Summary
Foraging behavior of a pit-building antlion larva,Myrmeleon bore Tjeder was investigated experimentally to elucidate the relation between the feeding level and pit relocation.
-
1.
In artificial sands constructed in the field the 3rd instar larvae ofM. bore rarely changed the positions of their pits, though several antlions had moved actively until they constructed pits. The average feeding rate was 0.3 prey/day/pit, and about 60% of prey captured were ants.
-
2.
To examine whether or notM. bore larvae concentrate into the area where they can capture more prey, 8 antlions were released into each of 6 boxes filled with sand. I divided the sand surface of each box into two half areas, then gave prey to the pits built in a half area and gave no prey to the pits built in the other half. During the 50-day observation period, nonfed antlions never moved into the area where prey were given.
-
3.
The 3rd instar larvae were reared separately without food. Even under starved conditions they rarely relocated their pits until dealth. The average duration of survival period was 83.9 days.
-
4.
The experimental results indicate thatM. bore larvae adopt a tactic of sedentary ambushing. These larvae exhibit low movement rates which are independent of prey capture rates.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Anderson, J. F. (1974) Responses to starvation in the spidersLycosa lenta Hentz andFilistata hibernalis (Hentz).Ecology 55: 576–585.
Baba, K. (1953) The biology of antlions.Essa Kontyû Dôkôkai, Niigata (In Japanese).
Formanowicz, Jr., D. R. (1982) Foraging tactics of larvae ofDytiscus verticalis (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae): the assessment of prey density.J. Anim. Ecol. 51: 757–767.
Furunishi, S. andS. Masaki (1982) Seasonal life cycle in two species of ant-lion (Neuroptera: Myrmeleontidae).Jpn. J. Ecol. 32: 7–13.
Griffiths, D. (1980) The feeding biology of ant-lion larvae: prey capture, handling and utilization.J. Anim. Ecol. 49: 99–125.
Griffiths, D. (1986) Pit construction by ant-lion larvae: a cost-benefit analysis.J. Anim. Ecol. 55: 39–57.
Heinrich, B. andM. J. E. Heinrich (1984) The pit-trapping foraging strategy of the antlion,Myrmeleon immaculatus DeGeer (Neuroptera: Myrmeleontidae).Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 14: 151–160.
Inoue, T. andT. Matsura (1983) Foraging strategy of a mantid,Paratenodera angustipennis S.: mechanisms of switching tactics between ambush and active search.Oecologia 56: 264–271.
Janetos, A. C. (1982a) Foraging tactics of two guilds of web-spinning spiders.Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 10: 19–27.
Janetos, A. C. (1982b) Active forager vs. sit-and-wait predators: a simple model.J. Theor. Biol. 95: 381–385.
Lucas, J. R. (1982) The biophysics of pit construction by antlion larvae (Myrmeleon, Neuroptera).Anim. Behav. 30: 651–664.
Lucas, J. R. (1985) Metabolic rates and pit-construction costs of two antlion species.J. Anim. Ecol. 54: 295–309.
Matsura, T. (1981) Responses to starvation in a mantis,Paratenodera angustipennis (S.).Oecologia 50: 291–295.
Matsura, T. (1986) The feeding ecology of the pit-making ant lion larvae,Myrmeleon bore: feeding rate and species composition of prey in a habiat.Ecol. Res. 1: 15–24.
Olive, C. W. (1982) Behavioral response of a sit-and-wait predator to spatial variation in foraging gain.Ecology 63: 912–920.
Pianka, E. R. (1978)Evolutionary ecology (second edition). Harper and Row, New York.
Wilson, D. S. (1974) Prey capture and competition in the ant lion.Biotropica 6: 187–193.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Matsura, T. An experimental study on the foraging behavior of a pit-building antlion larva,Myrmeleon bore . Res Popul Ecol 29, 17–26 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02515422
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02515422