Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:24:38.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Attack rates on artificial caterpillars in urban areas are higher than in suburban areas in Colombia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 April 2023

Jefferson Cupitra-Rodríguez*
Affiliation:
Biology Department, Faculty of Exact and Natural Sciences, Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia
Lorena Cruz-Bernate
Affiliation:
Biology Department, Faculty of Exact and Natural Sciences, Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia
James Montoya-Lerma
Affiliation:
Biology Department, Faculty of Exact and Natural Sciences, Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia
*
Author for correspondence: Jefferson Cupitra-Rodríguez. Email: jefferson.cupitra@correounivalle.edu.co
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Growing urban expansion can alter ecological processes within trophic networks. Predation on herbivores is known to vary with the size of the area covered by vegetation, successional stage, altitude and predator community structure; however there are gaps in understanding how this occurs in urban and suburban environments. The purpose of this study was to determine whether predation pressure on artificial models of caterpillars varied with the degree of urbanisation and type of substrate. Artificial caterpillars were placed on two types of substrates (leaf vs. stem) in two areas of the city (urban vs. suburban). Total predation was measured as the number of models with evidence of attack by predators, with the predation rate estimated on a weekly basis. Predation was affected by the degree of urbanisation, being higher in urban ( = 9.88%; SD = 4.09%, n = 8) than suburban areas ( = 5.75%, SD = 4.21%, n = 8). Attack marks were observed in 23.8% (n = 125) of artificial caterpillars. The weekly predation rate on leaves ( = 9.63%, SD = 5.95%, n = 8) was higher than that on stems ( = 6%, SD = 4.2%, n = 8). These results suggest that the incidence of predation might vary with the degree of urbanisation and by the type of substrate on which prey organisms are found.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

Urbanisation is dramatically affecting the world. Over the past 150 years, rapid urban growth has had profound environmental consequences due to the modification of natural habitats and the demand for resources (Carpenter et al. Reference Carpenter, Mooney, Agard, Capistrano, DeFries, Diaz, Dietz, Duraiappah, Oteng-Yeboah, Pereira, Perrings, Reid, Sarukhan, Scholes and Whyte2009, Ferrante et al. Reference Ferrante, Lo Cacciato and Lovei2014, McKinney Reference McKinney2006, Parés-Ramos et al. Reference Parés-Ramos, Álvarez-Berríos and Aide2013). The human population is projected to increase by one-third over the next 30 years, with cities accounting for the majority of this population (McKinney Reference McKinney2006). By 2050, urban growth will be concentrated in the least developed countries, with an estimated 95% of urban expansion in Africa, Asia and South America (Parés-Ramos et al. Reference Parés-Ramos, Álvarez-Berríos and Aide2013). Among the environmental problems, urbanisation leads to fragmentation (Kattan et al. Reference Kattan, Alvarez-Lopez and Giraldo1994), habitat loss (Magura & Lövei Reference Magura and Lövei2021), species extinction (Wagner Reference Wagner2008), establishment of exotic species (Wagner Reference Wagner2008), biotic homogenisation (McKinney Reference McKinney2006), urban ‘heat islands’ (Magura et al. Reference Magura, Ferrante and Lövei2020) and pollution (Magura & Lövei Reference Magura and Lövei2021). Environmental problems generated by urbanisation alter the structure and composition of biotic communities, affecting ecosystem services (Alarcon & Montlleó Reference Alarcon, Montlleó and Herce2010, Magura & Lövei Reference Magura and Lövei2021, Main & Jackson, Reference Main and Jackson2003, Santos & Tellería Reference Santos and Tellería2006), and despite their importance, there are few studies on these effects (Desaegher et al. Reference Desaegher, Nadot, Machon and Colas2019, Frey et al. Reference Frey, Vega, Zellweger, Ghazoul, Hansen and Moretti2018).

Predation is an ecosystem service that helps to shape urban biological communities but is itself highly altered by urbanisation (Ferrante et al. Reference Ferrante, Lo Cacciato and Lovei2014, Pena et al. Reference Pena, Aoki-Gonçalves, Dáttilo, Ribeiro and MacGregor-Fors2021). Predation pressure varies both within and between habitats due to differences in community and predator density (Cagnolo & Valladares Reference Cagnolo and Valladares2011, García et al. Reference García, Benítez and López-Ávila2007), fragmentation (Koh & Menge Reference Koh and Menge2006), vegetation structure and complexity (Nason et al. Reference Nason, Eason, Carreiro, Cherry and Lawson2021), substrate type (e.g., ground, leaves and stems) (Sinu et al. Reference Sinu, Viswan, Fahira, Rajesh, Manoj, Hariraveendra and Jose2021, Tvardikova & Novotny Reference Tvardikova and Novotny2012), seasonal (Ferrante et al. Reference Ferrante, Lo Cacciato and Lovei2014), disturbances (e.g., traffic volume, high temperature and noise) (Pena et al. Reference Pena, Aoki-Gonçalves, Dáttilo, Ribeiro and MacGregor-Fors2021), prey coloration (Ferrante et al. Reference Ferrante, Barone, Kiss, Bozóné-Borbáth and Lövei2017a) and levels of urbanisation (Ferrante et al. Reference Ferrante, Lo Cacciato and Lovei2014, Posa et al. Reference Posa, Sodhi and Koh2007). Tropical forests are key in the global carbon cycle and are home to more than half of the world’s species (Taubert et al. Reference Taubert, Fischer, Groeneveld, Lehmann, Müller, Rödig, Wiegand and Huth2018). Ecosystem services in forests depend to a large extent on insects, and these are highly sensitive to fragmentation (Didham et al. Reference Didham, Ghazoul, Stork and Davis1996); therefore, the study of invertebrate predation in tropical forests, with different degrees of urbanisation, is relevant to understand the changes in biological processes in these habitats. Compared to the forest interior, the edges and patches of forest fragments are considered the areas of greatest predatory risk for many species (Bustamante & Grez Reference Bustamante and Grez1995, Main & Jackson Reference Main and Jackson2003, Posa et al. Reference Posa, Sodhi and Koh2007, Richards & Coley Reference Richards and Coley2007). In forest clearings, herbivores and their predators can be more abundant, since these sites show increased leaf and plant growth compared to the understory (Richards & Coley Reference Richards and Coley2007). The degree of prey exposure also influences detection by predators. For example, predation risk was found to be greater for artificial caterpillars on exposed leaves compared to hidden ones (Tvardikova & Novotny Reference Tvardikova and Novotny2012). Predation preference depends on the degree of prey exposure; however, the predator community and associated foraging strategies also affect substrate preference (Maas et al. Reference Maas, Tscharntke, Saleh, Dwi Putra and Clough2015, Philpott et al. Reference Philpott, Soong, Lowenstein, Pulido, Lopez, Flynn and DeClerck2009, Sinu et al. Reference Sinu, Viswan, Fahira, Rajesh, Manoj, Hariraveendra and Jose2021). Given the variety of biotic and abiotic factors affecting predation, results on arthropod predation in urban areas have not been consistent (Pena et al. Reference Pena, Aoki-Gonçalves, Dáttilo, Ribeiro and MacGregor-Fors2021). In some instances, rather than an increase (Kozlov et al. Reference Kozlov, Lanta, Zverev, Rainio, Kunavin and Zvereva2017, Posa et al. Reference Posa, Sodhi and Koh2007) a decrease in predation (Eötvös et al. Reference Eötvös, Magura and Lövei2018, Reference Eötvös, Lövei and Magura2020, Ferrante et al. Reference Ferrante, Lo Cacciato and Lovei2014, Pena et al. Reference Pena, Aoki-Gonçalves, Dáttilo, Ribeiro and MacGregor-Fors2021, Sinu et al. Reference Sinu, Viswan, Fahira, Rajesh, Manoj, Hariraveendra and Jose2021) has been found, as the intensity of the anthropogenic disturbance increases.

Typically, predatory events happen quickly and are often hard to measure because predators may be nocturnal, or hide while consuming prey, thereby leading to reduced detection (Howe et al. Reference Howe, Lövei and Nachman2009). Similarly, predation intensity is difficult to measure because predation events will often leave only fragments of the consumed prey, or no trace at all. The sentinel prey method is an alternative way to measure predation (Ferrante et al. Reference Ferrante, Möller, Möller, Menares, Lubin and Segoli2021, Howe et al. Reference Howe, Lövei and Nachman2009). This technique consists of manipulating prey availability by locating a known number of prey (artificial or live) and recording the rate of disappearance or traces of predation after a given period of exposure (Ferrante et al. Reference Ferrante, Möller, Möller, Menares, Lubin and Segoli2021, Lövei & Ferrante Reference Lövei and Ferrante2017). This method has been successfully used to estimate predation pressure on caterpillars (Ferrante et al. Reference Ferrante, Lo Cacciato and Lovei2014, Howe et al. Reference Howe, Lövei and Nachman2009, Reference Howe, Nachman and Lövei2015, Loiselle & Farji-Brener Reference Loiselle and Farji-Brener2002, Richards & Coley Reference Richards and Coley2007, Tvardikova & Novotny Reference Tvardikova and Novotny2012). The majority of these studies were carried out in wooded areas with a different level of succession, whereas only a few studies have evaluated predation pressure in urban and suburban environments (Eötvös et al. Reference Eötvös, Magura and Lövei2018, Reference Eötvös, Lövei and Magura2020, Ferrante et al. Reference Ferrante, Lo Cacciato and Lovei2014, Kozlov et al. Reference Kozlov, Lanta, Zverev, Rainio, Kunavin and Zvereva2017, Long & Frank Reference Long and Frank2020, Roels et al. Reference Roels, Porter and Lindell2018). Although it has been suggested that generalist predators are similarly attracted by chemical cues of artificial and real caterpillars (Ferrante et al. Reference Ferrante, Barone and Lövei2017b, Richards & Coley Reference Richards and Coley2007), this method does not measure actual predation rates (Lövei & Ferrante Reference Lövei and Ferrante2017). Several anti-predator strategies (e.g., aggregation, sounds, olfactory and visual cues, etc.) are difficult to control under field assays (Witz Reference Witz1990). In the case of visual cues, colour, model posture and markings can influence the predation rate of artificial larvae (Hernández-Agüero et al. Reference Hernández-Agüero, Polo, García, Simón, Ruiz-Tapiador and Cayuela2020, Hossie & Sherratt Reference Hossie and Sherratt2012, Reference Hossie and Sherratt2013, Oliveira et al. Reference Oliveira, Diniz, Araujo-Lima, Rosário and Duca2020). For example, the aposematic coloration of Harmonia axyridis beetle larvae deters birds from preying on them. A lower predation rate was found in artificial larvae with a similar colour to H. axyridis compared to green and black models (Aslam et al. Reference Aslam, Nedvěd and Sam2020). Therefore, given the limitations of using artificial larvae, absolute estimations of predation cannot be obtained. However, useful comparisons between habitats can be made by this method (Lövei & Ferrante Reference Lövei and Ferrante2017).

Establishing how urbanisation affects the incidence of predation provides knowledge regarding the dynamics of urban ecological interactions and offers a tool for the management of the populations involved. The main purpose of the present study was to determine whether predation pressure (estimated using artificial models) varies as a result of urbanisation degree (urban and suburban). The study also sought to establish whether substrate type (leaves and stems) influences predation incidence on artificial lepidopteran caterpillar models. According to the increasing disturbance hypothesis (Gray Reference Gray1989), predator abundance decreases with increasing urbanisation, leading to lower predation pressure. Hence, we expected to detect a lower predation rate in urban rather than suburban habitats. Furthermore, we hypothesised that the leaves are the substrate where the highest predation occurs because they are an important source of nutrients for arthropods, which can influence their abundance on this substrate (Kwok Reference Kwok2009, Laxton Reference Laxton2005).

Materials and methods

Study site

This study was carried out in the city of Santiago de Cali, Department of Valle del Cauca, Colombia (3°32ʼ33ʼʼ N, 76°31ʼ58ʼʼ W; 995 a.s.l.) between August 2015 and August 2016. The city has a mean annual temperature of 24.1 °C, relative humidity of 73 % and rainfall of 1481 mm (ranging between 1000 and 2000 mm). A bimodal rainfall pattern is present with dry periods during January–February and July–August and rainy periods during March–June and September–December (IDEAM 2015). According to Holdridge (Espinal Reference Espinal1968), these climatic characteristics correspond to the dry tropical forest life zone (df-T). Historically, this eco-area represents a deciduous dry forest mixed with evergreen dry forest and a gallery forest along the Cauca River. On either side of the valley, the dry forests give way to another eco-zone (moist montane forest) along the slopes of the Central and Western Andean ranges. Fabaceae is the most dominant vegetal family, including Pithecellobium dulce, Gliricidia sepium, Samanea saman, Bauhinia spp., Cassia spp. the most typical tree species. Other native species such as Crescentia cujete (Bignoniaceae), Ceiba pentandra (Malvaceae), Guazuma ulmifolia (Malvaceae) and Spondias mombin (Anacardaceae) are used as ornamental species. The entire region has been severely transformed by human settlements and activities (mainly, agriculture), only a narrow strip of forest remains.

The percentage of urban construction for each study area matrix was considered to determine the degree of urbanisation. Suburban areas were those ubicated in the periphery of the city where there are all kinds of human activities, including private clubs, urbanisation and crops (Rivera-Gutiérrez Reference Rivera-Gutiérrez2006), which occupied less than 65% of the area. Urban areas were those ubicated within the city where civil constructions occupied ≥ 65% of the area. A minimum of 65% urban constructions was determined to be considered an urban area. Two different areas were defined according to the degree of human disturbance: urban and suburban, and two sites were chosen in each one: Universidad del Valle Campus (Urban 1) (3°22ʼ26.6ʼʼ N, 76°31ʼ51.1ʼʼ W) and Constructora Limonar (Urban 2) (3°23ʼ39.6ʼʼ N, 76°31ʼ21.0ʼʼ W) in the urban area, and Parque de las Garzas (Suburban 1) (3°19ʼ56.3ʼʼN,76°32ʼ13.3ʼʼW) and Hacienda Cañasgordas (Suburban 2) (3°21ʼ17.7ʼʼ N, 76°31ʼ31.9ʼʼ W) in the suburban area. Suburban 1 and Suburban 2 are two suburban areas surrounded by agricultural crops, country parks and tiny dry forest remnants. Suburban 1 has an artificial lagoon ecosystem with regenerative vegetation (c.a. 4.7 ha) and 70 % vegetation coverage. Suburban 2 is a rural village (29 ha) with a wide and open pasture area and 54 % vegetation cover. It has an extensive park area with abundant herbaceous shrubs and 38 % vegetation cover. Urban 1 corresponds to a green area of 100 ha, surrounded by commercial malls, residential houses (88.29% built-in area) and a tiny tree corridor in the verge of the Meléndez River. Urban 2 corresponds to an area of 24 ha, mainly composed of human dwellings. ‘Chiminango’ (P. dulce) and ‘Saman’ (S. saman) are the dominant trees in all the study areas.

Artificial lepidopteran caterpillars

Based on natural caterpillars of Phoebis sennae, artificial models (40 mm long and 6 mm wide) were made with green, odourless and non-toxic plasticine (School Smart, 88678) (Figure 1a). P. sennae was chosen because it is one of the most common species in Cali suburban and urban areas (Ramírez et al. Reference Ramírez, Chacón and Constantino2007, Dolores Heredia, pers. comm.). In addition, because the green colour of its larvae (Minno et al. Reference Minno, Butler and Hall2005), it is widely used in studies on predation and herbivory (Ferrante et al. Reference Ferrante, Lo Cacciato and Lovei2014, Posa et al. Reference Posa, Sodhi and Koh2007, Richards & Coley Reference Richards and Coley2007, Tvardikova & Novotny Reference Tvardikova and Novotny2012).

Figure 1. Predator marks registered on the lepidopteran larvae models. a artificial caterpillar model; b, c and d bird beak; e and f ants; g, h and i wasp jaw; j wasp sting; k chewing arthropod; and l mammal. Southwestern Colombia. Photo taken by Image Laboratory at the Graduate School of Biological Sciences, Universidad del Valle.

Predation tests

On August 2015, a pilot test was carried out in order to evaluate whether model shape can affect the incidence of attacks. For this, two types of model were made using green plasticine. The first model was an artificial caterpillar (Figure 1a). The second was a solid sphere (10 mm × 10 mm × 10 mm), representing any common form present in nature (fruits, adult insects or pupae). The models were fastened to the trees using wires. For this test, 20 P. dulce trees were used in each zone (suburban–urban) separated by at least 30 m from each other; the total number of trees used for this test was 40. In order to avoid learning, these trees were different from those of the main experiment. Each zone had 10 trees with caterpillar models (five trees with caterpillars installed on leaves and five trees with caterpillars installed on stems) and 10 trees with sphere models (five trees with spheres installed on leaves and five trees with spheres installed on stems). The experiment tested by shape (caterpillar-like/spherical-like), substrate (stem-leaves) and zone (suburban–urban) in 40 trees. The total number of models used in this experiment was 200. The test lasted for 30 days, and each site was visited twice a week. During each visit, the models were moved to a different place on the same tree to avoid predator bias through learning, and all of the models with attack marks were replaced (Tvardikova & Novotny Reference Tvardikova and Novotny2012). Models with evidence of attack marks were collected, and the marks were subsequently analysed and identified in the laboratory (Section 2.3).

For the main predation test, 10 trees were selected per site (Suburban 1, Suburban 2, Urban 1 and Urban 2), and based on the results of the pilot experiment, only the caterpillar models were used. Five artificial caterpillars were placed at heights of between 1.5 and 2 m, separated by at least 250 mm and distributed according to the substrate. Five trees had caterpillars on their leaves and five on the stems. The test lasted for 30 days with two repetitions (October–November 2015 and January–February 2016). The same scheme (checking, replacing and moving models) was followed as in the pilot test. The total number of caterpillars models used in this experiment was 200 per repetition.

Identification of potential predators

Based on the results obtained in the pilot experiment (Section 3.1), it was determined that the main predators of artificial caterpillars are birds, so a census was conducted in the study area to identify potential predators and assess the effect of their abundance by habitat (suburban–urban) on predation. The bird census was achieved through 10 point counts in each site; each point was 15 m in diameter and on average 93 m apart from each other. Each point count was visited and inspected for 15 min twice/day (between 0700–1000 h and 1400–1700 h). This activity was carried out once at each site during each experiment. The bird species observed were identified using specialised keys (Hilty & Brown Reference Hilty and Brown2001, Remsen et al. Reference Remsen, Cadena, Nores, Pacheco, Pérez and Robbins2020).

The marks or signs found on the models were photographed (Figure 1) and compared with those obtained in pilot tests and by other researchers (Low et al. Reference Low, Sam, McArthur, Posa and Hochuli2014, Tvardikova & Novotny Reference Tvardikova and Novotny2012). The ‘attacked’ models were used as templates to generate a guide to identify marks of potential predators (birds or arthropods). Though limited, this type of guide provides a reliable, useful taxonomical description (Low et al. Reference Low, Sam, McArthur, Posa and Hochuli2014, Tvardikova & Novotny Reference Tvardikova and Novotny2012).

Statistical analysis

For the pilot study, a generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) was used with predation (total of attacked models/tree/week) as a binomial response variable. Prey shape (spherical–caterpillar), habitat (suburban–urban) and substrate (stem–leaf) were used as explanatory variables, and site as a random factor. Similarly, GLMM analysis was used for the main predation test with predation as a binomial response variable response, and habitat (suburban–urban), substrate (stem–leaf) and season (dry–rainy) as explanatory variables. Weekly predation rates were calculated as the number of plasticine models with attack marks per week divided by the total number of plasticine models, multiplied by 100. R software was used for all the analyses (R Core Team, 2016).

Species accumulation curves were used to evaluate the representativeness of the bird sampling, and the ACE estimator using the EstimateS 9 Program (Colwell Reference Colwell2016) was used to measure expected richness. Probabilities of less than or equal to 0.05 were considered significant.

Results

Predation tests

Pilot test: The total number of models with attack marks was 58, corresponding to 22.48% of the models. There were no models with multiple marks nor lost models, and including replacements, a total of 258 models were used. Of the attacked marks, 86.21% corresponded to birds, and 13.79% to arthropods, all of which were found on artificial caterpillars. The weekly predation rate on artificial caterpillars ( = 9%, SD = 5.59%, n = 4) was higher than that on spherical-like models ( = 5.5%, SD = 7.04%, n = 4). Although no significant statistical differences were detected, a strong trend was observed suggesting that artificial caterpillar models were attacked more (P = 0.06, χ 2 = 3.59, df = 1, GLMM). In the suburban area ( = 8.75%, SD = 5.61%, n = 4), the weekly predation rate was higher than in the urban area ( = 5.75%, SD = 7.67%, n = 4), but no significant differences were found between habitats (P = 0.59, χ 2 = 0.29, df = 1, GLMM) or substrate types (P = 0.19, χ 2 = 1.63, df = 1, GLMM).

Main predation test: In the main test, 125 (23.8%), artificial models showed evidence of predator attacks: 77.6% (97) were identified as bird attacks, while 22.4% (28) corresponded to arthropods (Figure 2). A total of 525 models were used in the experiment. No models were lost, and no models with multiple marks were found. The incidence of predation was greater in the urban area which displayed a weekly predation rate of ( = 9.88%, SD = 5.13 %, n = 8) compared to ( = 5.75%, SD = 4.2%, n = 8) for the suburban area, and this difference was significant (P = 0.01, χ 2 = 5.65, Table 1). Leaf substrate showed a greater number of attacks than the stem substrate, from the 125 marks on the models, 60% (75) were found on leaves vs. 40% (50) on stems, and this difference was significant (P = 0.05, χ 2 = 3.82, Table 1) with the weekly predation rate on leaves ( = 9.63%, SD = 5.95%, n = 8) higher than that of stems ( = 6%, SD = 4.2%, n = 8). Season was found to have no effect on the incidence of predation, with total predation similar in both the dry (55.2 %; n = 69) and rainy (44.8 %; n = 56) seasons, and this difference was not significant (P = 0.15, χ 2 = 1.97, Table 1). There was no interaction between the variables (Table 1).

Figure 2. Number of models attacked by arthropods (orange) and birds (blue) at each site: Suburban 1 (Parque de las Garzas), Suburban 2 (Hacienda Cañasgordas), Urban 1 (Universidad del Valle Campus) and Urban 2 (Constructora Limonar). A total of 50 artificial caterpillars were used per site in each climatic season (rainy/dry). The test lasted for 30 days with two repetitions (October–November 2015 and January–February 2016).

Table 1. Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) where predation models of lepidopteran caterpillars were evaluated according to the degree of urbanisation (suburban and urban), substrate (stem and leaf) and season (rainy and dry) in southwestern Colombia

DU, degree of urbanisation; Sub, substrate.

Potential predators

A total of 74 bird species grouped in 30 families were found, Tyrannidae being the most representative. Species accumulation curves show 78.15% (suburban environment) and 75.13% (urban) efficiency in the avifauna sampled (Figure S1). Of the total number of species, 42 were considered potential predators of lepidopteran caterpillars based on their foraging habits (Del Hoyo et al. Reference Del Hoyo, Elliott and Christie1996, Hilty & Brown Reference Hilty and Brown2001) (Table S1).

The abundance of potential predator birds (Section 3.2) varied significantly with the degree of urbanisation. The urban area had the greatest number of individuals (χ2 = 49.80; df = 1; P < 0.0001) (Figure 3). There were no statistically significant differences between species richness in suburban and urban areas (χ2 = 0.10; df = 1; P = 0.74).

Figure 3. Abundance of predator birds and number of models attacked by birds per each site: Suburban 1 (Parque de las Garzas), Suburban 2 (Hacienda Cañasgordas), Urban 1 (Universidad del Valle Campus) and Urban 2 (Constructora Limonar), in southwestern Colombia.). Prediction line equation: y = 0.3063x – 31.339. R 2 = 0.8771.

Discussion

Degree of urbanisation

Our results suggest that predation increases with the degree of urbanisation. Given that the weekly predation rate in urban areas was higher than in suburban areas, the level of habitat disturbance may have a significant effect on herbivorous insect predation (Posa et al. Reference Posa, Sodhi and Koh2007, Richards & Coley Reference Richards and Coley2007, Seifert et al. Reference Seifert, Lehner, Adams and Fiedler2015, Tvardikova & Novotny Reference Tvardikova and Novotny2012). Similar patterns of arthropod predation were observed in other tropical habitats. For instance, in Panama, Richards and Coley (Reference Richards and Coley2007) found that the incidence of predation on artificial larvae in forest clearings is significantly higher than in closed forest, due to the high primary productivity of the forest, which harbours a large number of herbivorous insects that are controlled by their predators. In the Philippines, the incidence of predation on herbivores was significantly higher in rural areas (59.4 %) compared to closed canopy forest (46.1 %) (Posa et al. Reference Posa, Sodhi and Koh2007). In Costa Rica, predation pressure on herbivores was found to be twice as high in open fields (mean attack frequency per caterpillar: 1.11 ± 0.08) as in forest (0.66 ± 0.07) (Seifert et al. Reference Seifert, Lehner, Adams and Fiedler2015).

The greater incidence of predation on artificial caterpillars in the urban area when compared to the suburban area could be related to the increased abundance of birds associated with urbanisation and allows for rejection of the increasing disturbance hypothesis (Gray Reference Gray1989). Results on abundance are in agreement with those reported by Kale and colleagues (Reference Kale, Dudhe, Ferrante, Ivanova, Kasambe, Trukhanova, Kasambe, Trukhanova, Bhattacharya and Lövei2018a, Reference Kale, Ferrante, Dudhe, Kasambe, Trukhanova, Ivanova, Bhattacharya and Lövei2018b) in India, who found higher individual concentrations in urban zones. We found that the abundance of birds was significantly higher in the urban environment compared to the suburban one, and marks of this group were more commonly observed on the attacked models. Also, our results are in line with those obtained by Roels and colleagues (Reference Roels, Porter and Lindell2018) in a Panamanian forest, and by Posa and colleagues (Reference Posa, Sodhi and Koh2007) in a Philippine forest reserve, where areas with higher human disturbance (residential countryside and rural areas, respectively) showed the highest bird predation rates. In urban settings, the abundance of some bird species increases due to the absence or reduction of the predators that control them; in these environments, the survival of predators such as snakes or birds of prey diminishes. Although the presence of other predators such as dogs and cats increases, the pressure exerted by them does not significantly affect the population density of urban birds (Fischer et al. Reference Fischer, Cleeton, Lyons and Miller2012). Lower predation pressure on birds can increase arthropod predation as there is a greater abundance of insectivorous birds in urban environments (Fischer et al. Reference Fischer, Cleeton, Lyons and Miller2012, Shochat et al. Reference Shochat, Lerman, Katti and Lewis2004). Additionally, areas of urban vegetation favour the increased abundance of birds since these patches act as connecting points between suburban and urban areas and offer food resources for exploitation by birds (Caicedo-Argüelles & Cruz-Bernate Reference Caicedo-Argüelles and Cruz-Bernate2014, Torres et al. Reference Torres, Vargas, Guevara Llano, Orrego, Duque, Moreno and Ruiz2014). Also, it has been observed that the degree of urbanisation affects species richness. The greater the urban development, the greater the decrease in the number of species and the abundance of a reduced group of species (Kale et al. Reference Kale, Dudhe, Ferrante, Ivanova, Kasambe, Trukhanova, Kasambe, Trukhanova, Bhattacharya and Lövei2018a). In our case, for the insectivorous guild, five species represented 47.93% of the individuals observed, and these species occurred in both urban areas.

In areas with higher degrees of urbanisation, Lepidoptera larvae could be considered a valuable resource, especially for bird reproduction (Schwagmeyer & Mock Reference Schwagmeyer and Mock2008). Arthropod size is one of the traits most affected by habitat disturbance, both in terms of survival (Seress & Liker Reference Seress and Liker2015) and a reduction in the size of individuals (Niemelä & Kotze Reference Niemelä and Kotze2009, Zvereva & Kozlov Reference Zvereva and Kozlov2010). The artificial caterpillars used correspond in size to the last instar, which may increase predation pressure in urban areas, where the probability of finding large lepidopteran larvae may be lower, since this represents a scarce and valuable resource compared to areas with less disturbance,

Although the phenological state of P. dulce was not evaluated in the present study, it is known to have constant phenophases (Cárdenas-Henao et al. Reference Cárdenas-Henao, Londoño-Lemos, Llano-Almario, González-Colorado, Rivera-Hernández, Vargas-Figueroa, Duque-Palacio, Torres-González, Jiménez-Taquinas and Moreno-Cavazos2015) producing floral buds and flowers throughout the year. Nevertheless, it is not known whether subtle differences exist in the phenological state of some trees according to the level of habitat disturbance, and whether, in this case, trees with a greater supply of fruits would be found in the urban areas, thus stimulating both an increase in generalist bird visits as well as the probability of contact with caterpillars. It would be advisable for future studies to include this variable in order to determine whether the observed response is due solely to the disturbance factor and not to the visit of generalist birds attracted to fruiting trees.

Substrate

The higher predation found for prey exposed on leaves (60%) than on stems (40%) could be related to the foraging of the community of predators present in the habitats studied (Gutiérrez Reference Gutiérrez, Ardila, López, Pérez, Quiñones and Reyes1998, Morse Reference Morse1990). In a Puerto Rican novel Prosopis-Leucaena woodland (Beltran & Wunderle Reference Beltran and Wunderle2013), birds preferred to forage for food on P. dulce, since this tree houses a large quantity of arthropods associated with its foliage due to the high nitrogen content and small amount of hemicellulose in its leaves. At Universidad del Valle, this plant is frequented by both resident and migratory birds, and their main feeding activity is the foraging and consumption of insects (61.5%) compared to seed (29.7%), flower (4.4%), nectar (2.2%) and leaf (2.2%) consumption (Caicedo-Argüelles & Cruz-Bernate Reference Caicedo-Argüelles and Cruz-Bernate2014, Torres et al. Reference Torres, Vargas, Guevara Llano, Orrego, Duque, Moreno and Ruiz2014). The bird response detected in this study might be a consequence of specific preferences of various groups of birds for substrate (Gunnarsson et al. Reference Gunnarsson, Wallin and Klingberg2018). For example, when assessing the foraging strategies of Tyrannidae in Brazil, a marked preference was found for foraging in the air or on living leaves, and none of the 28 species assessed showed a preference for branches (Gabriel & Pizo Reference Gabriel and Pizo2005).

In the case of the arthropods, different foraging strategies are exhibited that may affect predation on a specific substrate, for example, carabids may be generalists, staphylinids are facultative predators, spiders and opilions may have specialised hunting strategies, and ants are social insects that hunt from the ground to the treetops depending on the species (Vehviläinen et al. Reference Vehviläinen, Koricheva and Ruohomäki2008). Although in this study models were not placed at ground level, some work has found that at that level, arthropod predation may be more significant than other predator groups (Eötvös et al. Reference Eötvös, Lövei and Magura2020, Ferrante et al. Reference Ferrante, Lo Cacciato and Lovei2014, Reference Ferrante, Barone, Kiss, Bozóné-Borbáth and Lövei2017a, Reference Ferrante, Lövei, Magagnoli, Minarcikova, Tomescu, Burgio, Cagan and Ichi2019, Mansion-Vaquié et al. Reference Mansion-Vaquié, Ferrante, Cook, Pell and Lövei2017). This may explain why arthropod markings were less common in this study.

Although the results indicate a preference for leaves, some limitations of the experimental design must be considered. Only considering artificial caterpillar size and not assessing other variables such as the height at which birds prey (Mansor & Mohd Sah Reference Mansor and Mohd Sah2012) may hinder the ability to draw specific conclusions about foraging strategies and preferences in this community. There are still gaps on how different ecological aspects affect the interactions between insectivorous birds and arthropods (Gunnarsson et al. Reference Gunnarsson, Wallin and Klingberg2018). Tree diversity and structure (Robinson & Holmes Reference Robinson and Holmes1984, Unno Reference Unno2002) as well as arthropod abundance (Unno Reference Unno2002) are known to shape the foraging strategy of a predator community (Robinson & Holmes Reference Robinson and Holmes1984). When assessing predation with artificial models, predation preferences vary by substrate (Koh & Menge Reference Koh and Menge2006, Maas et al. Reference Maas, Tscharntke, Saleh, Dwi Putra and Clough2015, Philpott et al. Reference Philpott, Soong, Lowenstein, Pulido, Lopez, Flynn and DeClerck2009, Sinu et al. Reference Sinu, Viswan, Fahira, Rajesh, Manoj, Hariraveendra and Jose2021); however, studies based on the observation of insectivorous birds show a tendency to forage on leaves over other substrates (Gabriel & Pizo Reference Gabriel and Pizo2005, Kwok Reference Kwok2009, Mansor & Mohd Sah Reference Mansor and Mohd Sah2012). This is probably because it is an abundant substrate and a good source of nutrients, which may in turn lead to a higher presence of arthropods (Kwok Reference Kwok2009. Laxton Reference Laxton2005). Increased predation on leaves may indicate greater visual exposure of prey on this substrate to birds (Tvardikova & Novotny Reference Tvardikova and Novotny2012), or be a reflection of the leaf preference of lepidopteran larvae in P. dulce.

Potential predators

Most marks were made by birds. These results are in agreement with those reported by Ferrante et al. (Reference Ferrante, Nunes, Lamelas-López, Lövei and Borges2022) and Sam et al. (Reference Sam, Koane and Novotny2015) in other experiments using artificial larvae. Despite that, the general trend is for arthropods to be the main predators (Ferrante et al. Reference Ferrante, Lo Cacciato and Lovei2014, Reference Ferrante, Barone, Kiss, Bozóné-Borbáth and Lövei2017a, Reference Ferrante, Lövei, Magagnoli, Minarcikova, Tomescu, Burgio, Cagan and Ichi2019, Reference Ferrante, Möller, Möller, Menares, Lubin and Segoli2021, Magagnoli et al. Reference Magagnoli, Masetti, Depalo, Sommaggio, Campanelli, Leteo, Lövei and Burgio2018, Molleman et al. Reference Molleman, Remmel and Sam2016, Pena et al. Reference Pena, Aoki-Gonçalves, Dáttilo, Ribeiro and MacGregor-Fors2021). The fact that the most common markings found on models fitted those of birds does not mean that these are the main predators in urban environments. One possibility is that the size of the model may favour attacks by birds. It has been observed that birds respond positively to increased prey size (Postema Reference Postema2021), having a strong impact at the end of the larval period; whilst, the effect is the opposite in arthropods since these mainly attack small individuals (Feeny et al. Reference Feeny, Blau and Kareiva1985, Lövei & Ferrante Reference Lövei and Ferrante2017, Remmel & Tammaru Reference Remmel and Tammaru2009, Remmel et al. Reference Remmel, Davison and Tammaru2011). Barton (Reference Barton1986) observed that ants attack eggs and small larvae of P. sennae, while avoiding lepidopteran larvae larger than 10 mm. In the case of the artificial larvae in the experiment, they were made of a length (40 mm) that corresponds to the last instar of P. sennae (35–45 mm) (Barton Reference Barton1986); therefore, it can be assumed that the results may be reflecting aspects of the natural history of lepidopteran larvae, where vertebrates, in this case birds, are the major threat to the larvae in their last instar.

The results might also reflect the limitations of using an artificial caterpillar method which may underestimate the risk of predation on real caterpillars. Detection of prey in many predator arthropods is guided by a combination of olfactory and visual cues as well as sensing of substrate vibration caused by feeding prey (Agrawal Reference Agrawal1998, Ferrante et al. Reference Ferrante, Barone and Lövei2017b, Reference Ferrante, Nunes, Lamelas-López, Lövei and Borges2022, Howe et al. Reference Howe, Lövei and Nachman2009, Mäntylä et al. Reference Mäntylä, Alessio, Blande, Heijari, Holopainen, Laaksonen, Piirtola and Klemola2008, Sam et al. Reference Sam, Koane and Novotny2015), characteristics absent in artificial caterpillars. In addition, another factor to be considered is the reliability of identification. The accuracy was 76% for identification in the categories of arthropods, birds and mammals by scientists with no previous experience (Valdés-Correcher et al. Reference Valdés-Correcher, Mäntylä, Barbaro, Damestoy, Sam and Castagneyrol2022). Hence, it cannot be concluded that birds are the main herbivore predators in urban settings. Furthermore, although the use of artificial models has certain disadvantages compared to the use of real caterpillars, these disadvantages do not make the method any less valid, and in some comparative studies, no significant differences have been found (Ferrante et al. Reference Ferrante, Barone and Lövei2017b, Richards & Coley Reference Richards and Coley2007).

Seasons

During periods of higher primary productivity, such as the rainy season, herbivore insect populations experiment peaks of maximum abundance that coincide with the breeding season of some predators such as birds (Atlegrim Reference Atlegrim1992, Langen & Berg Reference Langen and Berg2016, Richards & Coley Reference Richards and Coley2007). We did not find increased predation of artificial larvae in the rainy season, as already mentioned, the phenology of P. dulce is not marked in Cali (Cárdenas-Henao et al. Reference Cárdenas-Henao, Londoño-Lemos, Llano-Almario, González-Colorado, Rivera-Hernández, Vargas-Figueroa, Duque-Palacio, Torres-González, Jiménez-Taquinas and Moreno-Cavazos2015); therefore, the density of lepidopteran larvae may not present strong variations throughout the year, a determining factor in predation pressure (Molleman et al. Reference Molleman, Remmel and Sam2016), hereby explaining why seasons do not affect predation as occurs in other research in the tropics (Molleman et al. Reference Molleman, Remmel and Sam2016, Pan et al. Reference Pan, Mizuno, Ito, Ohsugi, Nishimichi, Nomiya, Ohno, Yamawo and Nakamura2020, Richards & Coley Reference Richards and Coley2007, Tiede et al. Reference Tiede, Schlautmann, Donoso, Wallis, Bendix, Brandl and Farwig2017).

In conclusion, our results suggest that predation pressure on a prey organism can vary significantly according to level of disturbance and the substrate location. A higher level of disturbance increases the abundance of some predators such as birds and thus increases the possibility of caterpillars being preyed upon. The substrate where prey is found becomes a key aspect for their detection and will depend on the specific foraging behaviour of their predators.

Geolocation information

3°22ʼ26.6ʼʼ N, 76°31ʼ51.1ʼʼ W; Santiago de Cali, Valle del Cauca, Colombia.

Supplementary material

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/S026646742300007X

Acknowledgements

Thanks to K. Sam for methodological advice and to A W. Torres for statistical advice. Thanks to I. Castro, H. Alvarez-López, M. D. Heredia and and C. Espinosa for their valuable recommendations and to Marcia Dittmann, H. Burnham, I. Castro, and N. Bansal for help with the English translation. Finally, thanks to Constructora Limonar, Administradora de Vallados, Fundación Cañasgordas, and to the Department and Graduate School of Biology, Universidad del Valle for providing access to study sites. The project received permission (Res. 1070) from the Environmental Licence Authority [Autoridad Ambiental de Licencias Ambientales – ANLA], Colombia.

Financial support

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare none.

Ethical statement

None.

References

Agrawal, AA (1998) Leaf damage and associated cues induce aggressive ant recruitment in a neotropical ant-plant. Ecology 79, 21002112. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(1998)079[2100:LDAACI]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alarcon, A and Montlleó, M (2010) Teoría ecológica de las ciudades criterios de sostenibilidad para un modelo urbanístico alternativo. In Herce, M (ed), Infraestructuras y medio ambiente 1. urbanismo, territorio y redes de servicios. Barcelona, Spain: Editorial UOC, pp. 1368.Google Scholar
Aslam, M, Nedvěd, O and Sam, K (2020) Attacks by predators on artificial cryptic and aposematic insect larvae. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 168, 184190. https://doi.org/10.1111/eea.12877 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atlegrim, O (1992) Mechanisms regulating bird predation on a herbivorous Larva guild in boreal coniferous forests. Ecography 15, 1924. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.1992.tb00003.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barton, AM (1986) Spatial variation in the effect of ants on extrafloral nectary plant. Ecology 67, 495504. https://doi.org/10.2307/1938592 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beltran, W and Wunderle, JM (2013) Determinants of tree species preference for foraging by insectivorous birds in a novel Prosopis–Leucaena woodland in Puerto Rico: the role of foliage palatability. Biodiversity and Conservation 22, 20712089. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-013-0529-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bustamante, R and Grez, AA (1995) Consecuencias ecológicas de la fragmentación de los bosques nativos. Ambiente y Desarrollo 11, 5863.Google Scholar
Cagnolo, L and Valladares, G (2011) Fragmentación del hábitat y desensamble de redes tróficas. Ecosistemas 20, 6878.Google Scholar
Caicedo-Argüelles, AP and Cruz-Bernate, L (2014) Daily activities and habitat use of the yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia) and the red piranga (Piranga rubra) in an urban green area of Cali, Colombia. Ornitología Neotropical 25, 247260.Google Scholar
Cárdenas-Henao, M, Londoño-Lemos, V, Llano-Almario, M, González-Colorado, AM, Rivera-Hernández, KL, Vargas-Figueroa, JA, Duque-Palacio, OL, Torres-González, AM, Jiménez-Taquinas, AC and Moreno-Cavazos, MP (2015) Fenología de cuatro especies arbóreas de bosque seco tropical en el Jardín Botánico Universitario, Universidad del Valle (Cali), Colombia. Actualidades Biológicas 37, 121130. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.acbi.v37n103a01 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, SR, Mooney, HA, Agard, J, Capistrano, D, DeFries, RS, Diaz, S, Dietz, T, Duraiappah, AK, Oteng-Yeboah, A, Pereira, HM, Perrings, C, Reid, WV, Sarukhan, J, Scholes, RJ and Whyte, A (2009) Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond the millennium ecosystem assessment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106, 13051312. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0808772106):1305-12 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Colwell, RK (2016) EstimateS: Statistical Estimation of Species Richness and Shared Species from Samples. User’s Guide and application. http://viceroy.colorado.edu/estimates/EstimateSPages/AboutEstimateS.htm Google Scholar
Del Hoyo, J, Elliott, A and Christie, D (1996) Handbook of the Birds of the World. Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain: Lynx Edicions.Google Scholar
Desaegher, J, Nadot, S, Machon, N and Colas, B (2019) How does urbanization affect the reproductive characteristics and ecological affinities of street plant communities?. Ecology and evolution 9, 99779989. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5539 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Didham, RK, Ghazoul, J, Stork, NE and Davis, AJ (1996) Insects in fragmented forests: a functional approach. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 11, 255260.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eötvös, CB, Lövei, GL and Magura, T (2020) Predation pressure on sentinel insect prey along a riverside urbanization gradient in hungary. Insects 11, 97. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects11020097 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eötvös, CB, Magura, T and Lövei, GL (2018) A meta-analysis indicates reduced predation pressure with increasing urbanization. Landscape and Urban Planning 180, 5459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.08.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Espinal, LS (1968) Visión ecológica del Departamento del Valle del Cauca. Cali, Colombia: Universidad del Valle.Google Scholar
Feeny, P, Blau, WS and Kareiva, PM (1985) Larval growth and survivorship of the Black Swallowtail butterfly in central New York. Ecological Monographs 55, 167187. https://doi.org/10.2307/1942556 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrante, M, Barone, G, Kiss, M, Bozóné-Borbáth, E and Lövei, GL (2017a) Ground-level predation on artificial caterpillars indicates no enemy-free time for lepidopteran larvae. Community Ecology 18, 280286. https://doi.org/10.1556/168.2017.18.3.6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrante, M, Barone, G and Lövei, GL (2017b) The carabid Pterostichus melanarius uses chemical cues for opportunistic predation and saprophagy but not for finding healthy prey. BioControl 62, 741747. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-017-9829-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrante, M, Lo Cacciato, A and Lovei, GL (2014) Quantifying predation pressure along an urbanization gradient in Denmark using artificial caterpillars. European Journal of Entomology 111, 649654. https://doi.org/10.14411/eje.2014.082 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrante, M, Lövei, GL, Magagnoli, S, Minarcikova, L, Tomescu, EL, Burgio, G, Cagan, L and Ichi, MC (2019) Predation pressure in maize across Europe and in Argentina: an intercontinental comparison. Insect Science 26, 545554. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7917.12550 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferrante, M, Möller, D, Möller, G, Menares, E, Lubin, Y and Segoli, M (2021) Invertebrate and vertebrate predation rates in a hyperarid ecosystem following an oil spill. Ecology and evolution 11, 1215312160. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7978 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrante, M, Nunes, R, Lamelas-López, L, Lövei, GL and Borges, PAV (2022) A novel morphological phenotype does not ensure reduced biotic resistance on an oceanic island. Biological Invasions, 111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-021-02686-2 Google Scholar
Fischer, JD, Cleeton, SH, Lyons, TP and Miller, JR (2012) Urbanization and the predation paradox: the role of trophic dynamics in structuring vertebrate communities. BioScience 62, 809818. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.9.6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frey, D, Vega, K, Zellweger, F, Ghazoul, J, Hansen, D and Moretti, M (2018) Predation risk shaped by habitat and landscape complexity in urban environments. Journal of Applied Ecology 55, 23432353. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13189 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabriel, VDA and Pizo, MA (2005) Foraging behavior of tyrant flycatchers (Aves, Tyrannidae) in Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Zoologia 22, 10721077. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0101-81752005000400036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García, J, Benítez, ER and López-Ávila, A (2007) Efecto de la densidad de población de Trialeurodes vaporariorum (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) sobre la eficiencia del depredador Delphastus pusillus (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Corpoica Ciencia y Tecnología Agropecuaria 8, 17. https://doi.org/10.21930/rcta.vol8_num2_art:89 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, JS (1989) Effects of environmental stress on species rich assemblages. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 37, 1932. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.1989.tb02003.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunnarsson, B, Wallin, J and Klingberg, J (2018) Predation by avian insectivores on caterpillars is linked to leaf damage on oak (Quercus robur). Oecologia 188, 733741. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-018-4234-z CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gutiérrez, G (1998) Estrategias de forrajeo. In Ardila, R, López, W, Pérez, AM, Quiñones, R and Reyes, F (eds), Manual de Análisis Experimental del comportamiento. Madrid: Librería Nueva, pp. 359381.Google Scholar
Hernández-Agüero, JA, Polo, V, García, M, Simón, D, Ruiz-Tapiador, I and Cayuela, L (2020) Effects of prey colour on bird predation: an experiment in Mediterranean woodlands. Animal Behaviour 170, 8997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2020.10.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilty, SL and Brown, WL (2001) Guía de las aves de Colombia. Asociación Colombiana de Ornitología.Google Scholar
Hossie, TJ and Sherratt, TN (2012) Eyespots interact with body colour to protect caterpillar-like prey from avian predators. Animal Behaviour 84, 167173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.04.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hossie, TJ and Sherratt, TN (2013) Defensive posture and eyespots deter avian predators from attacking caterpillar models. Animal Behaviour 86, 383389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.05.029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howe, A, Lövei, GL and Nachman, G (2009) Dummy caterpillars as a simple method to assess predation rates on invertebrates in a tropical agroecosystem. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 131, 325329. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.2009.00860.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howe, AG, Nachman, G and Lövei, GL (2015) Predation pressure in Ugandan cotton fields measured by a sentinel prey method. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 154, 161170. https://doi.org/10.1111/eea.12267 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Instituto de Hidrología, Meteorología y Estudios Ambientales-IDEAM (2015) Datos Meteorológicos Estación 26055070. Cali, Colombia: Universidad del Valle, 1966–2015.Google Scholar
Kale, M, Dudhe, N, Ferrante, M, Ivanova, T, Kasambe, R, Trukhanova, IS, Kasambe, R, Trukhanova, IS, Bhattacharya, P and Lövei, GL (2018a) The effect of urbanization on the functional and scale-sensitive diversity of bird assemblages in Central India. Journal of Tropical Ecology 34, 341350. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467418000317 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kale, M, Ferrante, M, Dudhe, N, Kasambe, R, Trukhanova, IS, Ivanova, T, Bhattacharya, P and Lövei, GL (2018b) Nestedness of bird assemblages along an urbanization gradient in Central India. Journal of Urban Ecology 4. https://doi.org/10.1093/jue/juy017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kattan, GH, Alvarez-Lopez, H and Giraldo, M (1994) Forest fragmentation and bird extinctions: San Antonio eighty years later. Conservation Biology 8, 138146. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1994.08010138.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koh, LP and Menge, DNL (2006) Rapid assessment of Lepidoptera predation rates in neotropical forest fragments. Biotropica 38, 132134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7429.2006.00114.x Google Scholar
Kozlov, MV, Lanta, V, Zverev, V, Rainio, K, Kunavin, MA and Zvereva, EL (2017) Decreased losses of woody plant foliage to insects in large urban areas are explained by bird predation. Global Change Biology 23, 43544364. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13692 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kwok, HK (2009) Foraging ecology of insectivorous birds in a mixed forest of Hong Kong. Acta Ecologica Sinica 29, 341346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chnaes.2009.09.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langen, TA and Berg, EC (2016) What determines the timing and duration of the nesting season for a tropical dry forest bird, the White-throated Magpie-Jay (Calocitta formosa)? The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 128, 3242. https://doi.org/10.1676/wils-128-01-32-42.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laxton, E (2005) Relationship between Leaf Traits, Insect Communities and Resource Availability. Ph.D. Thesis, Macquarie University, Australia.Google Scholar
Long, LC and Frank, SD (2020) Risk of bird predation and defoliating insect abundance are greater in urban forest fragments than street trees. Urban Ecosystems 23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-020-00939-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loiselle, BA and Farji-Brener, AG (2002) What’s up? An experimental comparison of predation levels between Canopy and understory in a tropical wet forest. Biotropica 34, 327330. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7429.2002.tb00545.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lövei, GL and Ferrante, M (2017) A review of the sentinel prey method as a way of quantifying invertebrate predation under field conditions. Insect Science 24, 528542. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7917.12405 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Low, PA, Sam, K, McArthur, C, Posa, MRC and Hochuli, DF (2014) Determining predator identity from attack marks left in model caterpillars: guidelines for best practice. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 152, 120126. https://doi.org/10.1111/eea.12207 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maas, B, Tscharntke, T, Saleh, S, Dwi Putra, D and Clough, Y (2015) Avian species identity drives predation success in tropical cacao agroforestry. Journal of Applied Ecology 52, 735743. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12409 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magagnoli, S, Masetti, A, Depalo, L, Sommaggio, D, Campanelli, G, Leteo, F, Lövei, GL and Burgio, G (2018) Cover crop termination techniques affect ground predation within an organic vegetable rotation system: a test with artificial caterpillars. Biological Control 117, 109114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2017.10.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magura, T, Ferrante, M and Lövei, GL (2020) Only habitat specialists become smaller with advancing urbanization. Global Ecology and Biogeography 29, 19781987. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.13168 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magura, T and Lövei, GL (2021) Consequences of urban living: urbanization and ground beetles. Current Landscape Ecology Reports 6, 921. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40823-020-00060-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Main, GG and Jackson, WM (2003) Effects of fragmentation on artificial nest predation in a tropical forest in Kenya. Biological Conservation 111, 161169. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0006-3207(02)00259-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansion-Vaquié, A, Ferrante, M, Cook, SM, Pell, JK and Lövei, GL (2017) Manipulating field margins to increase predation intensity in fields of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum). Journal of Applied Entomology 141, 600611. https://doi.org/10.1111/jen.12385 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansor, M and Mohd Sah, SA (2012) Foraging patterns reveal niche separation in tropical insectivorous birds. Acta Ornithologica 47, 2736. https://doi.org/10.3161/000164512X653890 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mäntylä, E, Alessio, GA, Blande, JD, Heijari, J, Holopainen, JK, Laaksonen, T, Piirtola, P and Klemola, T (2008) From plants to birds: higher avian predation rates in trees responding to insect herbivory. PLoS ONE 3, e2832. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0002832 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKinney, ML (2006) Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biological Conservation 127, 247260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.09.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minno, MC, Butler, JF and Hall, DW (2005) Florida Butterfly Caterpillars and Their Host Plants. Miami, FLA, USA: University Press of Florida.Google Scholar
Molleman, F, Remmel, T and Sam, K (2016) Phenology of predation on insects in a tropical forest: temporal variation in attack rate on dummy caterpillars. Biotropica 48, 229236. https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.12268 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morse, DH (1990) Food exploitation by birds: some current problems and future goals. Studies in Avian Biology 13, 134143.Google Scholar
Nason, LD, Eason, PK, Carreiro, MM, Cherry, A and Lawson, J (2021) Caterpillar survival in the city: attack rates on model lepidopteran larvae along an urban-rural gradient show no increase in predation with increasing urban intensity. Urban Ecosystems 24(6), 112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-020-01091-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niemelä, J and Kotze, DJ (2009) Carabid beetle assemblages along urban to rural gradients: a review. Landscape and Urban Planning 92, 6571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.05.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliveira, RS, Diniz, P, Araujo-Lima, V, Rosário, G and Duca, C (2020) Contrast to background influences predation on aposematic but not cryptic artificial caterpillars in a Brazilian coastal shrubland. Journal of Tropical Ecology 36, 109114. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026646742000005X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pan, X, Mizuno, T, Ito, K, Ohsugi, T, Nishimichi, S, Nomiya, R, Ohno, M, Yamawo, A, and Nakamura, A (2020) Assessing temporal dynamics of predation and effectiveness of caterpillar visual defense using sawfly larval color and resting posture as a model. Insect Science 28, 18001815. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7917.12884 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parés-Ramos, IK, Álvarez-Berríos, NL and Aide, TM (2013) Mapping urbanization dynamics in major cities of Colombia, Ecuador, Perú, and Bolivia using night-time satellite imagery. Land 2, 3759. https://doi.org/10.3390/land2010037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pena, JC, Aoki-Gonçalves, F, Dáttilo, W, Ribeiro, MC and MacGregor-Fors, I (2021) Caterpillars’ natural enemies and attack probability in an urbanization intensity gradient across a Neotropical streetscape. Ecological Indicators 128, 107851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107851 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philpott, SM, Soong, O, Lowenstein, JH, Pulido, AL, Lopez, DT, Flynn, DF and DeClerck, F (2009) Functional richness and ecosystem services: bird predation on arthropods in tropical agroecosystems. Ecological Applications 19, 18581867. https://doi.org/10.1890/08-1928.1 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Posa, MRC, Sodhi, NS and Koh, LP (2007) Predation on artificial nests and caterpillar models across a disturbance gradient in Subic Bay, Philippines. Journal of Tropical Ecology 23, 2733. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266467406003671 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postema, EG (2021) The effectiveness of eyespots and masquerade in protecting artificial prey across ontogenetic and seasonal shifts. Current Zoology. https://doi.org/10.1093/cz/zoab082 Google ScholarPubMed
R Core Team (2016) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Disponible: http://www.R-project.org Google Scholar
Ramírez, L, Chacón, P and Constantino, LM (2007) Diversidad de mariposas diurnas (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea y Hesperioidea) en Santiago de Cali, Valle del Cauca, Colombia. Revista Colombiana de Entomología 33, 5463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Remmel, T, Davison, J and Tammaru, T (2011) Quantifying predation on folivorous insect larvae: the perspective of life-history evolution. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 104, 118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2011.01721.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Remmel, T and Tammaru, T (2009) Size-dependent predation risk in tree-feeding insects with different colouration strategies: a field experiment. Journal of Animal Ecology 78, 973980. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2009.01566.x CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Remsen, JV, Cadena, CD, Nores, M, Pacheco, JF, Pérez, J and Robbins, MB (2020) A Classification of the Bird Species of South America. www.Museum.Lsu.Edu. https://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCBiblio.htmGoogle Scholar
Richards, LA and Coley, PD (2007) Seasonal and habitat differences affect the impact of food and predation on herbivores: a comparison between gaps and understory of a tropical forest. Oikos 116, 3140. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2006.0030-1299.15043.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivera-Gutiérrez, HF (2006) Composición y estructura de una comunidad de aves en un área suburbana en el suroccidente colombiano. Ornitología colombiana 4, 2838. http://asociacioncolombianadeornitologia.org/wp-content/uploads/revista/oc4/Suburbana.pdf Google Scholar
Robinson, SK and Holmes, RT (1984) Effects of plant species and foliage structure on the foraging behavior of forest birds. The Auk 101, 672684. https://doi.org/10.2307/4086894 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roels, SM, Porter, JL and Lindell, CA (2018) Predation pressure by birds and arthropods on herbivorous insects affected by tropical forest restoration strategy. Restoration Ecology 26, 12031211. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12693 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sam, K, Koane, B and Novotny, V (2015) Herbivore damage increases avian and ant predation of caterpillars on trees along a complete elevational forest gradient in Papua New Guinea. Ecography 38, 293300. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.00979 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santos, T and Tellería, JL (2006) Pérdida y fragmentación del hábitat: efecto sobre la conservación de las especies. Ecosistemas. https://www.ucm.es/data/cont/media/www/pag-33471/2006_Ecosistemas_2_3.pdf Google Scholar
Schwagmeyer, PL and Mock, DW (2008) Parental provisioning and offspring fitness: size matters. Animal Behaviour 75, 291298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.05.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seifert, CL, Lehner, L, Adams, MO and Fiedler, K (2015) Predation on artificial caterpillars is higher in countryside than near-natural forest habitat in lowland south-western Costa Rica. Journal of Tropical Ecology 31, 281284. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266467415000012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seress, G and Liker, A (2015) Habitat urbanization and its effects on birds. Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 61, 373408. https://doi.org/10.17109/AZH.61.4.373.2015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shochat, E, Lerman, SB, Katti, M and Lewis, DB (2004) Linking optimal foraging behavior to bird community structure in an Urban-desert landscape: field experiments with artificial food patches. The American Naturalist 164, 232243. https://doi.org/10.2307/3473441 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinu, PA, Viswan, G, Fahira, PP, Rajesh, TP, Manoj, K, Hariraveendra, M and Jose, T (2021) Shade tree diversity may not drive prey-predator interaction in coffee agroforests of the Western Ghats biodiversity hotspot, India. Biological Control 160, 104674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2021.104674 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taubert, F, Fischer, R, Groeneveld, J, Lehmann, S, Müller, MS, Rödig, E, Wiegand, T and Huth, A (2018) Global patterns of tropical forest fragmentation. Nature 554, 519522. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25508 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tiede, Y, Schlautmann, J, Donoso, DA, Wallis, CI, Bendix, J, Brandl, R and Farwig, N (2017) Ants as indicators of environmental change and ecosystem processes. Ecological Indicators 83, 527537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.01.029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torres, AM, Vargas, JA, Guevara Llano, M, Orrego, JA, Duque, OL, Moreno, MP and Ruiz, JM (2014) Uso de Samanea saman y Pithecellobium dulce (Fabaceae: Mimosoideae) por aves en el Jardín Botánico Universitario, Cali, Colombia. Revista de Ciencias 18, 6378. https://doi.org/10.25100/rc.v18i2.6098 Google Scholar
Tvardikova, K and Novotny, V (2012) Predation on exposed and leaf-rolling artificial caterpillars in tropical forests of Papua New Guinea. Journal of Tropical Ecology 28, 331341. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266467412000235 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unno, A (2002) Tree species preferences of insectivorous birds in a Japanese deciduous forest: the effect of different foraging techniques and seasonal change of food resources. Ornithological Science 1, 133142. https://doi.org/10.2326/osj.1.133 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valdés-Correcher, E, Mäntylä, E, Barbaro, L, Damestoy, T, Sam, K and Castagneyrol, B (2022) Following the track: accuracy and reproducibility of predation assessment on artificial caterpillars. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 170, 914921. https://doi.org/10.1111/eea.13210 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vehviläinen, H, Koricheva, J and Ruohomäki, K (2008) Effects of stand tree species composition and diversity on abundance of predatory arthropods. Oikos 117, 935943. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2008.15972.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, LN (2008) Urbanization: 21st Century Issues and Challenges. Hauppauge, New York, United States: Nova Publishers.Google Scholar
Witz, BW (1990) Antipredator mechanisms in arthropods: a twenty year literature survey. The Florida Entomologist 73, 7199. https://doi.org/10.2307/3495331 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zvereva, EL and Kozlov, MV (2010) Responses of terrestrial arthropods to air pollution: a meta-analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 17, 297311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-009-0138-0 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Figure 1. Predator marks registered on the lepidopteran larvae models. a artificial caterpillar model; b, c and d bird beak; e and f ants; g, h and i wasp jaw; j wasp sting; k chewing arthropod; and l mammal. Southwestern Colombia. Photo taken by Image Laboratory at the Graduate School of Biological Sciences, Universidad del Valle.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Number of models attacked by arthropods (orange) and birds (blue) at each site: Suburban 1 (Parque de las Garzas), Suburban 2 (Hacienda Cañasgordas), Urban 1 (Universidad del Valle Campus) and Urban 2 (Constructora Limonar). A total of 50 artificial caterpillars were used per site in each climatic season (rainy/dry). The test lasted for 30 days with two repetitions (October–November 2015 and January–February 2016).

Figure 2

Table 1. Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) where predation models of lepidopteran caterpillars were evaluated according to the degree of urbanisation (suburban and urban), substrate (stem and leaf) and season (rainy and dry) in southwestern Colombia

Figure 3

Figure 3. Abundance of predator birds and number of models attacked by birds per each site: Suburban 1 (Parque de las Garzas), Suburban 2 (Hacienda Cañasgordas), Urban 1 (Universidad del Valle Campus) and Urban 2 (Constructora Limonar), in southwestern Colombia.). Prediction line equation: y = 0.3063x – 31.339. R2 = 0.8771.

Supplementary material: Image

Cupitra-Rodríguez et al. supplementary material

Table S1

Download Cupitra-Rodríguez et al. supplementary material(Image)
Image 39.3 KB