Chemical‐Mediated Predator Avoidance in the European House Cricket (Acheta domesticus) is Modulated by Predator Diet

Abstract

Chemical information often mediates interactions between predators and prey, and threat‐sensitivity theory includes predictions that prey species should respond to chemical signatures of predators in a manner that is commensurate with the level of the assessed threat. Using the European house cricket (Acheta domesticus), we explored the influence of diet‐derived cues from the centipede Scolopocryptops sexspinosus on anti‐predator behavior in three laboratory experiments. In experiment 1, we compared the amount of time that adult female crickets spent on untreated filter paper and filter paper exposed to centipedes fed either the larvae of Hermetia illucens (black soldier fly), crickets, or a mixture of fly larvae and crickets. We discovered that crickets spent significantly less time on filter paper exposed to centipedes fed crickets only or a mixture of crickets and fly larvae compared with blank filter paper or filter paper exposed to centipedes fed fly larvae only. In our second experiment, we compared the amount of time that crickets spent on blank filter paper and filter paper exposed to adult female conspecifics to rule out the possibility that crickets simply avoid all filter paper exposed to metabolic by‐products, and crickets exhibited no discrimination. In our third experiment, we tested the potential effects of diet order on anti‐predatory behaviors. Specifically, we compared the amount of time that adult female crickets spent on filter paper exposed to centipedes fed fly larvae followed by crickets and filter paper exposed to centipedes fed crickets followed by fly larvae. We discovered no diet sequence effect. Our study demonstrates that European house crickets are sensitive to the chemical cues of their centipede predators, but only when centipedes have fed upon crickets.

Knowing the Risk: Crickets Distinguish between Spider Predators of Different Size and Commonness

“…; Hoefler et al. ). Therefore, antipredator behaviors can vary strongly in strength and direction, which again influences the number of implemented defense types (Kats & Dill ; Caro ).…”

“…According to Helfman's threat-sensitive avoidance hypothesis (1989) and Lima and Bednekoff's predation risk allocation hypothesis (1999), prey individuals should adjust their antipredator behavior to the degree and type of predation threat they currently experience Hoefler et al 2012). Therefore, antipredator behaviors can vary strongly in strength and direction, which again influences the number of implemented defense types (Kats & Dill 1998;Caro 2005).…”

Temporal variation in behavioral responses to dietary cues from a gape‐limited predator in tadpole prey: A test of the phylogenetic relatedness hypothesis

“…Dietary cues are important sources of information in aquatic systems, but because predators, generalists in particular, can forage on a range of resources in nature, prey are exposed to numerous dietary cues. Typically, responses should be tuned to the strongest cues, which could be assessed by the presence of conspecific or closely related heterospecific pheromones in predators’ diet (Brown & Zachar, ; Hoefler et al, ). If such cues are not available in the environment, prey may lack reliable information to effectively respond to predators.…”

“…Typically, responses should be tuned to the strongest cues, which could be assessed by the presence of conspecific or closely related heterospecific pheromones in predators' diet (Brown & Zachar, 2002;Hoefler et al, 2012). If such cues are not available in the environment, prey may lack reliable information to effectively respond to predators.…”

“…Post‐digestion dietary cues can play an important role in chemically mediated predator recognition (reviewed in Scherer & Smee, ). Prey responses to such cues can be typically high when they come from conspecifics (Chivers, Zhao, & Ferrari, ; Schoeppner & Relyea, ) but can largely vary in magnitude to dietary cues from heterospecific prey (Hoefler, Durso, & McIntyre, ; Persons, Walker, Rypstra, & Marshall, ; Scherer & Smee, ).…”