC5587541

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.