Spider-fed bromeliads: seasonal and interspecific variation in plant performance

Background and Aims Several animals that live on bromeliads can contribute to plant nutrition through nitrogen provisioning (digestive mutualism). The bromeliad-living spider Psecas chapoda (Salticidae) inhabits and breeds on Bromelia balansae in regions of South America, but in specific regions can also appear on Ananas comosus (pineapple) plantations and Aechmea distichantha. Methods Using isotopic and physiological methods in greenhouse experiments, the role of labelled ((15)N) spider faeces and Drosophila melanogaster flies in the nutrition and growth of each host plant was evaluated, as well as seasonal variation in the importance of this digestive mutualism. Key Results Spiders contributed 0.6 +/- 0.2% (mean +/- s.e.; dry season) to 2.7 +/- 1% (wet season) to the total nitrogen in B. balansae, 2.4 +/- 0.4% (dry) to 4.1 +/- 0.3% (wet) in An. comosus and 3.8 +/- 0.4% (dry) to 5 +/- 1% (wet) in Ae. distichantha. In contrast, flies did not contribute to the nutrition of these bromeliads. Chlorophylls and carotenoid concentrations did not differ among treatments. Plants that received faeces had higher soluble protein concentrations and leaf growth (RGR) only during the wet season. Conclusions These results indicate that the mutualism between spiders and bromeliads is seasonally restricted, generating a conditional outcome. There was interspecific variation in nutrient uptake, probably related to each species` performance and photosynthetic pathways. Whereas B. balansae seems to use nitrogen for growth, Ae. distichantha apparently stores nitrogen for stressful nutritional conditions. Bromeliads absorbed more nitrogen coming from spider faeces than from flies, reinforcing the beneficial role played by predators in these digestive mutualisms.

Bayesian Estimation for Performance Measures of Two Diagnostic Tests in the Presence of Verification Bias

Sensitivity and specificity are measures that allow us to evaluate the performance of a diagnostic test. In practice, it is common to have situations where a proportion of selected individuals cannot have the real state of the disease verified, since the verification could be an invasive procedure, as occurs with biopsy. This happens, as a special case, in the diagnosis of prostate cancer, or in any other situation related to risks, that is, not practicable, nor ethical, or in situations with high cost. For this case, it is common to use diagnostic tests based only on the information of verified individuals. This procedure can lead to biased results or workup bias. In this paper, we introduce a Bayesian approach to estimate the sensitivity and the specificity for two diagnostic tests considering verified and unverified individuals, a result that generalizes the usual situation based on only one diagnostic test.