A laboratory study of predator‐prey interactions of stoneflies and mayflies

SUMMARY. 1. Reactions of individual predatory stoneflies to contact by individual mayfly prey, and vice versa, were studied in the laboratory using two sets of species, one from a stream in southern Ontario. Canada, and the other from a stream in North Wales. 2. Based largely on information received via their antennae, the stoneflies were capable of distinguishing between conspecifics and mayfly prey and between prey species. A clear preference for certain prey species was evident but less preferred species were made more attractive when damaged or when the stoneflies were very hungry. Detection of conspecifics by stoneflies was confused in the presence of prey or the local smell of prey body fluids and this led to interference during hunting and feeding at high predator densities. 3. Some mayfly species were capable of distinguishing between conspecifics. other mayflies and predators. The cerci were important in intra‐ and interspecific contact encounters between mayflies and were used in a fencing fashion to establish a minimum distance between nymphs. However, the cerci did not appear to play an anti‐predation role as stoneflies captured and ate mayflies with and without cerci in equal numbers. 4. Reactions to conspecifics by the Palaearetie mayflies Rhithrogena semicolorata (Curt.) and Baetis rhodani (Pictet) were similar to those of the ecologically‐equivalent Nearctic species Stenonema vicarium (Walker) and Baetis vagans McDunnough. 5. In encounters between mayflies, intra‐ and interspecific responses were similar. However, the responses of some mayfly species to conspeeifics were modified in the physical presence of a predator or the water from its holding tank. Different mayfly species made specific responses to predaeeous stoneflies. Responses to a herbivorous stonefly were either similar to conspeeific encounters or were intermediate between them and encounters with predators. 6. Experiments to reveal the exact nature of the stonefly stimulus detected by the mayfly nymphs strongly suggested that there were two components to the stimulus. One was physical contact by the predator's antennae, the other was chemical in nature and could be detected only over short distances (up to a few mm). Independently each could elicit a response, but combined their effect appeared to be synergistic. 7. Different mayfly species responded differently to the stonefly Phasganophora capitata (Pictet) and this sequence of sensitivity was mirrored by the predator's choice of prey species—the most sensitive to the predator being the favoured prey and the less sensitive the least favoured. The significance of these findings to optimal foraging theory, as applied to tactile predators, is discussed.