ライフサイエンスコーパス: prey

1 ding (enhancing foraging efficiency on small prey).

2 consequent increases in production of their prey).

3 ckground instead of relying on mobile insect prey.

4 y detects, traps, digests and absorbs insect prey.

5 the location and size of spatial refugia for prey.

6 like attacks upon both insect and artificial prey.

7 onary response by predators feeding on toxic prey.

8 , modifying their own PG as they grow inside prey.

9 unding predators or endangered predators and prey.

10 nd ultimately reducing BV's search space for prey.

11 rip of their jaws to restrain and immobilize prey.

12 ring adaptive resistance genes from adjacent prey.

13 ability of fishes to process hard and tough prey.

14 dal whelks and their full suite of potential prey.

15 ocating bat tracking and intercepting moving prey.

16 objects such as conspecifics, predators, and prey.

17 to orient its direction-of-gaze at potential prey.

18 ratio and compensatory feeding on N-limited prey.

19 ecosystems and distribution of top predator prey.

20 s been shown to anticipate the image path of prey.

21 s ability to exert top-down control on these prey.

22 estimation of predator efficiency on a given prey.

23 f patch food resources on the less preferred prey.

24 when functional bladderwort removed a shared prey.

25 tween an approaching predator and a putative prey.

26 if any, BV uses chemical cues to target its prey.

27 energetic gains derived from killing larger prey.

28 ary arms race between predator and potential prey.

29 out of the study area in search of adequate prey.

30 t deep-sea octopus Haliphron atlanticus with prey.

31 onary targets, maneuvering targets, and live prey.

32 se trawling had a negative effect on benthic prey.

33 ion in the triplet state of pentacene is the prey.

34 e to that of interspecific competition among prey.

35 verability and thus their ability to capture prey.

36 helping to avoid detection by predators and prey [1, 2, 4, 5].

37 nd efficiency, and commensurate responses of prey [1-3].

38 ng their elongated bills to slash or tap the prey [22-24].

39 Predators can limit prey abundance and/or levels of activity.

40 Annual variation in prey abundance influenced lake trout foraging tactics (i

41 quality prey on irrigated lands, or earlier prey abundance may release former constraints on other s

42 We show that dispersers reduce prey abundance more than do non-dispersers during the fi

43 ause temporal changes in growing seasons and prey abundance that drive earlier breeding by birds, esp

44 h shifts in growing seasons and, presumably, prey abundance, in a mosaic of non-irrigated shrub/grass

45 edator-prey size ratios reflect increases in prey abundance, prey nutrient content, and predation amo

46 tional Park, Thailand, reduces prey size and prey abundance, with more pronounced effects where the m

47 Moreover, it may help them locate prey accumulating in fronts, eddies, and thin layers, wh

48 from the range extent of either predator or prey alone.

49 displaying accurate mimicry with other local prey, although some of the forms only provide moderate p

50 Although predators influence behavior of prey, analyses of electronic tracking data in marine env

51 typed set of takeoff conditions based on the prey and body states most likely to end in successful ca

52 emosignals are used by predators to localize prey and by prey to avoid predators.

53 g bacteria (Escherichia coli (E. coli)) as a prey and ciliated protozoan (Paramecium caudatum) as a p

54 n this way, may be used for hunting/stunning prey and communication.

55 requires the predator to sensitively detect prey and forecast its mobile prey's future position on t

56 cence functions in communication, attracting prey and in hiding from predators, particularly for fish

57 nt predation, in which a predator consumes a prey and its parasites, but not the number of interactio

58 defended animals and coevolutionary predator-prey and mimic-model relationships.

59 dators interacting with arbitrary numbers of prey and predator species in the field.

60 mproving its odds of a chance collision with prey and ultimately reducing BV's search space for prey.

61 ion models assume that the sensory system of prey (and hence their behavior) varies little between sp

62 small to trap BV in hydrodynamic orbit, the prey are also susceptible to their own hydrodynamic fiel

63 on-dependent risk-taking indicates that when prey are in poor condition, their anti-predator response

64 eases connectivity among predators and their prey as well as total food intake rate.

65 se high voltage to track [2] and control [3] prey, as well as to exhaust prey by causing involuntary

66 ovations: echolocation (facilitating hunting prey at depth) and filter-feeding (enhancing foraging ef

67 el by determining interaction strengths with prey at different trophic levels.

68 consume greater quantities of MeHg enriched prey at larger sizes.

69 suggested that BV probably collides into its prey at random.

70 it competed with these other carnivores for prey at the site.

71 ance feeding for fishes that bite and scrape prey attached to hard surfaces.

72 rojected to recover in the future as long as prey availability and mortality rates remain within the

73 ns, including variation in foraging success, prey availability and selection, bathymetry, physiologic

74 ale prey, potentially resulting in decreased prey availability and/or an expansion of right whale hab

75 evidence that climate-associated changes in prey availability have played an important role in the p

76 strel nesting phenology shifted with earlier prey availability in irrigated lands.

77 ure-recapture models to quantify the role of prey availability on right whale demographic transitiona

78 been identified for this population: reduced prey availability, anthropogenic contaminants, and marin

79 result in predators becoming mismatched with prey availability, reducing fitness and potentially driv

80 gulates due to dental disease and/or limited prey availability.

81 o extinction even under conditions of normal prey availability.

82 insect which relies on vision for capturing prey, avoiding being eaten and for spatial orientation.

83 Predators coevolved alongside prey bacteria and so encode diverse predatory enzymes th

84 nd finally destroying walls of Gram-negative prey bacteria, modifying their own PG as they grow insid

85 NDVI was a useful proxy for kestrel prey because it predicted small mammal abundance and pas

86 Consistent individual differences in prey behaviour, especially in the propensity to take ris

87 Our results support suspending fishing when prey biomass drops below critical thresholds [12, 13] an

88 lated with the mass that spiders gained from prey, but not with the number of prey killed.

89 and control [3] prey, as well as to exhaust prey by causing involuntary fatigue through remote activ

90 Birds and ants also partitioned caterpillar prey by diet breadth.

91 anial modifications associated with enhanced prey capture, predating that general trend of morphologi

92 ularly significant in influencing success in prey capture.

93 ave weak jaws that play only a minor role in prey capture.

94 The relationship between prey carrying capacity and temperature can range from ne

95 may have a type III functional response, and prey carrying capacity depends on explicitly modelled re

96 ary threats include: limitation of preferred prey, Chinook salmon; anthropogenic noise and disturbanc

97 Predators and prey co-evolve, each maximizing their own fitness, but t

98 To study the molecular basis for predator-prey coevolution, we investigated how Caenorhabditis ele

99 These differences in prey communities disappeared after 8 weeks suggesting pr

100 ermining the metacommunity assembly model of prey communities is understudied relative to that of int

101 , we found that patch type did not structure prey communities very well.

102 predator also enhanced spatial signal in the prey community because of its limited dispersal.

103 unities disappeared after 8 weeks suggesting prey community resilience against predation in these mes

104 st strongly predicted the composition of the prey community.

105 ous demersal species by (i) changing benthic prey composition through physical seabed impacts and (ii

106 retical work suggest risk and its effects on prey constitute a complex, multi-dimensional process wit

107 he cost of increased predictability to their prey, constraining the evolution of lateralization.

108 Prey contacting touch-sensitive hairs trigger traveling

109 erence between organisms that share a common prey could exist than between carnivorous plants and ani

110 rfaces and defects where mobile predator and prey density is now dramatically enhanced.

111 hydrodynamics forces BV into regions high in prey density, thereby improving its odds of a chance col

112 hich the prey population growth depends on a prey density-dependent fitness landscape.

113 ced prey responses as avoidance behaviour in prey depended on clone type.

114 eb patterns left unexplained by the simplest prey-dependent models.

115 t contributions to energy acquisition during prey digestion.

116 etion events that bring about conditions for prey digestion.

117 fficiency in environments with heterogeneous prey distributions.

118 in more convex (costly) trade-offs and lower prey diversity compared to the scenario where only the p

119 ulations diversify rapidly leading to higher prey diversity when the trade-off is concave (cheap).

120 ocean temperature) and biotic (phytoplankton prey) drivers.

121 the whales do not swim forward in pursuit of prey during the period from mouth opening to closing, an

122 nificant dichotomy between Mesozoic predator-prey dynamics and those of modern terrestrial systems.

123 Predator-prey dynamics are an important evolutionary driver of es

124 Modern predator-prey dynamics may not be directly applicable to those of

125 explore consequences of warming for predator-prey dynamics, broadening previous approaches in three w

126 ation, with direct consequences for predator-prey dynamics.

127 set of rapid cycling in the chaotic predator-prey dynamics.

128 primates decreased their emphasis on mobile prey (e.g., insects).

129 While BV's prey (Escherichia coli) are too small to trap BV in hydr

130 sity compared to the scenario where only the prey evolves.

131 nt rigidity, and deeper hooks enabled faster prey extraction in the provided tasks.

132 Prey fish have greater shadow prices than expected based

133 Fear of predation has been shown to affect prey fitness and behaviour, however, to date little is k

134 least one of the criterion, and the loss of prey fixation or overhead positioning during flight is s

135 s increasing the net availability of benthic prey for remaining individuals.

136 uperb aerial predators, plucking tiny insect prey from the sky.

137 cs, ultimately reduces BV's search space for prey from three to two dimensions (on surfaces) even dow

138 Although humans are not typical prey, habitual man-eating by lions is well documented.

139 These results show evidence for the role of prey heterogeneity in driving functional complementarity

140 ead sharing of gut bacteria between predator-prey host-species pairs, indicating horizontal transfer

141 , such as filter feeding in the Mysticeti vs prey-hunting Odontoceti, and size, with the smallest cet

142 e find that rather than chemically detecting prey, hydrodynamics forces BV into regions high in prey

143 disrupting sorting and spatial pattern among prey in experimental landscapes.

144 Kestrels may preferentially track prey in irrigated lands over non-irrigated lands because

145 four important piscivores and four of their prey in the U.S. Northeast Shelf by examining species ov

146 geted search problem by the predator for its prey in three dimensions is a difficult problem: it requ

147 g, regularly hoisting, storing and consuming prey in trees.

148 Such prey-induced haptoelectric stimulation activates the tou

149 bait is very stable, so that many cycles of prey injection and subsequent prey removal can be carrie

150 ching behavior attenuated an iconic predator-prey interaction and likely altered the many ecological

151 luence of water temperature on this predator-prey interaction by: (i) assessing the spatial distribut

152 for anti-predator behavior, as many predator-prey interaction models assume that the sensory system o

153 be the effects of behavioral IIV on predator-prey interaction outcomes in beach-dwelling jumping spid

154 how variation in traits controlling predator-prey interactions (e.g., body size) affects food web str

155 ton biomass are governed by complex predator-prey interactions and physically driven variations in up

156 the role of land use in influencing predator-prey interactions and resulting predation events in agro

157 highlight the contingent nature of predator-prey interactions and suggest that non-consumptive effec

158 Predator-prey interactions are complex and can be altered by envi

159 erties in biological filtration and predator-prey interactions in aquatic systems.

160 e lunar cycle might actually affect predator-prey interactions in the upper layers of the ocean.

161 Thus, quantifying rapid predator-prey interactions in the wild will propel our understand

162 Predator-prey interactions may be strongly influenced by temperat

163 Feeding strategies and predator-prey interactions of many deep-sea pelagic organisms are

164 eir own fitness, but the effects of predator-prey interactions on cellular and molecular machinery ar

165 net impact of warming or cooling on predator-prey interactions was not determined a priori from the r

166 s, a more detailed understanding of predator-prey interactions, changes in microbial composition and

167 In predator-prey interactions, for example, predators might increase

168 ve the potential to alter important predator-prey interactions, in part by altering the location and

169 0-million-year record of individual predator-prey interactions.

170 alongside personality in studies of predator-prey interactions.

171 Here we explore this in dragonfly prey interception.

172 ut were more likely to respond to and handle prey irrespective of whether olfactory predator cues wer

173 spective, a predator rapidly approaching its prey is a stronger cue for flight than a slowly moving p

174 Using data from 2032 prey items killed by 104 leopards from 2013 to 2015, we

175 a maladaptation in digestion of alternative prey items.

176 terior teeth indicate that it captured large prey, its broad, imbricated, multi-cusped lower molars f

177 gained from prey, but not with the number of prey killed.

178 sms: change in spider mass and the number of prey killed.

179 However, to meet recovery targets through prey management alone, Chinook abundance would have to b

180 re present in all samples from predatory and prey mite populations (core OTUs): the intracellular sym

181 ficantly different between the microbiota of prey mites reared with and without N. cucumeris.

182 ass-reared predators are fed with factitious prey mites such as Tyrophagus putrescentiae.

183 mites, while symbiotic bacteria prevailed in prey mites.

184 Here, we describe a predator-prey model in which the prey population growth depends o

185 ble Kalman filter to fuse a two-predator-two-prey model with abundance data from a 2600+ day experime

186 endent methods, a new assay for a particular prey molecule can be set up within few minutes by immobi

187 e complex formation by showing that bait and prey molecules are simultaneously trafficked and activel

188 luntary fatigue through remote activation of prey muscles [4].

189 ubdue prey to survive and reproduce, whereas prey must avoid predators to do the same.

190 text] = 1; representing a family group) and prey (narwhal, [Formula: see text] = 7) via satellite te

191 ally that B. bacteriovorus is able to reduce prey numbers in each environment, on different timescale

192 ratios reflect increases in prey abundance, prey nutrient content, and predation among predators.

193 N, and P by Noctiluca is highly affected by prey nutritional quality.

194 species have large foraging ranges and their prey often have a patchy distribution.

195 ors show that Bacillus subtilis can kill and prey on Bacillus megaterium by delivering a toxin and ex

196 we show that Bacillus subtilis can kill and prey on Bacillus megaterium.

197 the immigration of fish and crustaceans that prey on bivalves, reduce their grazing pressure, and all

198 dellovibrio bacteriovorus bacteria naturally prey on Gram-negative pathogens, including antibiotic-re

199 on-irrigated lands because of higher quality prey on irrigated lands, or earlier prey abundance may r

200 opulations to study the effects of different prey on standard metabolic rate and growth rate as well

201 it uptake might be delayed as other food and prey options for foxes are abundant.

202 f many animal species as they monitor moving prey or approaching dangers.

203 h IIV consumed a greater proportion of their prey or used less energy.

204 ll the animal in which direction a predator, prey, or the animal itself is moving.

205 As a likely result of prey partitioning by body size and diet breadth, the com

206 (i.e. the diversity of host plants used) for prey partitioning.

207 en information gathering and exploitation of prey patches, and reveals for the first time that boldne

208 ance of trophic coherence in modelling local preying patterns in food webs.

209 The prey peptidase becomes covalently attached to the inhibi

210 ted D-amino acid modifications strengthening prey PG during Bdellovibrio invasion, and a zonal mode o

211 mate-associated shifts in growing seasons or prey phenology, which may occur at different rates acros

212 describe a predator-prey model in which the prey population growth depends on a prey density-depende

213 Risk effects can strongly influence prey populations and cascade through trophic systems.

214 If this pattern continues, prey populations could be reduced to a point where tool-

215 Predator and prey populations diversify rapidly leading to higher pre

216 icate a northward range shift in right whale prey, potentially resulting in decreased prey availabili

217 compared two-species systems (virus-host and prey-predator) with a more complex three-species system

218 ng both approach and avoidance in a predator-prey predicted manner across taxonomically distant speci

219 pproach and avoidance behavior in a predator-prey predicted manner.

220 of a cubozoan predator on their zooplankton prey, predominantly Copepoda, Pleocyemata, Dendrobranchi

221 d opposite associations with temperature and prey proxies, suggesting distinct seasonal niche separat

222 In contrast, prey pursuit was mediated by projections to the midbrain

223 he evolution of a microecology from a killer-prey relationship to coexistence using two different non

224 our experimental approach to study predator-prey relationships in taxa that do not lend themselves t

225 aternary period, whereas the size of drilled prey remained stable.

226 We conclude that BV's search for individual prey remains random, as suggested in the literature, but

227 many cycles of prey injection and subsequent prey removal can be carried out.

228 ons and demonstrate potential effects on the prey reproductive biology.

229 non-lethal risk cues differentially impeded prey reproductive success that varied by clone, suggesti

230 lions, dire wolves, and coyotes competed for prey resources at Rancho La Brea (RLB).

231 and the extent to which predators partition prey resources.

232 perceived as being safe or risky influenced prey responses as avoidance behaviour in prey depended o

233 t intra-specific genetic variation underlies prey responses to consumptive and non-consumptive effect

234 er warming, demonstrating decoupled consumer-prey responses.

235 ay have affected the distribution of dolphin prey, resulting in the temporary emigration of dolphins

236 These were once reliable cues for prey-rich waters, but climate change and industrial fish

237 Second, the dragonfly assesses whether the prey's angular size and speed co-vary within a privilege

238 sitively detect prey and forecast its mobile prey's future position on the basis of previously detect

239 ult for predators to anticipate or learn the prey's likely response [3-6].

240 hat mothers prolonged care during periods of prey scarcity, supporting the resource limitation hypoth

241 Birds preyed selectively upon large-bodied caterpillars (reduc

242 ing mean caterpillar length by 12%) and ants preyed selectively upon small-bodied caterpillars (incre

243 g an initial predation-delay at the predator-prey-serum interface.

244 Because both predator and prey shift their distributions in response to changing o

245 Mean prey size and dietary prey-size breadth were larger on i

246 Sam Roi Yot National Park, Thailand, reduces prey size and prey abundance, with more pronounced effec

247 parasitized varied with leopard sex and age, prey size and vulnerability, vegetation, elevation, clim

248 ey enter a feedback loop - driving shellfish prey size down with attendant changes in the tool sizes

249 We hypothesize that increasing predator-prey size ratios reflect increases in prey abundance, pr

250 indicate a directional increase in predator-prey size ratios.

251 Mean prey size and dietary prey-size breadth were larger on islands than mainlands,

252 d predation rates regardless of predator and prey sizes, although larger sea urchins were consumed on

253 rowth rate as well as the effects that early prey specialization may have on the ability to process o

254 lution of species, where the survival of the prey species is dependent on location (distance from the

255 triguing that conspicuous colour morphs of a prey species may be maintained at low frequencies alongs

256 Counter-intuitively, prey species may benefit from habitat loss due to a rele

257 lf, while evoking avoidance responses in the prey species Mouse.

258 dicate that predators can strongly influence prey species sorting and spatial patterning in metacommu

259 ssisted foraging has also pushed many of our prey species to extinction or endangerment, a technology

260 potential for overlap of spiny dogfish with prey species was enhanced by warming, expanding their im

261 arming led to a decline in the proportion of prey species' range it occupied and caused a potential r

262 Lions (Panthera leo) feed on diverse prey species, a range that is broadened by their coopera

263 nds that act as chemical defenses in various prey species.

264 p an approach to simultaneously estimate the prey-specific attack rates and predator-specific interfe

265 itative nature of predator dependence can be prey-specific.

266 tor Caenorhabditis elegans and the bacterial prey Streptomyces, which have evolved a powerful defense

267 cle compared to their potential invertebrate prey suggest that fish fillet consumption is unlikely to

268 This prey switching behavior attenuated an iconic predator-pr

269 n may be reinforced by the elevated costs of prey switching, thus promoting the process of resource s

270 test this hypothesis in a microbial predator-prey system and show that the bacterial growth-defense t

271 ; larger heads are more suited to the larger prey taken, and disproportionately larger heads allow th

272 argue that leopards may select smaller-sized prey than predicted by optimal foraging theory, to balan

273 Prey that do not elicit takeoff generally fail at least

274 sorting by (1) preferentially consuming one prey, thereby acting as a strong local environmental dri

275 se olfactory mimicry to attract its nematode prey through the olfactory neurons in C. elegans and rel

276 re used by predators to localize prey and by prey to avoid predators.

277 on for several seconds, (iv) waiting for the prey to enter the mouth, and (v) closing the mouth and e

278 filter too coarse will allow suitably sized prey to pass unintercepted, whereas a filter too fine wi

279 Predators must find and subdue prey to survive and reproduce, whereas prey must avoid p

280 sieves called baleen to capture enough small prey to sustain their enormous size [1].

281 Ants often walk backwards to drag large prey to their nest.

282 these effects are contingent on predator and prey traits that may change with environmental condition

283 body size and diet breadth, as well as other prey traits, may represent key predictors of the strengt

284 ) interaction strengths should decrease with prey trophic level.

285 landscapes with one predator, two competing prey, two patch resource types, and localized dispersal

286 We found a significant effect of prey type on standard metabolic rate and growth rate.

287 ion may have on the ability to process other prey types efficiently.

288 re more likely to respond to the presence of prey under artificial light at night when olfactory pred

289 and (v) closing the mouth and engulfing the prey underwater (Figure 1A-F, Movie S1 in Supplemental I

290 Whales caught their prey using a series of coordinated movements: (i) liftin

291 attacks, sailfish alternate in attacking the prey using their elongated bills to slash or tap the pre

292 ictive takeoff ensure flights begin with the prey visually fixated and directly overhead-the key para

293 on of a reinforced circular port-hole in the prey wall, L,D-transpeptidaseBd-mediated D-amino acid mo

294 illuminate dynamic changes that predator and prey walls go through during the different phases of bac

295 y for accurately positioning lethal bites on prey, was mediated by a central amygdala projection to t

296 nsume termites, but presumably prefer larger prey, went extinct on the islands.

297 eptoparasitized at lower temperatures and if prey were larger, not hoisted, and in areas where the ri

298 ived from the Lotka-Volterra model (Predator-Prey), where by the microwave mode of the resonator is t

299 ria biases interception flights to catchable prey, while the head movements and the predictive takeof

300 t of its takeoff to a prediction of when the prey will cross the zenith.