Scientific note

Predation behavior of the Myrmeleon brasiliensis (Neuroptera: Myrmeleontidae) larval instars

Comportamiento de depredación de los estadios larvales de Myrmeleon brasiliensis (Neuroptera: Myrmeleontidae)

Abstract: Myrmeleon brasiliensis larvae are predators that use the sit-and-wait tactic to catch their prey, and to fulfll this pitmaking funnel traps in the sandy soil and remain buried waiting for prey to slip. The objective of this study was to observe the predation behavior of larvae of M. brasiliensis in the three larval instars, for this leaf cut ant were collected manually and offered within the plastic pots as prey for 14 larvae of 1^st instar larvae, 33 of 2^nd and 3^rd instar. It was counted the number of attacks of the predator to prey, the number of escapes from jail and the success of prey capture for each larva of M. brasiliensis. The larvae of M. brasiliensis 1^st instar attacked more times its prey, followed by larvae of 2^nd and 3^rd instar. On the number of escape of prey, there was no signifcant difference in this behavior among larvae. Regarding the success in capturing prey, the larvae of 3^rd instar were more successful, with a predation rate of 96.96%, followed by the larvae of 2^nd (69.70%) and 1^st instar (14.28 %).

Resumen: Las larvas de Myrmeleon brasiliensis son depredadoras que utilizan la estrategia de forrajeo de tipo “sit-and-wait” para capturar a sus presas y así construyen trampas en forma de embudo en el suelo arenoso y permanecen enterradas esperando que caigan las presas. El objetivo de este trabajo fue observar el comportamiento de depredación de las larvas de M. brasiliensis en los tres instares larvales, para eso, se recolectaron hormigas cortadoras y se ofrecieron manualmente como presas a 14 larvas de 1° instar y 33 de 2° y 3° instar. Se contó el número de ataques del depredador a la presa, el número de escapes de la presa y el éxito de captura de presas de cada larva de M. brasiliensis. Las larvas de M. brasiliensis de 1° instar atacaron más a sus presas, seguidas por las larvas de segundo y tercer instar. En cuanto al número de escapes de las presas, no se observó diferencia signifcativa para ese comportamiento entre las larvas. En relación al éxito en la captura de las presas, las larvas de 3° instar presentaron más éxito, con una tasa de depredación de 96, 96%, seguida por las larvas de 2° (69,70%) y 1° instar (14,28%).

Palabras claves: Depredador. Forrajeo. Hormiga león.

Introduction

Several types of foraging strategies can be employed by predators in search for preys. These models may range from the ambush, in which the predator waits for its prey, to active search, when, as the name suggests, the predator hunts the prey (Nilsson 2006; Scharf et al. 2006). Depending on the behavior, the capture of preys may be determined by several factors, such as their morphology, the kind of prey, the structure of habitat, the presence of competitors, the physical conditions and the interactions among them (Endler 1991). In this context, a large array of tactics of capture and subjugation of preys arise; and, for the same species, adults and young specimens may adopt diverse strategies (Bekoff 1983). Antlion (Neuroptera, Myrmeleontidae) larvae are predators that use the tactics of ambush for catching their preys. These larvae build funnel-shaped traps in the sandy soil and remain interred while waiting for their preys, arthropods that move on the soil surface, to fall into their traps (Crowley and Linton 1999; Lomáscolo and Farji-Brener 2001; Napolitano 1998). On falling into the traps, the preys find diffculty escaping because of the sand granulation and the inclination of the funnel walls, and are therefore easily subjugated by the larvae (Devetak 2005; Devetak et al. 2005). Other factors, such as the availability of sites with dry and sandy soil for the building of the funnels, the texture and temperature of soil, the abundance of preys and the competition for space between the larvae are variables that may affect the costs and benefts of foraging (Faria et al.1994; Heinrich and Heinrich 1984; MacClure 1976; Prado et al. 1993).

Larvae of antlion Myrmeleon brasiliensis (Návas, 1914) go through three instars before the formation of pupa. Each instar lasts about 26 days, depending on the diet of the larvae (Missirian et al. 2006). First-, second- and thirdinstar M. brasiliensis present a mean body size of 4.3 (S.D.: ± 0.55mm), 6.1 (± 0.92mm) and 9.9 (± 1.23mm), respectively (Missirian et al. 2006). Lima and Faria (2007) observed that there is a positive relation between body size of M. brasiliensis and trap size, and researchers who studied other antlion larvae species (e.g. Allen and Croft 1985; Day and Zalucki 2000; Faria et al. 1994; Griffths 1980, 1986; Heinrich and Heinrich 1984) observed that the increase in both body size and trap size are positively related to the success of capturing preys.

Thus, because the changes of instars of M. brasiliensis larvae yield an increase in their body size and, consequently, in their trap size, the larvae’s changes of phases may eventually affect their foraging behavior. The objective of this note was to describe the way different larval stages of M. brasiliensis behave during the capture of preys. This study presents three specifc objectives: 1) to compare the number of times M. brasiliensis antlions attack their preys in the three instars; 2) to compare the number of times the preys of M. brasiliensis manage to escape in the three instars; and 3) to compare the prey capture success by M. brasiliensis in the three instars.

Materials and Methods

M. brasiliensis larvae were collected in the municipality of Aquidauana, Mato Grosso do Sul, in a permanent protection area - Área de Proteção Permanente (APP) (20º26’25”S, 55º39’21”W) - belonging to the State University of Mato Grosso do Sul, in October 2008. The experiments were conducted in the Zoology Laboratory of the Federal University of Mato Grosso do Sul, campus of Campo Grande, from October 2008 to May 2009.

The larvae had their funnel diameter noted and were later collected with the help of a spoon and stored in plastic bags with some sand from the site of origin to be transported to the laboratory. In order to differentiate the instars, the larvae had their body length (head-abdomen) and cephalic capsule width measured with the help of a digital caliper (resolution 0.01mm). After the trial they were stored individually in transparent plastic pots (13cm in length and 10cm in diameter) with sand. ]]> To assess the predation behavior, the following experiment was performed: workers of leaf-cutting ant, Atta laevigata (S. Smith, 1858), with mean size of 5.78±1.09mm, were collected and manually offered in the plastic pots as preys for 14 first-instar larvae and 33 second- and third-instar larvae. Each larvae was fed only once with only one ant. During the experiment the larvae were observed for fve minutes and then three variables were counted: the number of attacks of the predator on the preys (attack was so considered when there was a rapid movement of jaws throwing sand, in an attempt to reach the preys for them to fall into the bottom of the trap); the number of prey escapes (escape was so considered when the larva releases its prey for it to leave or not the trap); and the successful capture of preys for each M. brasiliensis larva (successful capture was so considered when the larva seizes the prey with its jaws and submerges it in sand).

Kruskal-Wallis test (followed by Dunn test) was used to compare the number of attacks of M. brasiliensis larvae on their preys and the number of escapes of preys in the three larval instars. The comparison among the successful capture of preys throughout the three instars was assessed by the 3X2 contingence table utilizing G Test.

Results The diameter of the funnels varied from 14.7 to 27.9mm; the larvae’s body length, from 1.91 to 10.17mm; and the cephalic capsule, from 0.48 to 1.44mm. The variations in size among the instars can be observed in Table 1.

When the preys were offered to M. brasiliensis larvae, they all tried to seize them by moving head and mandible. The pattern of capture of first-instar larvae was to attack their preys with assaults on the legs and, later, on the abdomen, whereas second- and third-instar larvae would attack their preys directly on the abdomen, which made capture and manipulation easy.

First-instar M. brasiliensis larvae attack their preys more often, followed by second-and third-instar larvae (Kruskal-Wallis, df = 2, p< 0.001). Dunn test, performed later, showed that this difference occurred among first- and third-instar larvae. The mean number of attacks observed for first-, second- and third- instar larvae was 38.0 (minimum 1-maximum 171), 18.3 (min. 1 – max. 84) and 7.6 (min.1 – max. 32) (Fig. 1), respectively.

No signifcant difference was seen regarding the number of escapes of the preys, although first-instar larvae had a higher average of escapes (2.6 ± 3.20, against 1.81 ± 1.46 and 1.3 ± 1.45 for second and third-instar larvae, respectively). First-instar larvae, even attacking their preys more often, did not manage to seize them effectively, that is, the attack did not involve any kind of contact with the preys, which therefore is not characterized as an escape. On the other hand, other instar larvae (especially third) attacked less often and, when the at-tack occurred, M. brasiliensis managed to capture their preys in an effcient way, which contributed for the sharp decrease in number of escaping.

Third-instar larvae were more successful in capturing preys (96.96%) whereas first- and second-instar larvae capturing 14.28 % and 69.7 % respectively.

Discussion

Larvae at the beginning of development attacked more of ten than third-instar ones. Heinrich and Heinrich (1984) observed that first-instar Myrmeleon immaculatus DeGeer, 1773 larvae did not consume ants (Camponotus herculeanus L. 1758) whose body size ranges from 9 and 10mm. Missirian et al. (2006) observed that first-instar M. brasiliensis did not attack leaf-cutting ants (Atta spp) with body size big-ger than 5.24±1.91 mm. In this paper, working with preys with mean body size of 5.78±1.09 mm, it was seen that most larvae attacked only once or twice and, in not being success-ful, ignored the prey whereas a minority (three larvae) at-tacked their preys many times (more than 100). This behavior represents a laboratory situation, in which the prey size was standardized to different sizes of M. brasiliensis. Probably if the prey size varies positively with size antlion larvae, the number of attacks at the preys would not vary between different instars of M. brasiliensis. The animals are susceptible to decisions such as where to forage and what to eat (Scharf et al. 2010). Furthermore, predators tend to have a more effcient foraging behavior if, after attacking their preys, they begin to adjust their behavior in order to enhance their success rate (Dall et al. 2005; Iwasa and Higashi 1981). First-instar M. brasiliensis larvae may have ignored the preys because they do not represent a suitable energy return, as the cost of capture is very high. Also, the bigger the prey, the more signifcant the destruction caused to the trap during the attempt to capture (Griffths 1980).

The building and maintenance of traps require energy (Griffths 1986); larvae having their trap disturbed present a growth rate reduced in 50% when compared with the ones whose trap was not disturbed (Griffths 1980). Thus, smaller larvae would tend to ignore large preys, avoiding the expenditure with capture and a later trap rebuilding. ]]> There was no signifcant difference in the number of prey escape among the instars. Smaller larvae did not manage to seize their preys, therefore no escape was seen (see methodology). On the other hand, when bigger larvae managed to do it, the attack was successful and, in this case, no escape occurred either. In the feld, the capture rate of antlion larvae is quite reduced (Heinrich and Heinrich 1984) and, since smaller larvae do not manage to effciently seize their prey in the first attack, they start suffering from inanition. Faria et al. (1994) observed that, in a population of Myrmeleon uniformis (Návas, 1936) smaller individuals tend to disappear more often than bigger individuals, which, besides being more successful during foraging, also bear a longer period without food. Coelho et al. (2008) and Cohen (1998) draw the attention to the fact that, for predators with extraoral digestion (bugs, spiders and antlion larvae), the predatorprey contact is extremely relevant. It should occur in such a way that the predator manages to immobilize the prey so as to inject the toxins of digestion in the tissues and, then, perform the ingestion of liquefed content.

Third-instar bigger larvae present an effcient predation behavior, demonstrated by few attacks to the prey and highly successful capture (96.96%). For these larvae, the higher success in capture of preys is due to both body size and trap characteristics, since bigger larvae manage to use their long mandible to seize the prey directly at the abdomen, unlike smaller larvae that tend to seize preys at legs, and then at the abdomen. On seizing the prey at the abdomen, antlion larvae shake them to break their exoskeleton and then release digestive enzymes (Devetak 2005).

Regarding the relation between trap size and successful capture, it can be observed that, on falling into the traps, the prey has more diffculty escaping due to the greater depth of the trap and also because the larvae use their mandibles to throw sand against the prey. This makes its escape diffcult, causing it to slide more easily downwards the trap, where the larva can seize it. Dias et al. (2006) observed that the probability of escape of Myrmeleon sp. preys decreases as the funnel diameter enlarges, and predicted that when funnels have diameters about eight times larger than the prey size, the probability of escape decreases in 50%. Moreover, this effciency may also be associated with the knowledge “older” larvae have of vibration signal on the sand and availability of preys going together (Devetak 1998; Guillette et al. 2009).

Thus, through of laboratory experiments, in which the prey size was standardized, it can be concluded that changes in the larval stage of M. brasiliensis affect its predation behavior. Larvae at the beginning of development attack their preys many times, generating greater investment in capture of preys; this larger investment, though, does not yield an increase in the accomplishment of predation. On the other hand, larvae at the end of development present a more effcient predation behavior, occurring few attacks to preys and a highly successful predation. Probably under feld conditions, in which, the prey size varies, the larvae effciency of first instar in the capture of small preys, it would be similar to larvae of second instar, and principally of the third instar in the capture of the big preys.

Cited Literature

ALLEN, G.; CROFT D. B. 1985. Soil particle size and the pit morphology of the Australian antlions Myrmeleon diminutus and M. pictifrons (Neuroptera: Myrmeleontidae). Australian Journal of Zoology 33: 863-874. BEKOFF, M. 1983. Predatory strategies and behavioral diversity. American Biology Teacher 45: 334-342.         [ Links ]         [ Links ]

COHEN, A. C. 1998. Solidtoliquid feeding: the inside(s) story of extraoral digestion in predaceous Arthropoda. American Entomological 44: 103-115.         [ Links ]

CROWLEY, P. H.; LINTON, M. C. 1999. Antlion foraging: tracking prey across space and time. Ecology 80: 2271-2282.         [ Links ]

COELHO, R. R.; DE ARAUJO JÚNIOR, J. M.; TORRES, J. B. 2008. Comportamento de predação de Podisus nigrispinus (Dallas, 1851) (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) em função da disponibilidade de alimento. Arquivos do Instituto Biológico, São Paulo 75 (4): 463-470.         [ Links ]

DAY, M. D.; ZALUCKI, M. P. 2000. Effect of density on spatial distribution, pit formation and pit diameter of Myrmeleon acer Walker (Neuroptera: Myrmeleontidae): patterns and processes. Australian Journal of Ecology 25: 58-64.         [ Links ]

DALL, S. R. X.; GIRALDEAU, L. A.; OLSSON, O.; MCNAMARA, J. M.; STEPHENS, D. W. 2005. Information and its use by animals in evolutionary ecology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 20: 187-193.         [ Links ]

DEVETAK, D. 2005. Effects of larval antlions Euroleon nostras (Neuroptera, Myrmeleontidae) and their pits on the escapetime of ants. Physiology Entomology 30: 82-86.         [ Links ]

DEVETAK, D. 1998. Detection of substrate vibration in Neuropteriodea: a review. Acta Zoologica Fennica 209: 87-94.         [ Links ]

DEVETAK, D.; PERNJAK, A.; EKOVIC, F. 2005. Substrate particle size affects pit building decision and pit size in the antlion larvae Euroleon nostras (Neuroptera: Myrmeleontidae). Physiologycal Entomology 30: 158-163.        [ Links ]

DÍAS, S. C.; SANTOS, B. A.; WERNECK, F. P.; LIRA, P. K.; CARRASCO-CARBALLIDO, V.; FERNANDES, G. W. 2006. Effciency of prey subjugation by one species of Myrmeleon larvae (Neuroptera: Myrmeleontidae) in the central Amazônia. Brazilian Journal of Biology 66: 441-442.         [ Links ]

ENDLER, J. A. 1991. Interactions between predators and prey. P. 169 - 196. En: Krebs, J. R.; Davies, N. B (eds.). Behavioral Ecology: An Evolutionary approach. Volume III. Blackwell Scientifc Publications. Oxford Editors. 482 p.         [ Links ]

FARIA, M. L.; PRADO, P. I.; BEDÊ, L. C.; FERNANDES, G. W. 1994. Structure and dynamics of a larval population of Myrmeleon uniformis (Neuroptera: Myrmeleontidae). Brazilian Journal of Biology 54: 335-344.         [ Links ]

GRIFFITHS, D. 1980. The feeding biology of antlion larvae: prey capture, handling and utilization. Journal of Animal Ecology 49: 99-125.         [ Links ]

GRIFFITHS, D. 1986. Pit construction by antlion larvae: a costbeneft analysis. Journal of Animal Ecology 55: 39-57.        [ Links ]

GUILLETTE, L.M.; HOLLIS, K. L.; MARKARIAN, A. 2009. Learning in a sedentary insect predator: Antlions (Neuroptera: Myrmeleontidae) anticipate a long wait. Behavioural Processes 80: 224-232.         [ Links ]

HEINRICH, B.; HEINRICH, M. J. E. 1984. The pittrapping foraging strategy of the Antlion Myrmeleon immaculatus DeGeer (Neuroptera: Myrmeleontidae). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 14: 151-160.         [ Links ]

IWASA, Y.; HIGASHI, M. 1981. Prey distribution as a factor determining the choice of optimal foraging strategy. The American Naturalist 117: 710-723.         [ Links ]

LOMÁSCOLO, S.; FARJI-BRENER, A. G. 2001. Adaptive shortterm changes in pit design by antlion larvae (Myrmeleon sp.) in response to different prey condition. Ethology, Ecology and Evolution 13: 393-397.         [ Links ]

LIMA, T. N.; FARIA, R. R. 2007. Seleção de microhabitat por larvas de formigaleão Myrmeleon brasiliensis (Návas) (Neuroptera: Myrmeleontidae), em uma Reserva Florestal, Aquidauana, Mato Grosso do Sul. Neotropical Entomology 35 (4): 812 - 814.         [ Links ]

MACCLURE, M. S. 1976. Spatial distribution of pit-marking antlion (Neuroptera: Myrmeleontidae): density effects. Biotropica 8: 179-183.         [ Links ]

MISSIRIAN, G. B.; UCHÔA-FERNANDES, M. A.; FISCHER, E. 2006. Development of Myrmeleon brasiliensis (Navás) (Neuroptera, Myrmeleontidae), in laboratory, with different natural diets. Revista Brasileira de Zoologia 23 (4): 1044-1050.         [ Links ]

NAPOLITANO, J. F. 1998. Predatory behavior of a pit-marking antlion, Myrmelon mobilis (Neuroptera: Myrmeleontidae). Florida Entomologist 81: 562-566.         [ Links ]

NILSSON, P. A. 2006. Avoid your neighbors: sizedetermined spatial distribution patterns among northern pike individuals. Oikos: 435-440.        [ Links ]

PRADO, I. F. L.; BEDÊ, L. C.; FARIA, M. L. 1993. Asymmetric competition of antlion larvae. Oikos 68: 525-530.         [ Links ]

SCHARF, I.; BARKAE, E. D.; OVADIA, O. 2010. Response of pit-building antlions to repeated unsuccessful encounters with prey. Animal Behaviour 79: 153-158.        [ Links ]

SCHARF, I.; NULMAN, E.; OVADIA, O.; BOUSKILA, A. 2006. Effciency Evaluation of Two Competing Foraging Modes under Different Conditions. The American Naturalist 168 (3): 350- 357.         [ Links ] ]]> 1985 33 33 863-874 1983 45 45 334-342 1998 44 44 103-115 1999 80 80 2271-2282 2008 75 4 4 463-470 2000 25 25 58-64 2005 20 20 187-193 2005 30 30 82-86 1998 209 209 87-94 2005 30 30 158-163 2006 66 66 441-44 1991 III 169 - 196482 1994 54 54 335-3 1980 49 49 99-125 1986 55 55 39-57 2009 80 80 224-232 1984 14 14 151-160 1981 117 117 710-723 2001 13 13 393-397 2007 35 4 4 812 - 814 1976 8 8 179-183 2006 23 4 4 1044-1050 1998 81 81 562-566 2006 435-440 1993 68 68 525-530 2010 79 79 153-158 2006 168 3 3 350- 357