9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Anti-predator defences of a bombardier beetle: is bombing essential for successful escape from frogs?

      research-article
      PeerJ
      PeerJ Inc.
      Carabidae, Chemical defence, Predator, Prey

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Some animals, such as the bombardier beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Brachinini), have evolved chemical defences against predators. When attacked, bombardier beetles can discharge noxious chemicals at temperatures of approximately 100 °C from the tip of their abdomens, “bombing” their attackers. Although many studies to date have investigated how bombardier beetles discharge defensive chemicals against predators, relatively little research has examined how predators modify their attacks on bombardier beetles to avoid being bombed. In this study, I observed the black-spotted pond frog Pelophylax nigromaculatus (Anura: Ranidae) attacking the bombardier beetle Pheropsophus jessoensis under laboratory conditions. In Japan, Pe. nigromaculatus is a generalist predator in grasslands where the bombardier beetle frequently occurs. Almost all the frogs (92.9%) observed rejected live bombardier beetles; 67.9% stopped their attacks once their tongues touched the beetles, and 25.0% spat out the beetles immediately after taking the beetles into their mouths. No beetle bombed a frog before being taken into a frog’s mouth. All beetles taken into mouths bombed the frogs. Only 7.1% of the frogs swallowed live bombardier beetles after being bombed in the mouth. When dead beetles were provided instead, 85.7% of the frogs rejected the dead beetles, 71.4% stopped their attacks after their tongues touched the beetles, and 14.3% spat out the beetles. Only 14.3% of the frogs swallowed the dead beetles. The results suggest that the frogs tended to stop their predatory attack before receiving a bombing response from the beetles. Therefore, bombing was not essential for the beetles to successfully defend against the frogs. Using its tongue, Pe. nigromaculatus may be able to rapidly detect a deterrent chemical or physical characteristics of its potential prey Ph. jessoensis and thus avoid injury by stopping its predatory attack before the beetle bombs it.

          Related collections

          Most cited references62

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Plant defense against herbivores: chemical aspects.

          Plants have evolved a plethora of different chemical defenses covering nearly all classes of (secondary) metabolites that represent a major barrier to herbivory: Some are constitutive; others are induced after attack. Many compounds act directly on the herbivore, whereas others act indirectly via the attraction of organisms from other trophic levels that, in turn, protect the plant. An enormous diversity of plant (bio)chemicals are toxic, repellent, or antinutritive for herbivores of all types. Examples include cyanogenic glycosides, glucosinolates, alkaloids, and terpenoids; others are macromolecules and comprise latex or proteinase inhibitors. Their modes of action include membrane disruption, inhibition of nutrient and ion transport, inhibition of signal transduction processes, inhibition of metabolism, or disruption of the hormonal control of physiological processes. Recognizing the herbivore challenge and precise timing of plant activities as well as the adaptive modulation of the plants' metabolism is important so that metabolites and energy may be efficiently allocated to defensive activities.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Book: not found

            Avoiding Attack

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Effects of plant spinescence on large mammalian herbivores.

              Plant thorns and spines had these effects on the feeding behaviour of the three species of browsing ungulate that we studied, kudu, impala and domestic goats: (i) bite sizes were restricted, in most cases to single leaves or leaf clusters; (ii) hooked thorns retarded biting rates; (iii) the acceptability of those plant species offering small leaf size in conjunction with prickles was lower, at least for the kudus, than those of other palatable plant species; (iv) the inhibitory effect of prickles on feeding was much less for the smaller impalas and goats than for the larger kudus; (v) from certain hook-thorned species the kudus bit off shoot ends despite their prickles; (vi) for certain straight-thorned species the kudus compensated partially for the slow eating rates obtained by extending their feeding durations per encounter. Most spinescent species were similar in their acceptability to the ungulates to unarmed palatable species, despite higher crude protein contents in their foliage than the latter. Such structural features furthermore reduce the tissue losses incurred by plants per encounter by a large ungulate herbivore, by restricting the eating rates that the animals obtain. In this way prickles function to restrict foliage losses to large herbivores below the levels that might otherwise occur.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                PeerJ
                PeerJ
                peerj
                peerj
                PeerJ
                PeerJ Inc. (San Diego, USA )
                2167-8359
                30 November 2018
                2018
                : 6
                : e5942
                Affiliations
                [-1] Graduate School of Agricultural Science, Kobe University , Kobe, Japan
                Article
                5942
                10.7717/peerj.5942
                6276596
                30533294
                4f65bcd0-b176-4f8d-88f2-98bda362f972
                ©2018 Sugiura

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited.

                History
                : 8 March 2018
                : 15 October 2018
                Funding
                Funded by: Fujiwara Natural History Foundation
                Award ID: H28-23
                Funded by: Graduate School of Agriculture, Kobe University
                This study was financially supported by the Fujiwara Natural History Foundation (H28-23) and the Graduate School of Agriculture, Kobe University. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Animal Behavior
                Ecology
                Entomology
                Evolutionary Studies
                Zoology

                carabidae,chemical defence,predator,prey
                carabidae, chemical defence, predator, prey

                Comments

                Comment on this article