2006
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2006.3501
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Adaptive significance of death feigning posture as a specialized inducible defence against gape-limited predators

Abstract: Death feigning is fairly common in a number of taxa, but the adaptive significance of this behaviour is still unclear and has seldom been tested. To date, all proposed hypotheses have assumed that prey manage to escape predation by sending a death-mimicking signal, although death-feigning postures are markedly different from those of dead animals. Moreover, the efficacy of this technique may largely depend on the foraging mode of the predator; death feigning seldom works with sit-and-wait predators that make t… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
89
1
1

Year Published

2007
2007
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 97 publications
(91 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
89
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In this case, tonic immobility plays a role in concealment and/or background matching. (iii) The 'physical defence' hypothesis: a tonically immobile grasshopper can adopt a characteristic posture that enlarges its functional body size by stretching each of its body parts, thereby making it difficult for frogs to swallow the grasshopper; thus, in this case tonic immobility constitutes a physical defence (Honma et al 2006). (iv) The 'loss of predator's interest' hypothesis: immobility is adaptive for defence against hunters who respond to moving prey (Miyatake et al 2004).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this case, tonic immobility plays a role in concealment and/or background matching. (iii) The 'physical defence' hypothesis: a tonically immobile grasshopper can adopt a characteristic posture that enlarges its functional body size by stretching each of its body parts, thereby making it difficult for frogs to swallow the grasshopper; thus, in this case tonic immobility constitutes a physical defence (Honma et al 2006). (iv) The 'loss of predator's interest' hypothesis: immobility is adaptive for defence against hunters who respond to moving prey (Miyatake et al 2004).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition to escape responses, other response types which do not imply much displacement of the body, such as freezing, changes in opercular frequency, erection of spines and fins, and the adoption of body postures, have been observed in threatened fish (Godin, 1997;Huntingford et al, 1994;Ylonen et al, 2007). The adoption of specific postures in prey animals as a response to potential threats has been interpreted in various ways, including vigilance (Lima and Dill, 1990;Wisenden et al, 1995), aggressive/defensive display (Huntingford et al, 1994;Sherbrooke, 2008;Stankowich, 2009), pursuit deterrence (Caro, 1995;Cooper, 2007;Smith, 1997), facilitation of crypsis (Bealor and Krekorian, 2002), size advertising (Honma et al, 2006;Sherbrooke, 2008) and death feigning (Gerald, 2008;Gyssels and Stoks, 2005;Honma et al, 2006). The possibility that an alternative (or additional) function of certain anti-predator postures might be that of enhancing performance in a subsequent escape has been largely unexplored.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recently, the number of studies focusing on the variously adaptive significance of this behaviour in defence has increased (Miyatake et al 2004;Honma et al 2006;Ruxton 2006;Cassill et al 2008;Hansen et al 2008).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%