↓ Skip to main content

The Nutritional Content of Prey Affects the Foraging of a Generalist Arthropod Predator

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
93 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
130 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Nutritional Content of Prey Affects the Foraging of a Generalist Arthropod Predator
Published in
PLOS ONE, November 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0049223
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jason M. Schmidt, Peter Sebastian, Shawn M. Wilder, Ann L. Rypstra

Abstract

While foraging theory predicts that predatory responses should be determined by the energy content and size of prey, it is becoming increasingly clear that carnivores regulate their intake of specific nutrients. We tested the hypothesis that prey nutrient composition and predator nutritional history affects foraging intensity, consumption, and prey selection by the wolf spider, Pardosa milvina. By altering the rearing environment for fruit flies, Drosophila melanogaster, we produced high quality flies containing more nitrogen and protein and less lipid than low quality fruit flies. In one experiment, we quantified the proportion of flies taken and consumption across a range of densities of either high or low quality flies and, in a second experiment, we determined the prey capture and consumption of spiders that had been maintained on contrasting diets prior to testing. In both cases, the proportion of prey captured declined with increasing prey density, which characterizes the Type II functional response that is typical of wolf spiders. Spiders with similar nutritional histories killed similar numbers of each prey type but consumed more of the low quality prey. Spiders provided high quality prey in the weeks prior to testing killed more prey than those on the low quality diet but there was no effect of prior diet on consumption. In the third experiment, spiders were maintained on contrasting diets for three weeks and then allowed to select from a mixture of high and low quality prey. Interestingly, feeding history affected prey preferences: spiders that had been on a low quality diet showed no preference but those on the high quality diet selected high quality flies from the mixture. Our results suggest that, even when prey size and species identity are controlled, the nutritional experience of the predator as well as the specific content of the prey shapes predator-prey interactions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Hungary 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Unknown 126 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 19%
Student > Master 22 17%
Researcher 21 16%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 17 13%
Unknown 29 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 58 45%
Environmental Science 18 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 2%
Neuroscience 2 2%
Other 4 3%
Unknown 41 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 November 2012.
All research outputs
#3,221,072
of 22,685,926 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#42,362
of 193,650 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,516
of 183,504 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#788
of 4,904 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,685,926 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,650 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 183,504 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,904 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.