Sex-based differences in anti-predator response of crickets to chemical cues of a mammalian predator

Tanis, Brian P.; Bott, Bradley; Gaston, Brian J.

doi:10.7717/peerj.4923

Cited by 11 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Contrary to much of the literature (Monclús et al 2005;Zidar & Løvlie 2012;Zöttl et al 2013;Kuijper et al 2014;Garvey et al 2016;Kern et al 2017;Tanis et al 2018), we found no change in sentinel rate following a SPC encounter. It is nevertheless possible that there may have been changes in other vigilance types such as quadrupedal vigilance (scanning on four legs) as reported in Zöttl et al ( 2013), which were not recorded in this study.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mobbing-like response to secondary predator cues informs group behaviour in wild meerkats

Driscoll

Manser

Thornton

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AbstractThe assessment of current risk is essential in informing defensive behaviours. Many animals use cues left behind by predators, known as secondary predator cues (SPCs), to assess risk and respond appropriately. However, meerkats, Suricata suricatta, exhibit seemingly unique mobbing-like responses to these cues. The benefit of this high-intensity recruitment response is unclear, as unlike genuine mobbing, it cannot help to drive the predator away. One potential explanation is that mobbing-like responses promote information gathering and collective decision-making by the whole group. To examine this, we investigated (i) how meerkats’ responses to SPCs differ from mobbing live animals and (ii) the subsequent behavioural changes following a SPC encounter. Using a dataset gathered over a 20-year period, we first compared the rate of SPC recruitment versus the rate of animal mobbing. We then investigated changes in behaviour (alarm calling, sentinel bouts, distance travelled and pup provisioning) in the hour before and after a SPC encounter. Abiotic factors did not affect recruitment rate to SPCs or live animals, or influence the change in behavioural responses following a SPC encounter. The presence of pups reduced response rate to SPCs, but had no effect on animal mobbing rate, supporting experimental findings that responses towards SPCs are unlikely to function as a form of teaching. Alarm calling rate increased and the distance travelled by the group decreased following a SPC encounter, and were unaffected by the presence of pups or abiotic conditions. The results indicate group-level behavioural changes following a SPC encounter, and a greater degree of plasticity in recruitment to SPCs than to live animals. This response plasticity may reflect a context-dependent need to gather information to make collective decisions for defensive behaviour according to the level of threat perceived.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…The most common responses are cue avoidance (of either the cue itself (Caine & Weldon 1989) and/or the area the cue was encountered (Grostal & Dicke 1999;Sike & Rózsa 2006;Amo et al 2011;Weiss et al 2015)) and increased vigilance (e.g. Monclús et al 2005;Zöttl et al 2013;Garvey et al 2016;Tanis et al 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mobbing-like response to secondary predator cues informs group behaviour in wild meerkats

Driscoll

Manser

Thornton

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These cues can indicate predator presence in the vicinity and provide information about the nature of the threat. In most cases prey avoid SPCs or respond with defensive behaviours such as increased vigilance (Monclús et al 2005;Zidar & Løvlie 2012;Garvey et al 2016;Tanis et al 2018), reduced activity (Persons et al 2001;Sullivan et al 2002;Lehtiniemi 2005), refuge use (McGregor et al 2002;Sullivan et al 2002;Ferrari et al 2006;Belton et al 2007), and moving away from the cue (Amo et al 2004;Shrader et al 2008;Mella et al 2014). However, some species respond by approaching and inspecting SPCs, presumably to gain further information about the source of the cue (Belton et al 2007;Furrer & Manser 2009;Zöttl et al 2013;Garvey et al 2016;Collier et al 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mobbing-like response to secondary predator cues is not a form of teaching in meerkats

Driscoll

Manser

Thornton

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AbstractAcross many taxa, individuals learn how to detect, recognise and respond to predators via social learning. Learning to recognise and interpret predator cues is essential in the accurate assessment of risk. Cues can come directly from a predator’s presence (visual, acoustic) or from secondary predator cues (SPCs, such as hair/feathers, urine or faeces) left in the environment. Animals show various responses to encountering SPCs, which are thought to act in reducing risk to the individual. Meerkats, Suricata suricatta, show a response to SPCs not described in any other species: they display a mobbing-like behaviour. The function of this behaviour is unclear as unlike mobbing, the response it so closely resembles, it cannot serve to drive predators away. We used experiments to investigate whether adults may use this mobbing-like response to teach naïve young how to recognise and respond to predators. Meerkats are known to teach pups hunting skills, but there is as yet no evidence that any species other than humans teaches across multiple contexts. We used experimental presentations of SPCs to test whether wild adult meerkats respond more intensely to SPCs in the presence of naïve pups, as would be expected if the behaviour serves to promote learning. Contrary to this prediction, response intensity was lower when pups were present than when they were absent, and declined as the number of pups in the group increased, possibly due to costs associated with foraging with dependent young. Response intensity instead increased with increasing group size, number of group members interacting with the cue, and varied with predator cue type. These results suggest that the mobbing-like response to SPCs is not a form of teaching in meerkats. Instead, this behaviour may function to increase the recruitment of others to investigate the SPC. Exposing group members to SPCs may better inform them of the nature of the threat, facilitating more effective defensive group responses.

show abstract

“…males may show more exploratory behaviors) or perhaps female crickets are more capable of detecting predator signals and consequently reducing their activity. For instance, A. domesticus females delay their foraging in the presence of a mammal predator odor [26]. Another potential chemical cue that may have influenced our results is that scorpions were fed with A. domesticus before the experiments and there is evidence that A. domesticus avoid chemical cues produced by predators fed on A. domesticus, as compared to the same predators fed on other insects [27].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Perhaps this weakened any potential luring by the fluorescence. Overall, it seems that predator avoidance in house crickets depends on chemical cues [26][27][28]. Whether scorpions emit a chemical signal detectable (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Test of the prey-attraction hypothesis for the scorpion fluorescence

Gálvez

Nieto

Samaniego

2020

Neotropical Biodiversity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A striking feature of most scorpion species is fluorescence under ultraviolet light, but few studies have investigated the adaptive benefit of this trait. A hypothesis is that fluorescence may lure prey towards the scorpion improving foraging success. In this study, we investigated whether the fluorescence of the scorpion Centruroides granosus Thorell, 1876 lures the house cricket Acheta domesticus Linnaeus, 1758. We performed two experiments: 1) an arena in which crickets were exposed to both fluorescing and black-painted non-fluorescing scorpions and 2) a tunnel in which crickets could walk out through one of the two exits, each with a scorpion treatment. None of the experiments provided evidence that the scorpion fluorescence is attractive to house crickets since they did not show preference for any of the two scorpion types. Variables such as cricket sex or scorpion sex did not influence their response towards the fluorescence; however, crickets were on average closer to male scorpions in the outdoor arena and closer to female scorpions in the laboratory arenas. Moreover, male crickets were more active than females in the tunnel experiment, in line with the results of the arena experiment showing that male crickets were on average closer to the scorpions in the laboratory. We discuss potential implications and suggest that more experimental work is required to investigate potential adaptive benefits of the scorpion fluorescence under various biotic and abiotic factors.

show abstract

Sex-based differences in anti-predator response of crickets to chemical cues of a mammalian predator

Cited by 11 publications

References 57 publications

Mobbing-like response to secondary predator cues informs group behaviour in wild meerkats

Mobbing-like response to secondary predator cues informs group behaviour in wild meerkats

Mobbing-like response to secondary predator cues is not a form of teaching in meerkats

Test of the prey-attraction hypothesis for the scorpion fluorescence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About