ArticleThe Journal of experimental biology2024
Finding food: how generalist predators use contact-chemosensory information to guide prey preferences.
Article in The Journal of experimental biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Host Egg Preference and Density-Dependent Parasitism of Telenomus remus in Spodoptera litura and Spodoptera frugiperda Eggs.Neotropical entomology · 2025Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Understanding the processes that guide carnivores in finding and selecting prey is a fundamental, unresolved challenge in sensory biology. To our knowledge, no published work has yet revealed the complete structural identities of compounds that cue preferences by generalist predators for different prey species. With this research imperative in mind, we determined the chemistry driving consumer preferences for live intact prey using two generalist predatory species (sea stars, Pisaster ochraceus; whelks, Acanthinucella spirata), along with two foundation prey species (mussels, Mytilus californianus; barnacles, Balanus glandula), inhabiting rocky, wave-swept shores. Each prey species is known to secrete either a 29.6 kDa (named 'KEYSTONEin') or a 199.6 kDa (named 'MULTIFUNCin') glycoprotein as a contact-chemical cue. Here, experimental manipulations utilized faux prey consisting of cleaned barnacle or mussel shells infused with KEYSTONEin, MULTIFUNCin or seawater (control) gels. Whelks exhibited a strong penchant for MULTIFUNCin over KEYSTONEin, irrespective of shell type. In contrast, sea stars generally preferred KEYSTONEin over MULTIFUNCin, but this preference shifted depending on the experimental context in which they encountered physical (shell) and chemical (glycoprotein) stimuli. This study ultimately demonstrates clear and contrasting chemical preferences between sea stars and whelks. It highlights the importance of experimental setting in determining chemical preferences. Finally, it shows that prey preferences by these predators hinge only on one or two contact-protein cues, without the need for quality coding via fluid-borne compounds, low-molecular-weight substances or mixture blends.
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.