Scavenging Attraction of a Cyclopoid Copepod to Zooplankton Carcasses

Scavenging Attraction of a Cyclopoid Copepod to Zooplankton Carcasses | Authorea try { document.documentElement.classList.add('js'); } catch (e) { } var _gaq = _gaq || []; _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'G-8VDV14Y67G']); _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']); (function() { var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true; ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s); })(); Skip to main content Preprints Collections Wiley Open Research IET Open Research Ecological Society of Japan All Collections About About Authorea FAQs Contact Us Quick Search anywhere Search for preprint articles, keywords, etc. Search Search ADVANCED SEARCH SCROLL This is a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. 5 January 2026 V1 Latest version Share on Scavenging Attraction of a Cyclopoid Copepod to Zooplankton Carcasses Authors : Hiromichi Suzuki 0009-0006-4975-0373 [email protected] and Jotaro Urabe 0000-0001-5111-687X Authors Info & Affiliations https://doi.org/10.22541/au.176759117.71725432/v1 247 views 110 downloads Contents Abstract Information & Authors Metrics & Citations View Options References Figures Tables Media Share Abstract The detritus chain plays a critical role in shaping community structure and sustaining ecosystems. It is initiated by the consumption of dead organic matter or scavenging. However, our understanding of scavengers in freshwater ecosystems remains limited. In this study, we experimentally investigated whether Thermocyclops taihokuensis, a cyclopoid copepod widely distributed across East and Central Asia and recently expanding its range into Europe, functions as a planktonic scavenger and whether it uses chemical cues to locate and utilize carcasses of other organisms. Our results show that T. taihokuensis approached and attacked cladoceran carcasses when presented experimentally, suggesting that this species can recognize as food. Indeed, T. taihokuensis was attracted to artificial baits infused with the odor of cladoceran carcasses but ignored baits without odor, indicating that chemical cues serve as a primary means for detecting carcasses. These findings suggest that although cyclopoid copepods are typically viewed as omnivores---grazing on algae and preying on animals---T. taihokuensis also functions as a scavenger. Consequently, it is likely that T. taihokuensis contributes to both the grazing and detrital food chains, reflecting its ecological versatility. This ability to utilize multiple food sources may help explain the recent expansion of its distribution. Introduction The importance of the detritus chain in food webs has been widely recognized in various ecosystems (Moore et al., 2004; Leroux and Loreau, 2008). In this chain, scavenging, which consumes carcasses as food, plays a pivotal role in transferring dead organic matter to higher trophic levels. While the detritus chain is well-developed in terrestrial ecosystems and the ecology of terrestrial scavengers has been extensively studied (DeVault et al., 2003; Shurin et al., 2006; Barton et al., 2013), it has traditionally been considered less prominent in freshwater ecosystems (Hairston and Hairston, 1993; Wilson and Wolkovich, 2011). In recent years, research on the roles of scavengers in freshwater environments has increased (Orihuela-Torres et al., 2024). However, most studies have focused on lotic systems, and our understanding of their roles in lentic environments remains limited (Orihuela-Torres et al., 2024; Piczak et al., 2025). Cyclopoid copepods are a major component of zooplankton communities in freshwater ecosystems (Santer and Lampert, 1995; Suzuki et al., 2025). They inhabit various environments from small temporary ponds to large lakes (Williamson, 1991). Most species in this taxonomic group are omnivorous, feeding not only on phytoplankton but also on zooplankton such as rotifers and cladocerans, insect larvae, and even juvenile fish (Davis, 1959; Williamson, 1983; Chang and Hanazato, 2003; Marten and Reid, 2007). These feeding habits indicate that cyclopoid copepods play multiple roles in the grazing food chain, functioning as both grazers and predators (Matsuzaki et al., 2018). In addition, cyclopoid copepods interact with protists that consume detritus organic matter, and are thus often viewed as integral components of the detritus chain (Wickham, 1995; Wickham, 1998). However, no study has yet examined whether they directly consume dead organic matter, such as animal carcass, and act as scavengers contributing to the activation of the detritus food chain in freshwater ecosystems. Previous studies have shown that cyclopoid copepods use water-borne vibrations generated by swimming prey as a signal for detecting prey (Kerfoot, 1978, Kiøboe amd Visser, 1999). Accordingly, no studies have examined animal carcasses as potential food for cyclopoid copepods, because dead organisms do not produce such vibrations. In aquatic environments, many organisms have chemoreceptors to detect and track their food (Dodson, 1998; Brönmark and Hansson, 2000). An anatomical study suggested that cyclopoid copepods possess chemoreceptors on their antennae and body surface (Strickler and Bal, 1973), and they are known to use chemical cues to locate mates (Lonsdale et al., 1998; Snell and Carmona, 1994). Given this, cyclopoid copepods are likely capable of detecting and being attracted to non-motile potential food sources, such as animal carcasses, through chemical cues released from decomposing tissues. In the present study, we investigated whether cyclopoid copepods can detect and are attracted to animal carcasses as a food source through chemical cues. To this end, we observed the swimming and feeding behaviors of cyclopoid copepods under five experimental treatments: (1) wounded cladoceran carcasses, (2) intact cladoceran carcass killed by suffocation, (3) artificial bait, (4) artificial bait infused with the odor of cladoceran carcass, and (5) homogenized cladoceran carcasses. If these copepods utilize dissolved chemicals cues released from the injured individuals, as often observed by Daphnia (Laforsch et al., 2006) and calanoid copepods (Wasserman et al., 2014), they would detect and potentially feed on wounded cladoceran carcasses. We examined this possibility using Thermocyclops taihokuensis as a test organism—a species widely distributed across East and Central Asia (Ueda and Reid, 2003) and recently expanding its range into western Russia and Europe (Zhikharev et al., 2020; Sługocki and Hołyńska, 2024). To this end, we experimentally observed the feeding behavior of T. taihokuensis in the presence of cladoceran carcasses and artificial baits mimicking such carcasses. Based on these observations, we assessed the potential role of this copepod species as a scavenger in freshwater pelagic ecosystems. Materials and Methods Zooplankton Live T. taihokuensis individuals (Fig. 1) were collected in Oyazu-tsutsumi, a small pond in Miyagi Prefecture, Japan (38.265243N, 140.8059E) by diagonal tows of a conical plankton net with a mesh size of 100 μm. From the collected samples, the adult females of T. taihokuensis were selected under a microscope, moved to a 1 L bottle filled with COMBO medium (Kilham et al., 1998), and acclimatized to a laboratory condition at 20°C for a day. We used Moina affinis as food for T. taihokuensis because this cladoceran species was a dominant zooplankton in Oyazu-tsutsumi. These prey organisms were isolated from the same pond in several weeks before the experiments, and created an iso-female line using Scenedesmus sp. cultured in COMBO as their algal food. Prey and baits We examined the effects of M. affinis carcasses and their odor on the foraging behavior of T. taihokuensis in five experimental trials using different types of prey (Fig. 2). In Experiment 1, we used adult Moina affinis (approximately 1 mm in body length) as food, which were killed by piercing them with a fine needle. In Experiment 2, we used adult M. affinis killed in a carbonated water so that they had no wounds. In In Experiment 3, we used artificial bait mimicking M. affinis , which was created by rolling aluminum foil into the same size as an adult M. affinis . This artificial bait was flavored with the odor of M. affinis by soaking it in M. affinis homogenate for 10 minutes. To create the homogenate, ten adult M. affinis were crushed in a 2.5 mL Eppendorf tube containing 1 mL of COMBO medium using a homogenizer. We then centrifuged the COMBO medium containing the crushed M. affinis to remove particles. In Experiments 4, we used M. affinis -mimicking artificial bait without exposure to carcass odor. In Experiment 5 we did not use any solid prey, but supplied only the liquid homogenate of adult M. affinis . Experimental procedure In experimental trails, we used plastic Petri dishes 62 mm in diameter, each with a 5-mm-diameter circle drawn at the center of the bottom (Fig. 2). This circular area was designated at the target area. In each trial, we introduced 20 adult T. taihokuensis into a Petri dish filled with COMBO medium and allowed them to acclimate for 10 minutes prior to the start of the observation. At the start of the trial, we first recorded the behavior of T. taihokuensis for five minutes without any bait in the Petri dish. Then, we placed one of baits at the center of the target area and recorded their behavior for an additional five minutes. In Experiment 5, in which no solid bait was used, we gently dispensed 2.5 μL of the M. affinis homogenate into the center of the target area. During the observation, we recorded the behavior of T. taihokuensis under a microscope (OLYMPUS @ SZX12) equipped with a video camera (Leica @ C170 HD). To prevent temperature increase caused by lighting, the Petri dish containing T. taihokuensis a was placed inside a larger Petri dish filled with pure water maintained at room temperature (20°C). As a result, the water temperature in the experimental dish reminded stable throughout the observation period. Using the video recordings taken before and after the bait was placed, we counted the number of intrusions of T. taihokuensis into the target circle area ( NI ) and measured the duration of time they remined within it ( TS ) . When the bait was placed in the target area, T. taihokuensis frequently exhibited behaviors that resembled attempts to bite or tear the bait. We defined this as a ”foraging attempts”. We then recorded the number of foraging attempts directed at the bait within the target circle by individual copepods over a five-minute period, except in Experiment 5, where only M. affinis homogenate was presented. For individuals that entered the target area, we counted the number of instances in which they exhibited a foraging attempt ( A + ), as well as those in which they did not ( A - ). If an individual left the target circle area but later re-entered, we again counted each entry separately, and recorded whether or not it exhibited a foraging attempt. In each experiment, we conducted five trials, using different sets of 20 T . taihokuensis individuals in each trial. Statistical analysis To evaluate the effect of each bait on the number of intrusions ( NI ) by T. taihokuensis , we fitted a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with a Poisson error distribution using the following model: NI ∼ BP + (1∣replication ID) (eq. 1) where BP = 0 when no bait was present and BP = 1 when bait was present. We also examined the effect of each bait on the log-transformed time spent in the target area ( TS ) using a linear mixed model: TS ∼ BP + (1∣replication ID) (eq. 2), All analyses were conducted using the “glmer” and “lmer” functions in the R package lme4 (Bates et al., 2015). We tested the significance of each bait effect using likelihood ratio tests with the “ Anova” function in the R package car (Fox and Weisberg, 2018). We also analyzed differences in foraging attempts by T. taihokuensis among experimental trials using different baits. For this analysis, we fitted a generalized linear model (GLM) with a binomial error distribution using the “ glm” function in base R (ver. 4.2.1; R Core Team, 2022): cbind (A+, A-) ~ E , family=binomial (link=”logit”) (eq.3) where A + and A − are the numbers of intrusions with and without foraging attempts, respectively, and E a categorical variable representing Experiments 1–4. Statistical significance of the GLM was evaluated using a likelihood ratio test with the “ Anova” function in car . We then tested for pairwise differences in the probability of foraging attempts among the four experiments using Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) test, implemented with the “ glht” function in the multcomp package (Hothorn et al., 2008). To control for Type I error, p-values were adjusted using the Bonferroni correction. Results The number of intrusions into the target The number of T. taihokuensis intrusions into the target area was significantly higher when a wounded M. affinis carcass was present, compared to the number recorded before bait placement in Experiment 1 ( p < 0.05; likelihood ratio test; Fig. 3; Table S1). However, in Experiment 2, where a suffocated and thus woundless M. affinis was used as bait, the number of intrusions did not increase (Fig. 3; Table S1). Similarly, no significant increase in incursions was detected in Experiment 5, where only M. affinis carcass odor was introduced. In Experiments 3 and 4, the number of T. taihokuensis incursions was higher than in Experiments 1 and 2, regardless of whether the aluminum foil bait was flavored with the odor of M. affinis . However, in both experiments, no significant differences were detected in the number of incursions into the target area before and after bait placement (Fig. 3; Table S1). Time spent at the target When actual M. affinis carcasses were used as bait in Experiments 1 and 2, the time T. taihokuensis spent within the target area increased significantly compared to the time recorded before bait placement, regardless of whether the carcasses had wounds (Fig. 4; Table S2). In contrast, no significant change in time spent within the target area was observed in Experiment 4, where M. affinis -mimicking aluminum foil was used as bait, and in Experiment 5, where only M. affinis carcass odor was introduced. However, in Experiment 3, where M. affinis -flavored aluminum foil bait was used, T. taihokuensis spent significantly more time in the target area after bait placement compared to the time recorded before placement (Fig. 4; Table S2). Foraging attempts The probability of foraging attempts was significantly different among four experiments (likelihood ratio test: p < 0.001). In addition, generalized linear model with Tukey’s honestly significant difference test showed that the probability of foraging attempts was higher in Experiments 1 and 2, which used M. affinis carcasses as bait, compared to Experiment 3 and 4, which used M. affinis -mimicking aluminum foil as bait with and without M. affinis -flavor, respectively (Fig. 5; Table 1). The presence or absence of wounds on the M. affinis carcasses (Experiments 1 and 2) had no significant effect on the likelihood of foraging attempts by T. taihokuensis (Fig. 5; Table S1). Discussion Despite being an important process and a primary link in the detritus chain in various ecosystems (Moore et al., 2004; Leroux and Loreau, 2008), few studies have investigated necrophagous scavengers in freshwater pelagic food webs. Previous studies have shown that cyclopoid copepods are euryphagous omnivores, consuming not only algae but also zooplankton (Fryer, 1957; Williamson, 1983; Chang and Hanazato, 2004). However, no studies have reported the scavenging behavior of cyclopoid copepods. The present study demonstrated that the cyclopoid copepod Thermocyclops taihokuensis , which is widely distributed in various lentic waters from East to Central Asia, spent significantly more time in the target area when an M. affinis carcass with cut wounds was present The result indicates that these copepods were attracted to the carcass. Furthermore, individuals frequently attacked, bit, and tore the M. affinis carcass. These findings support our hypothesis that T. taihokuensis is attracted to zooplankton carcasses through chemical cues and suggest that it can function as a planktonic scavenger within aquatic food webs. In the present experiments, the number of intrusions by T. taihokuensis into the target area of the Petri dish increased significantly when a wounded Moina affinis carcass was placed, but not when an unwounded carcass was used. As the carcasses were used immediately after death, it is likely that a considerable amount of M. affinis body fluid leaked from the wounds. It is known that some zooplankton species, such as Daphnia , exhibit specific defensive responses upon detecting body fluids released from injured conspecifics (Laforsch et al., 2006; Gu et al., 2023). Calanoid copepods are known to increase their swimming speed toward algal cells in response to chemical cues (Buskey, 1984; Woodson et al., 2007). These findings indicate that many zooplankton species use chemical signals in behavioral decision-making. Similarly, T. taihokuensis may have located M. affinis carcasses by detecting chemical substances released from wounds. Notably, the time spent in the target area increased when carcass-flavored aluminum foil bait was used, but not when unflavored aluminum foil bait was provided. The result suggests that chemoreception is essential for copepods to recognize the presence of food. However, there seems to be a limitation in the distance or concentration required to detect chemical signals from M. affinis carcasses. In Experiment 3, when carcass-flavored aluminum foil bait was presented, the number of intrusions into the target circle by T. taihokuensis did not significantly increase. Similarly, the number of intrusions did not increase in Experiment 2, when a woundless M. affinis carcass was used as bait, although T. taihokuensis spent more time in the target area compared to the period before bait placement. In Experiment 5, both the number of intrusions and the time spent in the target circle did not increase when we introduced the liquid homogenate of M. affinis carcasses. These results may be explained by the low concentration or rapid dilution of chemical cues due to diffusion. These possibilities imply that the persistence and concentration of chemical signals emitted from carcasses are important factors in Thermocyclops ’ ability to detect and recognize them as prey. Previous studies suggest that cyclopoid copepods possess mechanosensory receptors capable of detecting water vibrations, in addition to chemoreceptors (Strickler and Bal, 1973; Karaytug and Boxshall, 1999). Despite the abundance of detrital and inorganic particles suspended in water, copepods typically do not feed on such particles (Ahn et al., 2008). This may be because detritus, unlike live prey, does not emit physical stimuli such as swimming-induced vibrations. However, although the M. affinis carcass did not move and therefore did not emit physical stimuli, T. taihokuensis was strongly attracted to it. This result suggests that even in the absence of mechanical cues, this cyclopoid species can recognize food items using chemical signals alone. When T. taihokuensis entered the target area, they often attacked, bit, and tore the bait presented. The frequency of such foraging attempts exceeded 70% when an M. affinis carcass was used as bait, but decreased to below 30% when M. affinis -mimicking aluminum foil was used, regardless of whether it was carcass-flavored. Because the texture and hardness of the M. affinis carcass and aluminum foil differed markedly, the tactile feedback and vibrational response upon contact were also likely distinct. Thus, although this cyclopoid copepod likely detected zooplankton carcasses from a distance using chemical cues, it may have relied on tactile feedback from the bait during the final decision-making process to determine whether to initiate a foraging attempt. T. taihokuensis is commonly found in ponds and small lakes, where large cyclopoid copepods such as Mesocyclops are also frequently present (Kawabata and Defaye, 1994; Ueda and Ishida, 1997). These larger cyclopoid species are omnivorous and often prey on small zooplankton such as rotifers (Kerfoot, 1978; Gilbert and Williamson, 1978; Nagata and Hanazato, 2006). Although we did not specifically examine whether T. taihokuensis preferentially preys on dead rather than live zooplankton, its small body size may limit its predatory efficiency on live prey. Instead, the ability to detect and utilize animal carcasses as a food source may distinguish its feeding niche from that of larger cyclopoids. Indeed, scavenging whole or partially consumed carcasses—left behind by larger predatory copepods—may allow T. taihokuensis to coexist with such predators. According to Tang et al. (2014), zooplankton carcasses are common in freshwater pelagic zones, accounting for up to 47.6% of collected zooplankton samples. Furthermore, carcasses are frequently observed even in the epilimnion, and sometimes up to 27% of collected cladocerans (e.g., Daphnia ) are dominated by dead individuals (Bickel et al., 2009). This finding suggests that the pelagic zone provides a favorable environment for organisms like T. taihokuensis , which can scavenge on animal carcasses. In recent years, T. taihokuensis has rapidly expanded its distribution from East Asia to Europe (Zhikharev et al., 2020; Sługocki and Hołyńska, 2024). This range expansion may be partly attributed to its ability to exploit animal carcasses as an omnipresent food source. Feeding on animal carcasses by T. taihokuensis may contribute to a trophic link that has not been extensively examined in freshwater pelagic food web. In conventional models of these ecosystems, energy and nutrients in animal carcasses are initially utilized by bacteria and subsequently transferred to higher trophic levels via protozoa (Beaver and Crisman, 1989; Lampert and Sommer, 2007; Tang et al., 2010). These microbial pathways may be relatively inefficient in terms of biomass transfer, as they involve multiple trophic steps where energy and organic matter are lost through mineralization and respiration. However, T. taihokuensis bypasses these microbial steps by directly consuming zooplankton carcasses, thereby enabling more efficient transfer of detrital organic matter to higher trophic levels. Consequently, necrophagous organisms like T. taihokuensis may play an important role in sustaining upper trophic levels via detritus-based food chains. Although our experiments supported the hypothesis that T. taihokuensis detects and is attracted to animal carcasses, they also revealed several limitations. In this study, we first observed the behavior of T. taihokuensis in the absence of bait, and then examined their responses after bait was introduced. Thus, the observed response may have been influenced by the prior accumulation time without bait. To rule out this possibility, it would be desirable to conduct experiments in which bait is presented first, followed by its removal, to observe changes in behavior. In addition, the use of aluminum foil as an artificial bait increased the frequency of intrusions by T. taihokuensis into the target area compared to when cladoceran carcasses were used. As aluminum foil reflects light, T. taihokuensis may have been confused or attracted by its reflective properties. Therefore, artificial baits made from non-reflective materials—such as sponge or latex—may be more suitable for accurately assessing the feeding behavior of T. taihokuensis. Moreover, it remains unclear whether T. taihokuensis prefers live or dead animals as food, and whether they can survive, grow, and reproduce solely on carcasses. To advance our understanding of the ecological roles of cyclopoid copepods in freshwater ecosystems, these questions should be addressed in future studies. Conclusion Traditionally, cyclopoid copepods have been regarded as omnivores that feed on algae and small zooplankton such as rotifers. However, this study showed that Thermocyclops taihokuensis , a common cyclopoid copepod in East and Central Asia, is attracted to animal carcasses through chemical cues. These results suggest that T. taihokuensis may function as a scavenger in pelagic freshwater environments, in addition to contributing to both grazing and detrital energy pathways. Such trophic flexibility may help explain the recent expansion of its geographic range. Moreover, if T. taihokuensis does function as a scavenger, it could enhance the transfer of detrital organic matter to higher trophic levels in pelagic ecosystems. To confirm this possibility, it is essential to determine whether T. taihokuensis can sustain its life solely by feeding on animal carcasses. Data Availability Statement The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request. Author Contributions H. S. : Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Visualization, Writing-Original Draft Preparation. J. U.: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Acknowledgement We thank the members of the Aquatic Ecology Laboratory and the Macroecology Laboratory at the Graduate School of Life Sciences, Tohoku University, for their help and insightful comments. This study was financially supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (KAKENHI) 23H02548 and by the Environment Research and Technology Development Fund (JPMEERF20214003) of the Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency provided by Ministry of the Environment of Japan. Conflicts of Interest Statement The authors declare no competing interests. References Ahn, Y. S., F. Nakamura, and S. Mizugaki. 2008. “Hydrology, suspended sediment dynamics and nutrient loading in Lake Takkobu, a degrading lake ecosystem in Kushiro Mire, northern Japan.” Environmetal Monitoring and Assessment. 145, 267-281. doi: 10.1007/s10661-007-0036-1 Barton, P. S., S. A. Cunningham, D. B. Lindenmayer, and A. D. Manning. 2013. “The role of carrion in maintaining biodiversity and ecological processes in terrestrial ecosystems.” Oecologia 171: 761-772. doi: 10.1007/s00442-012-2460-3 Bates, D., M. Maechler, B. Bolker, S. Walker, R. H. B. Christensen, H. Singmann, B. Dai, G. Grothendieck, P. Green, and M. B. Bolker. 2015. “Package ‘lme4’.” convergence 12, 2. https://github.com/lme4/lme4 Beaver, J. R., and T. L. Crisman. 1989. “The role of ciliated protozoa in pelagic freshwater ecosystems.” Microbial Ecology. 17, 111-136. doi: 10.1007/BF02011847 Bickel, S. L., K. W. Tang, and H. P. Grossart. 2009. “Use of aniline blue to distinguish live and dead crustacean zooplankton composition in freshwaters.” Freshwater Biology. 54 (5): 971-981. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2008.02141.x Brönmark, C., and L. A. Hansson. 2000. “Chemical communication in aquatic systems: an introduction.” Oikos 88 (1): 103-109. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.880112.x Buskey, E. J. 1984. “Swimming pattern as an indicator of the roles of copepod sensory systems in the recognition of food.” Marine Biology. 79: 165-175. doi: 10.1007/BF00951825 Chang, K., and T. Hanazato. 2004. “Diel vertical migrations of invertebrate predators ( Leptodora kindtii , Thermocyclops taihokuensis , and Mesocyclops sp.) in a shallow, eutrophic lake.” Hydrobiologia 528, 249-259. doi: 10.1007/s10750-004-3952-x Chang, K., and T. Hanazato. 2003. “Vulnerability of cladoceran species to predation by the copepod Mesocyclops leuckarti : laboratory observations on the behavioural interactions between predator and prey.” Freshwater Biology. 48 (3): 476-484. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2427.2003.01021.x Davis, C. C. 1959. “Damage to fish fry by cyclopoid copepods.” Ohio Journal of Science . 59 (2): 101-102. DeVault, T. L., O. E. Rhodes Jr., and J. A. Shivik. 2003. “Scavenging by vertebrates: behavioral, ecological, and evolutionary perspectives on an important energy transfer pathway in terrestrial ecosystems.” Oikos 102 (2): 225-34. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.12378.x Dodson, S. 1988. “The ecological role of chemical stimuli for the zooplankton: Predator‐avoidance behavior in Daphnia .” Limnology and Oceanography. 33 (6): 1431-1439. doi: 10.4319/lo.1988.33.6part2.1431 Fox, J., and S. Weisberg. 2018. “An R companion to applied regression.” Sage publications. Fryer, G. 1957. “The food of some freshwater cyclopoid copepods and its ecological significance.” Journal of Animal Ecology. 26 (2): 263-86. doi: 10.2307/1747 Gilbert, J. J., and C. E. Williamson. 1978. “Predator-prey behavior and its effect on rotifer survival in associations of Mesocyclops edax , Asplanchna girodi , Polyarthra vulgaris , and Keratella cochlearis .” Oecologia 37, 13-22. doi: 10.1007/BF00349987 Gu, L., L. De Meester, and Z. Yang. 2023. “The role of prey and predator identity in eliciting inducible defenses of Daphnia .” Ecology 104 (5): e4033. doi: 10.1002/ecy.4033 Hairston Jr, N. G., and N. G. Hairston Sr. 1993. “Cause-effect relationships in energy flow, trophic structure, and interspecific interactions.” The American Naturalist 142 (3): 379-411. doi: 10.1086/285546 Hothorn, T., F. Bretz, and P. Westfall. 2008. “Simultaneous inference in general parametric models.” Biometrical Journal 50 (3): 346-63. doi: 10.1002/bjmj.200810425 Karaytug, S. and Boxshall, G. A. 1999. “Antennules of the male of Paracyclops (Copepoda): functional significance and their importance in systematics.” Journal of Crustacean Biology 19 (2): 371-379. doi: 10.1163/193724099X00187 Kawabata, K., and D. Defaye. 1994. “Description of planktonic copepods from lake.” Japanese Journal of Limnology 55 (2):143-58. doi: 10.3739/rikusui.55.143 Kerfoot, W. C. 1978. “Combat between predatory copepods and their prey: Cyclops , Epischura , and Bosmina 1.” Limnology and Oceanography 23 (6): 1089-1102. doi: 10.4319/lo.1978.23.6.1089 Kilham, S. S., D. A. Kreeger, S. G. Lynn, C. E. Goulden, and L. Herrera. 1998. “COMBO: a defined freshwater culture medium for algae and zooplankton.” Hydrobiologia 377, 147-159. doi: 10.1023/A:1003231628456 Kiørboe, T., and A. W. Visser. 1999. Predator and prey perception in copepods due to hydromechanical signals. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 179, 81-95. doi: 10.3354/meps179081 Laforsch, C., L. Beccara, and R. Tollrian. 2006. “Inducible defenses: the relevance of chemical alarm cues in Daphnia .” Limnology and Oceanography 51 (3): 1466-1472. doi: 10.4319/lo.2006.51.3.1466 Lampert, W., and U. Sommer. 2007. “ Limnoecology: the ecology of lakes and streams .” Oxford University Press, USA. Leroux, S. J., and M. Loreau. 2008. “Subsidy hypothesis and strength of trophic cascades across ecosystems.” Ecology Letters 11 (11): 1147-1156. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01235.x Lonsdale, D. J., M. A. Frey, and T. W. Snell. 1998. “The role of chemical signals in copepod reproduction.” Journal of Marine Systems 15 (1-4): 1-12. doi: 10.1016/S0924-7963(97)00044-4 Marten, G. G., and J. W. Reid. 2007. Cyclopoid copepods. Journal of American Mosquito Control Association. 23 (sp2): 65-92. doi: 10.2987/8756-971X(2007)23[65:CC]2.0.CO;2 Matsuzaki, S. S., K. Suzuki, T. Kadoya, M. Nakagawa, and N. Takamura. 2018. “Bottom‐up linkages between primary production, zooplankton, and fish in a shallow, hypereutrophic lake.” Ecology 99 (9): 2025-2036. doi: 10.1002/ecy.2414 Moore, J. C., Berlow, E. L., Coleman, D. C., De Ruiter, P. C., Dong, Q., Hastings, A., Johnson, N. C., Mccann, K. S., Melville, K. and Morin, P. J. 2004 “Detritus, trophic dynamics and biodiversity.” Ecology Letters, 7 (7): 584-600. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00606.x Nagata, T., and T. Hanazato. 2006. “Different predation impacts of two cyclopoid species on a small-sized zooplankton community: an experimental analysis with mesocosms”. Hydrobiologia 556: 233-242. 10.1007/s10750-005-1155-8 Orihuela‐Torres, A., Morales‐Reyes, Z., Hermoso, V., Picazo, F., SáNchez FernáNdez, D., PéRez‐García, et al. 2024. “Carrion ecology in inland aquatic ecosystems: a systematic review.” Biological Reviews 99 (4): 1425-1443. doi: 10.1111/brv.13075 Piczak, M. L., R. J. Lennox, K. W. Vollset, B. Preiszner, T. Erös , G. Bulté, M. G. Keevil, et al. . 2025. “On the underappreciated role of scavengers in freshwater ecosystems.” BioScience : biaf032., doi: 10.1093/biosci/biaf032 R Core Team, A, and R Core Team. 2022. “R: A language and environment for statistical computing.” R Foundation for Statistical Computing , Vienna, Austria. (2012). Santer, B. and Lampert, W. 1995. “Summer diapause in cyclopoid copepods: adaptive response to a food bottleneck?” Journal of Animal Ecology 64 (5): 600-613. doi: 10.2307/5803 Shurin, J. B., D. S. Gruner, and H. Hillebrand. 2006. “All wet or dried up? Real differences between aquatic and terrestrial food webs.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 273 (1582): 1-9. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2005.3377 Sługocki, L., and M. Hołyńska. 2024. Expansion of (sub) tropical Asian copepod Thermocyclops taihokuensis (Harada, 1931) (Cyclopoida) in European waters. BioInvasions Records 13 (4): 941-948. doi: 10.3391/bir.2024.13.4.08 Snell, T. W., and M. J. Carmona. 1994. “Surface glycoproteins in copepods: potential signals for mate recognition.” Hydrobiologia 292: 255-264. doi: 10.1007/BF00229949 Strickler, J. R., and A. K. Bal. 1973. “Setae of the first antennae of the copepod Cyclops Scutifer (Sars): their structure and importance.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 70 (9): 2656-2659. doi: 10.1073/pnas.70.9.2656 Suzuki, H., Ichiyanagi, H., Kass, J. M. and Urabe, J. 2025 “Differences in factors determining taxon‐based and trait‐based community structures: a field test using zooplankton.” Limnology and Oceanography 70 (1): 113-127. doi: 10.1002/lno.12744 Tang, K. W., M. I. Gladyshev, O. P. Dubovskaya, G. Kirillin, and H. P. Grossart. 2014. “Zooplankton carcasses and non-predatory mortality in freshwater and inland sea environments.” Journal of Plankton Research 36 (3): 597-612. doi: 10.1093/plankt/fbu014 Tang, K. W., V. Turk, and H. P. Grossart. 2010. “Linkage between crustacean zooplankton and aquatic bacteria.” Aquatic Microbial Ecology. 61, 261-277. doi: 10.3354/ame01424 Ueda, H., and T. Ishida. 1997. Species composition and description of limnoplanktonic copepods from Okinawa. Plankton biology and ecology 44 (1-2): 41-54. Ueda, H., and J. W. Reid. 2003. “Copepoda: Cyclopoida genera Mesocyclops and Thermocyclops .”, Backhuys Publishers, Leiden. Wasserman, R. J., R. Kramer, T. J. F. Vink, and P. W. Froneman. 2014. “Conspecific alarm cue sensitivity by the estuarine calanoid copepod, Paracartia longipatella .” Austral Ecology. 39 (6): 732-738. doi: 10.1111/aec.12135 Wickham, S. A. 1995. “Trophic relations between cyclopoid copepods and ciliated protists: complex interactions link the microbial and classic food webs.” Limnology and Oceanography. 40 (6): 1173-1181. doi: 10.4319/lo.1995.40.6.1173 Wickham, S. A. 1998. The direct and indirect impact of Daphnia and Cyclops on a freshwater microbial food web. Journal of Plankton Reseach. 20 (4): 739-755. doi: 10.1093/plankt/20.4.739 Williamson, C. E. 1983. “Invertebrate predation on planktonic rotifers.” Hydrobiologia 104: 385-396. doi: 10.1007/BF00045996 Williamson, C. E. 1991. “Copepoda.” Ecology and classification of North American freshwater invertebrates : 787-822. Academic Press. Inc. San Diego, California Wilson, E. E., and E. M. Wolkovich. 2011. “Scavenging: how carnivores and carrion structure communities.” Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 26 (3): 129-135. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2010.12.011 Woodson, C. B., D. R. Webster, M. J. Weissburg, and J. Yen. 2007. “The prevalence and implications of copepod behavioral responses to oceanographic gradients and biological patchiness.” Integrative and Comparative Biology. 47 (6): 831-846. doi: 10.1093/icb/icm091. Zhikharev, V. S., D. E. Gavrilko, and G. V. Shurganova. 2020. A record of the tropical species Thermocyclops taihokuensis Harada, 1931 (Copepoda: Cyclopoida) in European Russia. Biology Bulletin. 47: 1347-1350. 10.1134/S106235902010026X Table 1. Results of multiple comparisons by Tukey’s honestly significant difference test for generalized linear model of foraging attempts probability among four experiments. The p-values were corrected by Bonferroni correction. Pair Estimate SE Z-value p-value Exp. 1 - Exp. 2 -0.131 0.549 -0.239 0.995 Exp. 1 - Exp. 3 -1.393 0.497 -2.804 0.025 Exp. 1 - Exp. 4 -1.789 0.483 -3.703 0.001 Exp. 2 - Exp. 3 -1.262 0.439 -2.877 0.020 Exp. 2 - Exp. 4 -1.658 0.423 -3.917 < 0.001 Exp. 3 - Exp. 4 -0.396 0.354 -1.121 0.672 Legends for Figures Figure 1. Thermocyclops taihokuensis swarming around cladoceran carcass (a), and its adult female individual (b). Figure 2. Setups of Experiments 1-5. Figure 3. Box plot illustrating the number of intrusions by T. taihokuensis into the target area across Experiments 1 to 5. In each panel, ”N” represents the number of intrusions observed without bait, while ”B” indicates the number of intrusions with bait. The p -value in each panel indicates statistical significance as determined by a likelihood ratio test, with an asterisk (*) marking significant variables ( p < 0.05). Individual data points are displayed as jittered points (black rhombuses). Figure 4. Box plot illustrating the time spent of T. taihokuensis at the target area across Experiments 1 to 5. In each panel, ”N” represents the time spent observed without bait, while ”B” indicates the time spent with bait. The p -value in each panel indicates statistical significance as determined by a likelihood ratio test, with an asterisk (*) marking significant variables ( p < 0.05). Individual data points are displayed as jittered points (black rhombuses). Figure 5. Probability of foraging attempts by individuals that invaded into the target for Experiment 1-4. Grey shape means there was feeding attack and white area means there was no attack behavior. Individual data points are shown as jittered points (black rhombus). Information & Authors Information Version history V1 Version 1 05 January 2026 Copyright This work is licensed under a Non Exclusive No Reuse License. Keywords 29: plankton behavioral experiment chemical cues cyclopoid copepod detritus chain scavenging Authors Affiliations Hiromichi Suzuki 0009-0006-4975-0373 [email protected] Tohoku University Graduate School of Life Sciences View all articles by this author Jotaro Urabe 0000-0001-5111-687X Tohoku University Graduate School of Life Sciences View all articles by this author Metrics & Citations Metrics Article Usage 247 views 110 downloads .FvxKWukQNSOunydq8rnd { width: 100px; } Citations Download citation Hiromichi Suzuki, Jotaro Urabe. Scavenging Attraction of a Cyclopoid Copepod to Zooplankton Carcasses. Authorea . 05 January 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22541/au.176759117.71725432/v1 If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download. For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu . Format Please select one from the list RIS (ProCite, Reference Manager) EndNote BibTex Medlars RefWorks Direct import Tips for downloading citations document.getElementById('citMgrHelpLink').addEventListener('click', function() { popupHelp(this.href); return false; }); $(".js__slcInclude").on("change", function(e){ if ($(this).val() == 'refworks') $('#direct').prop("checked", false); $('#direct').prop("disabled", ($(this).val() == 'refworks')); }); View Options View options PDF View PDF Figures Tables Media Share Share Share article link Copy Link Copied! Copying failed. Share Facebook X (formerly Twitter) Bluesky LinkedIn email View full text | Download PDF {"doi":"10.22541/au.176759117.71725432/v1","type":"Article"} Now Reading: Share Figures Tables Close figure viewer Back to article Figure title goes here Change zoom level Go to figure location within the article Download figure Toggle share panel Toggle share panel Share Toggle information panel Toggle information panel Go to previous graphic Go to next graphic Go to previous table Go to next table All figures All tables View all material View all material xrefBack.goTo xrefBack.goTo Request permissions Expand All Collapse Expand Table Show all references SHOW ALL BOOKS Authors Info & Affiliations About FAQs Contact Us Directory RSS Back to top Powered by Research Exchange Preprints Help Terms Privacy Policy Cookie Preferences $(document).ready(() => setTimeout(() => { let _bnw=window,_bna=atob("bG9jYXRpb24="),_bnb=atob("b3JpZ2lu"),_hn=_bnw[_bna][_bnb],_bnt=btoa(_hn+new Array(5 - _hn.length % 4).join(" ")); $.get("/resource/lodash?t="+_bnt); },4000)); (function(){function c(){var b=a.contentDocument||a.contentWindow.document;if(b){var d=b.createElement('script');d.innerHTML="window.__CF$cv$params={r:'9fe3f6d19e8352ad',t:'MTc3OTIwMjc1Mg=='};var a=document.createElement('script');a.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js';document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(a);";b.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(d)}}if(document.body){var a=document.createElement('iframe');a.height=1;a.width=1;a.style.position='absolute';a.style.top=0;a.style.left=0;a.style.border='none';a.style.visibility='hidden';document.body.appendChild(a);if('loading'!==document.readyState)c();else if(window.addEventListener)document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',c);else{var e=document.onreadystatechange||function(){};document.onreadystatechange=function(b){e(b);'loading'!==document.readyState&&(document.onreadystatechange=e,c())}}}})();