ArticlePloS one2020
Methods for independently manipulating palatability and color in small insect prey.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of odour on prey pattern aversion in jumping spiders.Royal Society open science · 2026Article
- Is temporal synchrony necessary for effective Batesian mimicry?Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- Conspicuous stripes on prey capture attention and reduce attacks by foraging jumping spiders.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- Insight into the Role of Psychological Factors in Oral Mucosa Diseases.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Lack of neophobic responses to color in a jumping spider that uses color cues when foraging (Habronattus pyrrithrix).PloS one · 2021Article
- Color vision improves foraging success and accelerates reproduction in a jumping spider.Behavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral EcologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Understanding how the psychology of predators shapes the defenses of colorful aposematic prey has been a rich area of inquiry, with emphasis on hypothesis-driven experiments that independently manipulate color and palatability in prey to examine predator responses. Most of these studies focus on avian predators, despite calls to consider more taxonomically diverse predators. This taxonomic bias leaves gaps in our knowledge about the generalizability of current theory. Here we have adapted tools that have been successfully used with bird predators and scaled them down and tested them with smaller predators (Habronattus jumping spiders) and small insect prey (termites, milkweed bug nymphs, pinhead crickets, fruit flies). Specifically, we test (1) the application of denatonium benzoate (DB) to the surface of live termites, crickets, and fruit flies, and (2) the effectiveness of manipulating the palatability of milkweed bug nymphs through diet. We also test the effectiveness of combining these palatability manipulations with various color manipulations. Across several experiments, we confirm that our palatability manipulations are not detectable to the spiders before they attack (i.e., they do not produce aversive odors that spiders avoid), and show that unpalatable prey are indeed quickly rejected and spiders do not habituate to the taste with experience. We also investigate limitations of these techniques by assessing possible unintended effects on prey behavior and the risk of contact contamination when using DB-treated prey in experiments. While similar tools have been used to manipulate color and palatability with avian predators and relatively large insect prey, we show how these techniques can be effectively adapted for use with small invertebrate predators and prey.
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.