Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …


More options …
Volume 72, Issue 4


Food digestibility and consumption rate in detrito-bryophagous groundhopper Tetrix subulata (Orthoptera: Tetrigidae)

Kateřina Kuřavová
  • Polyneoptera research group, Department of Biology and Ecology, University of Ostrava, Chittussiho 10, CZ-71000 Slezská Ostrava, Czech Republic
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Petr Kočárek
  • Polyneoptera research group, Department of Biology and Ecology, University of Ostrava, Chittussiho 10, CZ-71000 Slezská Ostrava, Czech Republic
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2017-04-28 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/biolog-2017-0046


Detrito-bryophagy represents a specific feeding strategy in orthopterans. We evaluated the consumption rate and digestibility of two main food components (detritus and moss) in a typical detrito-bryophagous groundhopper, Tetrix subulata (L., 1758), under laboratory conditions. By analysing gravimetric consumption, we confirmed that detritus is consumed more intensively and with higher efficiency (digestibility 91%) than moss tissues represented by the offered tissues of Calliergonella cuspidata (Hedw.) Loeske (digestibility approximately 60%). Detritus seems to contain easily digestible compounds (a dominant source of nutrition); moss is also consumed obviously because of important additional functions in the diet.

Key words: detritus; moss; excretion; faeces; Tetrigoidea


  • Asakawa Y. 1995. Chemical constituents of the bryophytes, pp. 1-562. In: Herz W., Kirby G.W., Moore R.E., Steglich W. & Tamm C. (eds), Fortschritte der Chemie organischer Naturstoffe [Progress in the Chemistry of Organic Natural Products], Vol. 65, Springer, Wien, 618 pp. ISBN: 978-3-7091-7427-2Google Scholar

  • Asakawa Y. 2007. Biologically active compounds from bryophytes. Pure Appl. Chem. 79 (4): 557-580. DOI: 10.1351/pac200779040557CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Baur B., Baur H., Roesti C. & Roesti D. 2006. Die Heuschrecken der Schweiz. Haupt, Bern, 352 pp. ISBN: 978-3-258-07053-7Google Scholar

  • Bhalerao A.M., Naidu N.M. & Paranjape S.Y. 1987. Some observations on the nutrition, reproduction correlation in grouse locusts (Orthoptera: Tetrigidae). S.Y. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. (Anim. Sci.) 96: 323-327. DOI: 10.1007/BF03180016CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bhalerao A.M. & Paranjape S.Y. 1986. Studies on the bioecology of a grouse locust Euscelimena harpago Serv. (Orthoptera: Tetrigidae). Geobios-Lyon 13: 145-150Google Scholar

  • Crafford J.E. & Chown S.L. 1991. Comparative nutritional ecology of bryophyte and angiosperm feeders in a sub-Antarctic weevil species complex (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Ecol. Entomol. 16: 323-330. DOI: 10.1111/j. 1365-2311.1991.tb00223.xCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Enriquez S., Duarte C.M. & Sand-Jensen K. 1993. Patterns in decomposition rates among photosynthetic organisms: the importance of detritus C:N:P content. Oecologia 94: 457—471. DOI: 10.1007/BF00566960CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Forman R.T.T. 1968. Caloric values of bryophytes. Bryologist 71: 344-347. DOI: 10.2307/3241119CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Frankland J.C. 1974. Decomposition of lower plants, pp. 3—36. In: Dickinson C.H. & Pugh G.J.F. (eds), Biology of Plant Litter Decomposition Vol. 1, Academic Press, London and New York, 146 pp. ISBN: 978-0-12-215001-2Google Scholar

  • Frost S.W. 1959. Insect Life and Insect Natural History. Peter Smith Pub, New York, 524 pp. ISBN-10: 0486205177Google Scholar

  • Gangwere S.K. 1961. A monograph on food selection in Orthoptera. Trans. Am. Entomol. Soc. 87: 67–230.Google Scholar

  • Gangwere S.K. 1962. A study of the feculae of Orthoptera, their specificity, and the role which the insects’ mouthparts, alimentary canal, and food-habits play in their formation. Eos: Revista Espańola de Entomología (Madrid) 38: 247-262.Google Scholar

  • Gangwere S.K. 1993. Feculae and defecation in phytophagous orthoptera (sens. lat.). Phytophaga 5: 13—34.Google Scholar

  • Glime J.M. 2014. The fauna: a place to call home. In: Glime J.M. (ed.), Bryophyte Ecology. Ebook sponsored by Michigan Technological University and the International Association of Bryologists. Last updated 29 April 2014. http://www.bryoecol.mtu.edu/ (accessed 05.10.2016)

  • Haines W.P. & Renwick J.A.A. 2009. Bryophytes as food: comparative consumption and utilization of mosses by a generalist insect herbivore. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 133: 296-306. DOI: 10.1111/j. 1570-7458.2009.00929.xWeb of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hochkirch Α., Gröning J., Loos T., Metzing C. & Reichelt M. 2000. Specialized diet and feeding habits as key factors for the habitat requirements of the grasshopper species Tetrix subulata (Orthoptera: Tetrigidae). Entomol. Gener. 25: 39— 51. DOI: 10.1127/entom.gen/25/2000/39CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hodgson C.J. 1963. Some observations on the habits and life history of Tetrix undulata (Swrb.) (Orthoptera: Tetrigidae). Proc. R. Entomol. Soc. A 38 (10-12): 200-205. DOI: 10.1111/j. 1365-3032.1963.tb00750.xCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Holst K.T. 1986. The Saltatoria of Northern Europe (Bush-crickets, crickets and grasshoppers). Scandinavian Science Press, Leiden, Nederland, 127 pp. ISBN: 8787491273, 9788787491273Google Scholar

  • Ingrisch S. & Köhler G. 1998. Die Heuschrecken Mitteleuropas: Biologie, Ökologie, Verhalten und Schutz. Westarp Wissenschaften, Magdeburg, Deutchland, 460 pp. ISBN-10: 3894324619, ISBN-13: 978-3894324612Google Scholar

  • Insam H. 1996. Microorganisms and humus in soils. pp. 265— 292. DOI: 10.1016/B978-044481516-3/50007-4. In: Piccolo A. (ed.), Humic Substances in Terrestrial Eecosystems, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherland, 675 pp. ISBN: 978-0-444-81516-3CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kočárek P., Grucmanová Š., Filipcová Ζ., Bradová L., Plášek V. & Holuša J. 2008. Bryophagy in the grasshopper Tetrix ceperoi (Orthoptera: Tetrigidae): analysis of alimentary tract contents, pp. 348—352. In: Kocárek P., Plášek V, Malachová Κ. & Cimalová Š. (eds), Environmental Changes and Biological Assessment IV, Scripta Facultatis Rerum Naturalium Universitatis Ostraviensis, Ostrava, Czech Republic, 391 pp. ISBN: 978-80-7368-451-8Google Scholar

  • Kocárek P., Holuša J., Grucmanová S. & Musiolek D. 2011. Biology of Tetrix bolivari (Orthoptera: Tetrigidae). Cent. Eur. J. Biol. 6: 531-544. DOI: 10.2478/sll535-011-0023-yCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kocárek P., Holuša J. & Vidlička L. 2005. Blattaria, Mantodea, Orthoptera & Dermaptera of the Czech and Slovak Republics. Kabourek, Zlin, Czech Republic, 348 pp. ISBN: 8086447057, 9788086447056Google Scholar

  • Kuřavová Κ., Hajduková L. & Kočárek P. 2014. Age-related mandible abrasion in the groundhopper Tetrix tenuicornis (Tetrigidae, Orthoptera). Arthropod Struct. Dev. 43: 187-192. DOI: 10.1016/j.asd.2014.02.002CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kuřavová Κ. & Kočárek P. 2015. Seasonal variation in the diet of Tetrix tenuicornis (Orthoptera: Tetrigidae). Entomol. Sci. 18 (4): 489-501. DOI: 10.1111/ens.12145CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kuřavová Κ., Šipoš J., Wahab R.A., Kahar R.S. & Kočárek P. 2016. Feeding patterns in tropical groundhoppers (Tetrigidae): a case of phylogenetic dietary conservatism in a basal group of Caelifera. Zool. J Linn. Soc. (London). DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12474.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Maksimova V., Klavina L., Bikovens O., Zicmanis A. & Purmalis O. 2013. Structural characterization and chemical classification of some bryophytes found in Latvia. Chem. Biodivers. 10: 1284-1294. DOI: 10.1002/cbdv.201300014Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Paranjape S.Y. & Bhalerao A.M. 1985. Bioecological observations on a pigmy locust, Potua sabulosa Hancock (Tetrigidae: Orthoptera). Psyche 92: 331-336. DOI: 10.1155/1985/30570CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Pařik L. 2014. Potravni preference marše obecné Tetrix subulata [Food preferences of groundhopper Tetrix subulata]. Unpublished Diploma thesis, University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic, [in Czech, English abstract]Google Scholar

  • Persson T., Bååth E., Clarholm M., Lundkvist H., Söderström Β. & Sohlenius Β. 1980. Trophic structure, biomass dynamics and carbon metabolism of soil organisms in a Scots pine forest, pp. 419—459. In: Persson T. (ed.), Structure and Function of Nothern Coniferous Forests — An Ecosystem Study, Ecol. Bull. 32, Swedish Natural Science Research Council (NFR), 609 pp. ISBN-10: 9154602882Google Scholar

  • R Core Team 2015. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, Version 3.3.0. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. URL: https://www.R-project.org.

  • Reynolds J.D., Blackith R.E. & Blackith R.M. 1988. Dietary observations on some tetrigids (Orthoptera: Caelifera) from Sulawesi (Indonesia). J. Trop. Ecol. 4: 403-406. DOI: 10.1017/S0266467400003072CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rice D.L. 1982. The detritus nitrogen problem: new observations and perspectives from organic geochemistry. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 9: 153-162.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sabovljevic A. & Sabovljevic M. 2008. Bryophytes, a source of bioactive and new compounds, pp. 9—24. In: Govil J.N. & Singh V.K. (eds), Phytopharmacology and Therapeutic Values IV, the Series “Recent Progress in Medicinal Plants 22, Studium Press, Houston, Texas, USA, 633 pp. ISBN-10: 1933699124Google Scholar

  • Scriber J.M. & Slansky F. 1981. The nutritional ecology of immature insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 26: 183-211. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.en.26.010181.001151CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Stevenson F.J. 1994. Humus Chemistry: Genesis, Composition, Reactions. John Wiley & Sons, USA, 512 pp. ISBN: 978-0-471-59474-1Google Scholar

  • Verdcourt B. 1947. A note on the food of Acridium, Geoff. (Orthopt.). Entomol. Mon. Magaz. 83: 190.Google Scholar

  • Waldbauer G. P. 1968. The consumption and utilization of food by insects. Adv. Insect Physiol. 5: 229-288. DOI: 10.1016/S0065-2806(08)60230-1CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Weiss M.R. 2003. Good housekeeping: why do shelter-dwelling caterpillars fling their frass? Ecol. Lett. 6: 361-370. DOI: 10.1046/j. 1461-0248.2003.00442.xCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Weiss M.R. 2006. Defecation behavior and ecology of insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 51 (1): 635-661. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.ento.49.061802.123212Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Received: 2016-11-11

Accepted: 2017-03-04

Published Online: 2017-04-28

Published in Print: 2017-04-25

Citation Information: Biologia, Volume 72, Issue 4, Pages 452–457, ISSN (Online) 1336-9563, ISSN (Print) 0006-3088, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/biolog-2017-0046.

Export Citation

© 2017 Institute of Zoology, Slovak Academy of Sciences.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

Gerlind U. C. Lehmann, Heather G. Marco, Arne W. Lehmann, and Gerd Gäde
Ecological Entomology, 2018

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in