Prey responses to direct and indirect predation risk cues reveal the importance of multiple information sources.

IF 3.5 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ECOLOGY Journal of Animal Ecology Pub Date : 2024-10-28 DOI:10.1111/1365-2656.14209
Maggie M Jones, Robert Fletcher, Alex Potash, Muzi Sibiya, Robert McCleery
{"title":"Prey responses to direct and indirect predation risk cues reveal the importance of multiple information sources.","authors":"Maggie M Jones, Robert Fletcher, Alex Potash, Muzi Sibiya, Robert McCleery","doi":"10.1111/1365-2656.14209","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Prey can use several information sources (cues) to assess predation risk and avoid predation with a variety of behavioural responses (e.g., changes in activity, foraging, vigilance, social behaviour, space use, and reproductive behaviour). Direct cues produced by predators and indirect cues from environmental features or conspecific and heterospecific prey generally provide different types of information about predation risk. Despite widespread interest in understanding behavioural antipredator responses to direct and indirect cues, a clear general pattern of relative response strength across taxa and environments has yet to emerge. We conducted a meta-analysis of studies (N = 113 articles and 999 effect sizes taken from a search of over 7500 articles) testing behavioural responses to direct and indirect cues of predation risk, and their combination, across terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. We further contrasted if effects were moderated by ecosystem type (terrestrial, marine, or freshwater), cue source (predator, conspecific, heterospecific, or environmental feature), or sensory modality (visual, auditory, or chemosensory). Overall, there were strong effects of risk cues on prey behaviour. We found that prey responded more strongly when both types of cues were presented together compared with either cue in isolation, which was driven by changes in prey activity levels but not other behaviours. There was no general pattern in response strength to direct compared with indirect cues. Responses to these cues were moderated by interactions between environment, cue source, and cue sensory modality (e.g., visual cues elicited stronger responses than other modalities, and responses to conspecific chemosensory cues were stronger than those to predator chemosensory cues in aquatic systems). These results suggest that rather than a broad framework of direct and indirect cues, the specific context of the system should be considered in tests and predictions of how prey respond to risk to elucidate general patterns of antipredator responses.</p>","PeriodicalId":14934,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Animal Ecology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Animal Ecology","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.14209","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Prey can use several information sources (cues) to assess predation risk and avoid predation with a variety of behavioural responses (e.g., changes in activity, foraging, vigilance, social behaviour, space use, and reproductive behaviour). Direct cues produced by predators and indirect cues from environmental features or conspecific and heterospecific prey generally provide different types of information about predation risk. Despite widespread interest in understanding behavioural antipredator responses to direct and indirect cues, a clear general pattern of relative response strength across taxa and environments has yet to emerge. We conducted a meta-analysis of studies (N = 113 articles and 999 effect sizes taken from a search of over 7500 articles) testing behavioural responses to direct and indirect cues of predation risk, and their combination, across terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. We further contrasted if effects were moderated by ecosystem type (terrestrial, marine, or freshwater), cue source (predator, conspecific, heterospecific, or environmental feature), or sensory modality (visual, auditory, or chemosensory). Overall, there were strong effects of risk cues on prey behaviour. We found that prey responded more strongly when both types of cues were presented together compared with either cue in isolation, which was driven by changes in prey activity levels but not other behaviours. There was no general pattern in response strength to direct compared with indirect cues. Responses to these cues were moderated by interactions between environment, cue source, and cue sensory modality (e.g., visual cues elicited stronger responses than other modalities, and responses to conspecific chemosensory cues were stronger than those to predator chemosensory cues in aquatic systems). These results suggest that rather than a broad framework of direct and indirect cues, the specific context of the system should be considered in tests and predictions of how prey respond to risk to elucidate general patterns of antipredator responses.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
猎物对直接和间接捕食风险线索的反应揭示了多种信息来源的重要性。
猎物可以利用多种信息源(线索)来评估捕食风险,并通过各种行为反应(如活动、觅食、警戒、社会行为、空间利用和繁殖行为的变化)来避免被捕食。捕食者产生的直接线索和来自环境特征或同种和异种猎物的间接线索通常会提供不同类型的捕食风险信息。尽管人们普遍希望了解反捕食者对直接和间接线索的行为反应,但不同类群和环境中相对反应强度的清晰一般模式尚未出现。我们对陆生和水生生态系统中测试对捕食风险的直接和间接线索的行为反应及其组合的研究(N = 113 篇文章,999 个效应大小来自对 7500 多篇文章的搜索)进行了荟萃分析。我们还进一步对比了生态系统类型(陆地、海洋或淡水)、线索来源(捕食者、同种、异种或环境特征)或感官模式(视觉、听觉或化学感官)是否会调节影响。总体而言,风险线索对猎物行为有很大影响。我们发现,当两种线索同时出现时,猎物的反应比单独出现任何一种线索时更强烈,这种反应是由猎物活动水平的变化引起的,而不是由其他行为引起的。与间接线索相比,对直接线索的反应强度没有普遍规律可循。对这些线索的反应受环境、线索来源和线索感觉模式之间相互作用的调节(例如,视觉线索比其他模式引起的反应更强,在水生系统中,对同种化学感觉线索的反应比对捕食者化学感觉线索的反应更强)。这些结果表明,在测试和预测猎物如何对风险做出反应时,不应采用直接和间接线索的宽泛框架,而应考虑系统的具体环境,以阐明反捕食者反应的一般模式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Animal Ecology
Journal of Animal Ecology 环境科学-动物学
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
4.20%
发文量
188
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Animal Ecology publishes the best original research on all aspects of animal ecology, ranging from the molecular to the ecosystem level. These may be field, laboratory and theoretical studies utilising terrestrial, freshwater or marine systems.
期刊最新文献
A 'how-to' guide for estimating animal diel activity using hierarchical models. Reproductive success and offspring survival decline for female elephant seals past prime age. Bee fear responses are mediated by dopamine and influence cognition. Long-term multi-species demographic studies reveal divergent negative impacts of winter storms on seabird survival. Reconstruction of long-term sublethal effects of warming on a temperate coral in a climate change hotspot.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1