Predation on Live and Artificial Insect Prey Shows Different Global Latitudinal Patterns

Abstract

<p><b>Aim:</b> Long-standing theory predicts that the intensity of biotic interactions increases from high to low latitudes. Studies addressing geographic variation in predation on insect prey have often relied on prey models, which lack many characteristics of live prey. Our goals were to explore global latitudinal patterns of predator attack rates on standardised live insect prey and to compare the patterns in predation on live insects with those on plasticine prey models.<br></p><p><b>Location:</b> Global forested areas.<br></p><p><b>Time Period:</b> 2021-2023.<br></p><p><b>Major Taxa:</b> Arthropods, birds.<br></p><p>Methods: We measured predation rates in 43 forested locations distributed across five continents from 34.1 degrees S to 69.5 degrees N latitude. At each location, we exposed 20 sets of three bait types, one set per tree. Each set included three live fly larvae (maggots), three live fly puparia and three plasticine models of the puparia. We used glue rings to isolate half of the sets from non-flying predators.<br></p><p><b>Results:</b> Arthropod attack rates on plasticine prey decreased linearly from low to high latitudes, whereas attack rates on maggots had a U shaped distribution, with the lowest predation rates at temperate latitudes and the highest rates at tropical and boreal latitudes. This difference emerged from intensive predator attacks on live maggots, but not on plasticine models, in boreal sites. Site-specific attack rates of arthropod predators on live and plasticine prey were not correlated. In contrast, bird attack rates on live maggots and plasticine models were positively correlated, but did not show significant latitudinal changes.<br></p><p><b>Main Conclusions:</b> Latitudinal patterns in predation differ between major groups of predators and between types of prey. Poleward decreases in both arthropod and combined arthropod and bird predation on plasticine models do not mirror patterns of predation on our live prey, the latter likely reflecting real patterns of predation risk better than do patterns of attack on artificial prey.</p>