Although many species face numerous predators in nature, the combined impact of multiple predators on the inducible defenses of prey has rarely been studied. Prey may respond with an intermediate phenotype that balances the risk from several sources or may simply respond to the most dangerous predator. I examined the separate and combined effects of the presence of shell-breaking (crabs, Cancer productus) and shell-entry (seastars, Pisaster ochraceus) predators fed conspecific snails on the defensive shell morphology and antipredator behavior of a marine snail (Nucella lamellosa). When exposed to each feeding predator separately, snails responded with a combination of morphological defenses that reflect the attack mode of the predator and a generalized behavioral response. Snails responded to feeding crabs by increasing refuge use and producing a thick, rotund shell. Snails responded to feeding seastars with increased refuge use but produced elongate shells with high spires that allowed for greater retraction of the soft tissue. Seastar-induced phenotypes reduced susceptibility to seastars relative to crab-induced phenotypes, but crab-induced phenotypes did not significantly reduce susceptibility to crabs, indicating an asymmetrical functional trade-off. When feeding predators were combined, snails produced a morphological phenotype similar to that expressed in the presence of the predator that imposed the highest mortality at the population level, suggesting that predator-induced morphology was prioritized according to predation risk. These results suggest that prioritizing conflicting defenses according to predator danger may be a common strategy for prey responding to combined predators, particularly in conjunction with generalized behavioral responses that reduce overall risk in multiple-predator environments.

Predator‐induced morphological defences (PIMDs) are ubiquitous. Many PIMDs may be mediated by prey behaviour rather than directly cued by predators. A survey of 92 studies indicated 40 that quantified prey behaviour, all of which document positive associations between defence production and activity reduction. Thus, PIMDs are associated with changes in prey activity, which could have caused the morphological change. We propose two possible mechanisms: 1) decreased activity reduces feeding rate, resulting in lower growth and morphological change; and 2) activity reduction conserves energy, which is reallocated for growth, subsequently changing morphology. Resource availability also causes similar morphological change to predator presence, suggesting confounding effects of resources and predators with current methodology. Future studies should estimate food ingestion, assimilation efficiency, and growth rate in the presence and absence of predators, crossing predator presence with resource levels. Not all PIMDs will be behaviourally‐mediated, but consideration of causal linkages between prey behaviour and PIMDs is warranted.

Many organisms have evolved inducible defences in response to spatial and temporal variability in predation risk. These defences are assumed to incur large costs to prey; however, few studies have investigated the mechanisms and costs underlying these adaptive responses. I examined the proximate cause of predator-induced shell thickening in a marine snail (Nucella lamellosa) and tested whether induced thickening leads to an increase in structural strength. Results indicate that although predators (crabs) induce thicker shells, the response is a passive by-product of reduced feeding and somatic growth rather than an active physiological response to predation risk. Physical tests indicate that although the shells of predator-induced snails are significantly stronger, the increase in performance is no different than that of snails with limited access to food. Increased shell strength is attributable to an increase in the energetically inexpensive microstructural layer rather than to material property changes in the shell. This mechanism suggests that predator-induced shell defences may be neither energetically nor developmentally costly. Positive correlations between antipredator behaviour and morphological defences may explain commonly observed associations between growth reduction and defence production in other systems and could have implications for the evolutionary potential of these plastic traits.

There have been few attempts to synthesise the growing body of literature on phenotypic plasticity to reveal patterns and generalities about the extent and magnitude of plastic responses. Here, we conduct a review and meta-analysis of published literature on phenotypic plasticity in aquatic (marine and freshwater) gastropods, a common system for studying plasticity. We identified 96 studies, using pre-determined search terms, published between 1985 and November 2013. The literature was dominated by studies of predator-induced shell form, snail growth rates and life history parameters of a few model taxa, accounting for 67% of all studies reviewed. Meta-analyses indicated average plastic responses in shell thickness, shell shape, and growth and fecundity of freshwater species was at least three times larger than in marine species. Within marine gastropods, species with planktonic development had similar average plastic responses to species with benthic development. We discuss these findings in the context of the role of costs and limits of phenotypic plasticity and environmental heterogeneity as important constraints on the evolution of plasticity. We also consider potential publication biases and discuss areas for future research, indicating well-studied areas and important knowledge gaps.