There have been many observations of larval Orthopodomyia signifera coexisting with the predator Toxorhynchites rutilus. There are three hypotheses that could explain how Or. signifera resists predation from Tx. rutilus. The first hypothesis states that larvae adapt behavioral changes that limit predation. The second hypothesis states thoracic setae serve as a physical defense that prevents Tx. rutilus from grasping Or. signifera. The third hypothesis states Or. signifera possess a chemical defense indicated by aposematic coloration. To test the first hypothesis larval Or. signifera were exposed to conspecific and heterospecific predation cues and their behavior was observed. Both cues caused Or. signifera to change their behavior, with conspecific cues causing the most stringent defensive behavior and heterospecific cues causing moderate defensive behavior. This led to the confirmation of the first hypothesis. To test the second hypothesis the rate of successful strikes of Tx. rutilus on Or. signifera and Aedes albopictus were compared. There was no significant difference in the successful strike rate of Tx. rutilus on Or. signifera and Ae. albopictus and the second hypothesis was rejected. For the third hypothesis the functional response of Tx. rutilus on Ae. albopictus and Or. signifera when exposed to a natural and artificial diet was compared. Diet was not a factor, however, Or. signifera had significantly longer handling time and fewer 2nd strikes in comparison with Ae. albopictus. The third hypothesis was inconclusive as the results could indicate a physical or chemical defense.
","abstract_html":"<p>There have been many observations of larval <em>Orthopodomyia signifera</em> coexisting with the predator <em>Toxorhynchites rutilus.</em> There are three hypotheses that could explain how <em>Or. signifera</em> resists predation from <em>Tx. rutilus</em>. The first hypothesis states that larvae adapt behavioral changes that limit predation. The second hypothesis states thoracic setae serve as a physical defense that prevents <em>Tx. rutilus</em> from grasping <em>Or. signifera</em>. The third hypothesis states <em>Or. signifera </em>possess a chemical defense indicated by aposematic coloration. To test the first hypothesis larval <em>Or. signifera</em> were exposed to conspecific and heterospecific predation cues and their behavior was observed. Both cues caused <em>Or. signifera</em> to change their behavior, with conspecific cues causing the most stringent defensive behavior and heterospecific cues causing moderate defensive behavior. This led to the confirmation of the first hypothesis. To test the second hypothesis the rate of successful strikes of <em>Tx. rutilus</em> on <em>Or. signifera</em> and <em>Aedes albopictus</em> were compared. There was no significant difference in the successful strike rate of <em>Tx. rutilus</em> on <em>Or. signifera</em> and <em>Ae. albopictus </em>and the second hypothesis was rejected. For the third hypothesis the functional response of <em>Tx. rutilus</em> on <em>Ae. albopictu</em>s and <em>Or. signifera</em> when exposed to a natural and artificial diet was compared. Diet was not a factor, however, <em>Or. signifera</em> had significantly longer handling time and fewer 2<sup>nd</sup> strikes in comparison with <em>Ae. albopictus</em>. The third hypothesis was inconclusive as the results could indicate a physical or chemical defense.</p>","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Dahlberg, Nathaniel"],"institution":null,"degree_name":"Master of Science (MS)","degree_level":"Masters Thesis","degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Donald Yee","Jake Schaefer","Miguel Acevedo"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2023,"date_issued":"2023-01-01T08:00:00Z","date_published":"2023-01-01T08:00:00Z","updated_at":"2026-07-24T05:45:40Z","subjects":["Mosquito","Ecology","Entomology","Predator","Prey Predator Defense","Chemical Defense","Physical Defense","Behavioral Defense","Behavior and Ethology","Biodiversity","Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology","Zoology"],"languages":[],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://aquila.usm.edu/masters_theses/952","outbound_label":"Repository record","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Donald Yee","Jake Schaefer","Miguel Acevedo"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Dahlberg, Nathaniel"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2023-01-01T08:00:00Z"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Masters Thesis"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Master of Science (MS)"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Mosquito","Ecology","Entomology","Predator","Prey Predator Defense","Chemical Defense","Physical Defense","Behavioral Defense","Behavior and Ethology","Biodiversity","Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology","Zoology"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["https://aquila.usm.edu/masters_theses/952"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["There have been many observations of larval Orthopodomyia signifera coexisting with the predator Toxorhynchites rutilus. There are three hypotheses that could explain how Or. signifera resists predation from Tx. rutilus. The first hypothesis states that larvae adapt behavioral changes that limit predation. The second hypothesis states thoracic setae serve as a physical defense that prevents Tx. rutilus from grasping Or. signifera. The third hypothesis states Or. signifera possess a chemical defense indicated by aposematic coloration. To test the first hypothesis larval Or. signifera were exposed to conspecific and heterospecific predation cues and their behavior was observed. Both cues caused Or. signifera to change their behavior, with conspecific cues causing the most stringent defensive behavior and heterospecific cues causing moderate defensive behavior. This led to the confirmation of the first hypothesis. To test the second hypothesis the rate of successful strikes of Tx. rutilus on Or. signifera and Aedes albopictus were compared. There was no significant difference in the successful strike rate of Tx. rutilus on Or. signifera and Ae. albopictus and the second hypothesis was rejected. For the third hypothesis the functional response of Tx. rutilus on Ae. albopictus and Or. signifera when exposed to a natural and artificial diet was compared. Diet was not a factor, however, Or. signifera had significantly longer handling time and fewer 2nd strikes in comparison with Ae. albopictus. The third hypothesis was inconclusive as the results could indicate a physical or chemical defense.
"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["HIDE AND SEEK: AN EXPLORATION OF ANTIPREDATOR AND PREDATOR AVOIDANCE MECHANISMS IN ORTHOPODOMYIA SIGNIFERA IN RESPONSE TO PREDATION FROM TOXORHYNCHITES RUTILUS"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Donald Yee","Jake Schaefer","Miguel Acevedo"],"dc:creator":["Dahlberg, Nathaniel"],"dc:date.available":["2023-01-01T08:00:00Z"],"dc:description.abstract":["There have been many observations of larval Orthopodomyia signifera coexisting with the predator Toxorhynchites rutilus. There are three hypotheses that could explain how Or. signifera resists predation from Tx. rutilus. The first hypothesis states that larvae adapt behavioral changes that limit predation. The second hypothesis states thoracic setae serve as a physical defense that prevents Tx. rutilus from grasping Or. signifera. The third hypothesis states Or. signifera possess a chemical defense indicated by aposematic coloration. To test the first hypothesis larval Or. signifera were exposed to conspecific and heterospecific predation cues and their behavior was observed. Both cues caused Or. signifera to change their behavior, with conspecific cues causing the most stringent defensive behavior and heterospecific cues causing moderate defensive behavior. This led to the confirmation of the first hypothesis. To test the second hypothesis the rate of successful strikes of Tx. rutilus on Or. signifera and Aedes albopictus were compared. There was no significant difference in the successful strike rate of Tx. rutilus on Or. signifera and Ae. albopictus and the second hypothesis was rejected. For the third hypothesis the functional response of Tx. rutilus on Ae. albopictus and Or. signifera when exposed to a natural and artificial diet was compared. Diet was not a factor, however, Or. signifera had significantly longer handling time and fewer 2nd strikes in comparison with Ae. albopictus. The third hypothesis was inconclusive as the results could indicate a physical or chemical defense.
"],"dc:identifier":["https://aquila.usm.edu/masters_theses/952"],"dc:subject":["Mosquito","Ecology","Entomology","Predator","Prey Predator Defense","Chemical Defense","Physical Defense","Behavioral Defense","Behavior and Ethology","Biodiversity","Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology","Zoology"],"dc:title":["HIDE AND SEEK: AN EXPLORATION OF ANTIPREDATOR AND PREDATOR AVOIDANCE MECHANISMS IN ORTHOPODOMYIA SIGNIFERA IN RESPONSE TO PREDATION FROM TOXORHYNCHITES RUTILUS"],"thesis:degree_level":["Masters Thesis"],"thesis:degree_name":["Master of Science (MS)"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T05:45:40Z"}