Cited by 98Insect-Plant Interactions and ControlHemiptera Insect StudiesInsect behavior and control techniques

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Predatory activity and spatial pattern: the response of generalist carabids to their aphid prey

Open access
WINDER, LINTON, ALEXANDER, COLIN J., HOLLAND, JOHN M., SYMONDSON, WILLIAM O. C., PERRY, JOE N., WOOLLEY, CHRIS·2005·Journal of Animal Ecology

Abstract

Summary: The spatial distribution of cereal aphids infesting a field of winter wheat during the population establishment, development and decline phases were studied using a field‐scale grid of sampling locations. The distribution of two generalist predators,Pterostichus melanarius and P. madidus, were sampled contemporaneously. Using spatial analysis by distance indices (SADIE), spatial pattern in the aphid population, predator activity–density, predator hunger and aphid predation was detected and mapped. We tested the hypothesis that carabids and aphids were spatially associated with one another through predation. Aphid predation by individual beetles was detected using enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) and hunger was assessed by measurement of foregut weights. Initially, there was a strong spatial dissociation between aphids and P. melanarius activity–density. While the aphid population was increasing there was a strong spatial association between aphids and both P. melanarius and P. madidus activity–density. During aphid population decline there was no measurable association between aphids and predatory activity–density. Predation of aphids was strongly locally associated with predator activity–density on all sample dates for both predator species, regardless of the association with aphid spatial pattern. Areas within the field most isolated from P. melanarius predation had the highest rates of aphid population increase. Although the proportion of P. melanarius individuals consuming aphids was much lower compared to P. madidus, it was concluded that it was a more effective biological control agent due to its comparative abundance.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2005.00939.x

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Considerable spatial heterogeneity in terms of abundance of natural enemies and their prey has been observed within fields.

    “considerable spatial heterogeneity in terms of abundance of natural enemies and their prey have been observed within fields (Holland et al., 2004; Winder et al., 2005; MacFadyen et al., 2011).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Barbosa P., 1998, Conservation Biology Control
  2. Larochelle A., 1990, The food of carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae, including Cicindelinae), Fabreries Supplement, 5, 1
  3. Steinberg K., 1997, Spatial Ecology, 318
  4. Symondson W.O.C., 2002, The Agroecology of Carabid Beetles, 137
  5. 10.2307/2265694 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
WINDER, L., ALEXANDER, C. J., HOLLAND, J. M., SYMONDSON, W. O. C., PERRY, J. N., & WOOLLEY, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Plymouth (GB)
  • Rothamsted Research (GB)
  • Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust (GB)
  • Cardiff University (GB)
Corresponding author
WINDER, LINTON
Venue
Journal of Animal Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-03-17
Volume
74
Issue
3
Pages
443-454
ISSN
  • 0021-8790 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2656
OpenAlex
W2130166769
Cited by
98
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 6
FWCI
12.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Animal Ecology (publishedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Directorate for Biological Sciences
  • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Insect-Plant Interactions and Control
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Hemiptera Insect Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Insect behavior and control techniques
Keywords
Pterostichus melanarius, ground beetles, cereal aphids, predator-prey association, aphid predation, biological control, winter wheat, aphid population dynamics, generalist predators

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review