IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0070268.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conspecific and Heterospecific Cues Override Resource Quality to Influence Offspring Production

Author

Listed:
  • Christine W Miller
  • Robert J Fletcher Jr.
  • Stephanie R Gillespie

Abstract

Animals live in an uncertain world. To reduce uncertainty, animals use cues that can encode diverse information regarding habitat quality, including both non-social and social cues. While it is increasingly appreciated that the sources of potential information are vast, our understanding of how individuals integrate different types of cues to guide decision-making remains limited. We experimentally manipulated both resource quality (presence/absence of cactus fruit) and social cues (conspecific juveniles, heterospecific juveniles, no juveniles) for a cactus-feeding insect, Narnia femorata (Hemiptera: Coreidae), to ask how individuals responded to resource quality in the presence or absence of social cues. Cactus with fruit is a high-quality environment for juvenile development, and indeed we found that females laid 56% more eggs when cactus fruit was present versus when it was absent. However, when conspecific or heterospecific juveniles were present, the effects of resource quality on egg numbers vanished. Overall, N. femorata laid approximately twice as many eggs in the presence of heterospecifics than alone or in the presence of conspecifics. Our results suggest that the presence of both conspecific and heterospecific social cues can disrupt responses of individuals to environmental gradients in resource quality.

Suggested Citation

  • Christine W Miller & Robert J Fletcher Jr. & Stephanie R Gillespie, 2013. "Conspecific and Heterospecific Cues Override Resource Quality to Influence Offspring Production," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(7), pages 1-1, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0070268
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0070268
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0070268
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0070268&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0070268?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ping Huang & Kathryn E. Sieving & Colette M. St. Mary, 2012. "Heterospecific information about predation risk influences exploratory behavior," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 23(3), pages 463-472.
    2. Jukka T. Forsman & Robert L. Thomson & Janne-Tuomas Seppänen, 2007. "Mechanisms and fitness effects of interspecific information use between migrant and resident birds," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 18(5), pages 888-894.
    3. Deseada Parejo & Etienne Danchin & Jesús M. Avilés, 2005. "The heterospecific habitat copying hypothesis: can competitors indicate habitat quality?," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 16(1), pages 96-105, January.
    4. Rachel L. Kendal & Isabelle Coolen & Kevin N. Laland, 2004. "The role of conformity in foraging when personal and social information conflict," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 15(2), pages 269-277, March.
    5. Daniela Campobello & Spencer G. Sealy, 2011. "Use of social over personal information enhances nest defense against avian brood parasitism," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 22(2), pages 422-428.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tuomo Jaakkonen & Sami M. Kivelä & Christoph M. Meier & Jukka T. Forsman, 2015. "The use and relative importance of intraspecific and interspecific social information in a bird community," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 26(1), pages 55-64.
    2. Reetta Hämäläinen & Panu Välimäki & Jukka T Forsman, 2023. "Size of an interspecific competitor may be a source of information in reproductive decisions," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 34(1), pages 33-41.
    3. Justin A. Welbergen & Nicholas B. Davies, 2012. "Direct and indirect assessment of parasitism risk by a cuckoo host," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 23(4), pages 783-789.
    4. Stacia A. Hetrick & Kathryn E. Sieving, 2012. "Antipredator calls of tufted titmice and interspecific transfer of encoded threat information," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 23(1), pages 83-92.
    5. Laurence E A Feyten & Adam L Crane & Indar W Ramnarine & Grant E Brown, 2021. "Predation risk shapes the use of conflicting personal risk and social safety information in guppies," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 32(6), pages 1296-1305.
    6. Leanna N. DeJong & Samuel D. Cowell & Thuy Nhi N. Nguyen & Darren S. Proppe, 2015. "Attracting songbirds with conspecific playback: a community approach," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 26(5), pages 1379-1388.
    7. Liberman, Uri & Ram, Yoav & Altenberg, Lee & Feldman, Marcus W., 2020. "The evolution of frequency-dependent cultural transmission," Theoretical Population Biology, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 69-81.
    8. Jakub Szymkowiak & Lechosław Kuczyński, 2015. "Predation-Related Costs and Benefits of Conspecific Attraction in Songbirds—An Agent-Based Approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-18, March.
    9. Li, Zhaofeng & Jiang, Yichuan, 2014. "Friction based social force model for social foraging of sheep flock," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 273(C), pages 55-62.
    10. Ping Huang & Kathryn E. Sieving & Colette M. St. Mary, 2012. "Heterospecific information about predation risk influences exploratory behavior," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 23(3), pages 463-472.
    11. Holger Zimmermann & Radim Blažek & Matej Polačik & Martin Reichard, 2022. "Individual experience as a key to success for the cuckoo catfish brood parasitism," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-9, December.
    12. Miklós Bán & Csaba Moskát & Zoltán Barta & Márk E. Hauber, 2013. "Simultaneous viewing of own and parasitic eggs is not required for egg rejection by a cuckoo host," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 24(4), pages 1014-1021.
    13. Daniela Campobello & Maurizio Sarà & James F. Hare, 2012. "Under my wing: lesser kestrels and jackdaws derive reciprocal benefits in mixed-species colonies," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 23(2), pages 425-433.
    14. Margaret K. Wray & Barrett A. Klein & Thomas D. Seeley, 2012. "Honey bees use social information in waggle dances more fully when foraging errors are more costly," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 23(1), pages 125-131.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0070268. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.