Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 273

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Predator‐Prey Interactions between Stoneflies and Mayflies: Behavioral Observations

Peckarsky, Barbara L.·1980·Ecology

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted at two streams to determine the mechanisms by which mayfly prey detect and avoid stonefly predators, and to quantify the effect of stonefly predators upon mayfly behavior, distribution, and activity levels. Direct observations of the interactions between stoneflies and mayflies were made at Otter Creek, Sauk County, Wisconsin, USA and the East River, Gunnison County, Colorado, USA using plexiglass boxes with screen ends and an artificial substrate. Ephemerella subvaria and Stenonema fuscum, Otter Creek, avoided the stonefly predator Acroneuria lycorias given only noncontact chemical stimuli. Ephemerella infrequens and Baetis bicaudatus, East River, Responded to long—range chemical stimuli from Megarcys signata and Kogotus modestus, East River. Baetis phoebus and Heptagenia hebe, Otter Creek, and Cinygmula sp., East River, did not respond to stonefly predators given long—range chemical cues along. Differences among responses of different mayflies may be due to differential predation pressure or effectiveness of predator evasion tactics. None of the species of mayflies tested responded to the presence of stonefly predators given only visual stimuli. The Ephemerella species assumed a "scorpion"—like display posture upon encounter with the stoneflies. This posture may increase the apparent size of the mayflies which are then rejected by the tactile predators. The Baetis species characteristically swam or drifted in response to contact with the stonefly predators. Predator evasion could partially explain the high incidence of this genus of mayflies reported in stream drift. The remaining mayflies, of the family Heptageniidae, showed an effective crawling evasion upon contact with stonefly predators. Ephemerella infrequens and B. bicaudatus differentially responded to contact with three different stonefly predators in the East River. Both species of mayflies evaded contact with Pteronarcella badia, a large omnivorous stonefly which morphologically resembles M. signata, significantly less frequently than they evaded M. signata and K. modestus upon contact. The mechanism by which this differentiation occurs could be chemotactile. Cinygmula sp. avoided all stoneflies equally regardless of size or relative threat of consumption. Tactile stimuli are probably responsible for this behavior.

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 · 10.2307/1936762

Cites

20 of 20 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

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

Show all 20 references

Cited by

See all 273

Metadata

Authors
Peckarsky, B. L.
Venue
Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1980-08
Volume
61
Issue
4
Pages
932-943
ISSN
  • 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-9170
OpenAlex
W1990782929
Cited by
273
References
20
FWCI
8.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Predator‐Prey Interactions between Stoneflies and Mayflies: Behavioral Observations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1936762
The paper
Peckarsky, B. L. (1980). Predator‐Prey Interactions between Stoneflies and Mayflies: Behavioral Observations. Ecology. https://doi.org/10.2307/1936762

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.