The responses of prey fish to temporal variation in predation risk: sensory habituation or risk assessment?

Ferrari, Maud C. O.; Elvidge, Chris K.; Jackson, Christopher; Chivers, Douglas P.; Brown, Grant E.

doi:10.1093/beheco/arq023

Cited by 59 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Empirical studies have attributed reduced vigilance in systems with a high predator population to prey differential adaptive decision-making in response to complex cues (Barros et al 2008;Ferraria et al 2010). What we observed in the North Fork, where elk response to impediments alone was not significant (Table 5), was similar to the above studies.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Context dependence of elk (Cervus elaphus) vigilance and wolf (Canis lupus) predation risk

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To assess the relationship between predation risk perceived by elk (Cervus elaphus L., 1758) as evidenced by vigilance, we conducted focal animal observations in elk winter range. We stratified our observations in Glacier National Park, Montana, USA, and Waterton Lakes National Park, Alberta, Canada, in valleys with three wolf (Canis lupus L., 1758) population levels (Saint Mary Valley: no wolf; Waterton Valley: moderate wolf; North Fork Valley: high wolf). Although the lowest elk vigilance occurred in Saint Mary and the highest in the North Fork, our analysis revealed a complex picture. Our model included distance to forest edge, group size, distance to road, social class, and impediments to detecting and escaping wolves. In Saint Mary, none of the variables were significant. In Waterton, vigilance decreased as elk group size increased (p < 0.00001) and increased as impediments increased (p = 0.0005). In the North Fork, vigilance increased as group size increased (p = 0.03), bulls were more vigilant (p = 0.02), and the interaction between group size and impediments was significant (p = 0.03). Where a high wolf population existed, elk did not exhibit uniform or expected response to predation risk factors. High wolf presence may necessitate adaptive elk behaviour that differs from response to moderate wolf presence.Résumé : Afin d'évaluer le lien entre le risque de prédation perçu par les wapitis (Cervus elaphus L., 1758) tel qu'il est reflété par la vigilance, nous avons recueilli des observations sur des individus précis dans l'aire de distribution hivernale de l'espèce. Nous avons stratifié nos observations dans le parc national Glacier (Montana, États-Unis) et dans le parc national des Lacs-Waterton (Alberta, Canada) dans des vallées présentant trois niveaux de population de loups (Canis lupus L., 1758) (vallée de Saint Mary, aucun loup; vallée de Waterton, population modérée de loups; vallée de la North Fork, forte population de loups). Si la vigilance des wapitis la plus faible a été observée dans la vallée de Saint Mary, et la plus forte, dans la vallée de la North Fork, le portrait qui ressort de notre analyse n'en est pas moins complexe. Le modèle intègre la distance jusqu'à la lisière de la forêt, la taille du groupe, la distance jusqu'à un chemin, la classe sociale et les entraves à la détection des loups et à la fuite pour échapper à ces derniers. Aucune de ces variables n'était significative pour la vallée de Saint Mary. Dans la vallée de Waterton, plus la taille du groupe de wapitis était grande, plus la vigilance était faible (p < 0,00001), et plus les entraves étaient importantes, plus la vigilance était grande (p = 0,0005). Dans la vallée de la North Fork, plus la taille du groupe était grande, plus la vigilance était grande (p = 0,03), les mâles étaient plus vigilants (p = 0,02), et la relation entre la taille du groupe et les entraves était significative (p = 0,03). En présence d'une forte population de loups, les wapitis ne présentaient pas des réactions uniformes ou prévisibles aux facteurs de...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Context dependence of elk (Cervus elaphus) vigilance and wolf (Canis lupus) predation risk

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast, if predators are omnipresent, prey might need to forage actively even though predators are present. Studies with rainbow trout (Mirza et al 2006), convict cichlids (Foam et al 2005b;Brown et al 2006b;Ferrari et al 2010a), guppies (Poecilia reticulata, Poeciliidae; Brown et al 2009b) and several flatfishes (Boersma et al 2008) provide at least partial support for the risk allocation model.…”

Section: Assessing Risk In Timementioning

confidence: 99%

Learning about Danger: Chemical Alarm Cues and Threat‐Sensitive Assessment of Predation Risk by Fishes

Brown

Ferrari

Chivers

2011

Fish Cognition and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Ecology has traditionally considered the importance of spatial variation in predation risk [13], but studies of temporal variation were quite limited until the publication of Lima & Bednekoff's [5] landmark paper on risk allocation. This model proposed that recent background level of risk is a key factor determining the intensity of responses of animals to cues of known predators and has received considerable empirical support [12,14,15]. Recently, Brown et al [16] have also shown that recent background level of risk can promote plasticity in the way animals respond not only to predators, but also to unknown, novel cues in their environment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Background level of risk determines how prey categorize predators and non-predators

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Much of the plasticity that prey exhibit in response to predators is linked to the prey's immediate background level of risk. However, we know almost nothing of how background risk influences how prey learn to categorize predators and non-predators. Learning non-predators probably represents one of the most underappreciated aspects of anti-predator decision-making. Here, we provide larval damselfish (Pomacentrus chrysurus) with a high or low background risk and then try to teach them to recognize a cue as non-threatening through the process of latent inhibition. Prey from the low-risk background that were pre-exposed to the novel odour cues in the absence of negative reinforcement for 3 days, and then provided the opportunity to learn to recognize the odour as threatening, failed to subsequently respond to the odour as a threat. Fish from the high-risk background showed a much different response. These fish did not learn the odour as non-threatening, probably because the cost of falsely learning an odour as non-threatening is higher when the background level of risk is higher. Our work highlights that background level of risk appears to drive plasticity in cognition of prey animals learning to discriminate threats in their environment.

show abstract

The responses of prey fish to temporal variation in predation risk: sensory habituation or risk assessment?

Cited by 59 publications

References 24 publications

Context dependence of elk (Cervus elaphus) vigilance and wolf (Canis lupus) predation risk

Context dependence of elk (Cervus elaphus) vigilance and wolf (Canis lupus) predation risk

Learning about Danger: Chemical Alarm Cues and Threat‐Sensitive Assessment of Predation Risk by Fishes

Background level of risk determines how prey categorize predators and non-predators

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About