ArticlePloS one2019
Does prey encounter and nutrient content affect prey selection in wolf spiders inhabiting Bt cotton fields?
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Species composition, seasonal abundance and population dynamics of predatory spiders from cotton field plots of irrigated and semi-arid regions of Punjab, Pakistan.Saudi journal of biological sciences · 2023Article
- Invasion by an ecosystem engineer changes biotic interactions between native and non-native taxa.Ecology and evolution · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Wolf spiders are abundant and voracious predators at the soil-plant interface in cotton crops. Among other prey, they attack late-instar larvae of the cotton bollworm Helicoverpa spp., an economically important pest. Consequently, wolf spiders in transgenic Bt cotton could provide significant biological control of Bt-resistant Helicoverpa larvae that descend to the soil to pupate. The predator-prey interactions between wolf spiders and Helicoverpa could, however, be constrained by the presence of alternative prey and intraguild predators. This study used laboratory enclosures to analyse the effect of alternative prey on predatory selection of the wolf spider Tasmanicosa leuckartii Thorell. The prey included another wolf spider Hogna crispipes Koch (potential intraguild predator), the ground cricket Teleogryllus commodus Walker (minor pest), and Helicoverpa armigera larvae (major pest). We tested if encounter rates, prey vulnerability, and prey nutritional content influenced the likelihood that a prey was attacked. In three-way food webs, Tasmanicosa encountered and attacked Teleogryllus and Helicoverpa in similar frequencies. However, in the presence of a competing intraguild predator and potential prey (Hogna) in a four-way food web, Tasmanicosa did not always attack Teleogryllus at first encounter, but still attacked Helicoverpa at each encounter. Helicoverpa (protein-poor) and Hogna (protein-rich) were consumed by Tasmanicosa in similar proportions, suggesting that Tasmanicosa might benefit from nutrient balance as an outcome of diverse prey in this food web. As Teleogryllus (protein rich) escapes quicker than Helicoverpa and Hogna, Hogna may be an easier protein-rich option than Teleogryllus. Field surveys showed that while Teleogryllus was the most common prey, wolf spiders feed on diverse insect taxa, as well as other spiders. That Tasmanicosa readily attacked Helicoverpa larvae in the presence of alternative prey is an encouraging result that supports the potential of Tasmanicosa predation to assist in the control of Bt-resistant Helicoverpa larvae and thereby inhibit the proliferation and spread of resistance.
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.