Literature DB >> 11944831

Experimental evidence of an age-specific shift in chemical detection of predators in a lizard.

Megan L Head1, J Scott Keogh, Paul Doughty.   

Abstract

The risk posed by predation is one of the most fundamental aspects of an animal's environment. Avoidance of predators implies an ability to obtain reliable information about the risk of predation, and for many species, chemosensory cues are likely to be an important source of such information. Chemosensory cues reliably reveal the presence of predators or their presence in the recent past. We used retreat site selection experiments to test whether the Australian scincid lizard Eulamprus heatwolei uses chemical cues for predator detection and avoidance. Both adult and juvenile lizards were given the choice of retreat sites treated with scents from invertebrate predators, as well as sympatric and allopatric snake predators. Some of the snake predators were known to eat E. heatwolei, while others did not pose a predation threat. All invertebrate predators posed a risk to juveniles, but not adults because of their size. We found that juvenile E. heatwolei avoided predator odors more strongly than adults. Juveniles avoided both invertebrate predators and snakes, and the strongest response was toward the funnel web spider, the only ambush predator used in this experiment. This result may demonstrate the importance of predator ecology in the evolution of predator detection mechanisms, with chemical cues being more useful in detecting sedentary predators than active predators. Adult lizards showed no avoidance behavior toward predator odors. This result suggests an age specific shift in predator avoidance behavior as lizards get older and become too large for many predators. However, adults showed no response to the odor from the red-bellied black snake, a known predator of adult E. heatwolei. This finding further demonstrates the importance of predator ecology when examining communication between predators and prey. Chemical cues, which are persistent long after predators have vacated the area, may not be useful in detecting the red-bellied black snake, a wide-ranging active forager.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11944831     DOI: 10.1023/a:1014592028693

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Chem Ecol        ISSN: 0098-0331            Impact factor:   2.626


  8 in total

1.  Geographic variation in antisnake tactics: the evolution of scent-mediated behavior in a lizard.

Authors:  S J Downes; M Adams
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 3.694

2.  Development of antipredator responses in snakes: V. Species differences in ontogenetic trajectories.

Authors:  H A Herzog; B B Bowers; G M Burghardt
Journal:  Dev Psychobiol       Date:  1992-04       Impact factor: 3.038

3.  Naive ophiophagus lizards recognize and avoid venomous snakes using chemical cues.

Authors:  J A Phillips; A C Alberts
Journal:  J Chem Ecol       Date:  1992-10       Impact factor: 2.626

4.  Chemical discrimination by tongue-flicking in lizards: A review with hypotheses on its origin and its ecological and phylogenetic relationships.

Authors:  W E Cooper
Journal:  J Chem Ecol       Date:  1994-02       Impact factor: 2.626

5.  Chemosensory predator recognition in the lizardPodarcis hispanica: Effects of predation pressure relaxation.

Authors:  R van Damme; A M Castilla
Journal:  J Chem Ecol       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 2.626

6.  Sedentary snakes and gullible geckos: predator-prey coevolution in nocturnal rock-dwelling reptiles.

Authors: 
Journal:  Anim Behav       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 2.844

7.  Of tongues and noses: chemoreception in lizards and snakes.

Authors:  K Schwenk
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 17.712

8.  Juvenile western toads, Bufo boreas, avoid chemical cues of snakes fed juvenile, but not larval, conspecifics.

Authors: 
Journal:  Anim Behav       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 2.844

  8 in total
  6 in total

1.  Is naïveté forever? Alien predator and aggressor recognition by two endemic island reptiles.

Authors:  A Gérard; H Jourdan; C Cugnière; A Millon; E Vidal
Journal:  Naturwissenschaften       Date:  2014-09-06

2.  Do lizards and snakes really differ in their ability to take large prey? A study of relative prey mass and feeding tactics in lizards.

Authors:  Richard Shine; Jai Thomas
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2005-09-16       Impact factor: 3.298

3.  Habitat selection in a rocky landscape: experimentally decoupling the influence of retreat site attributes from that of landscape features.

Authors:  Benjamin M Croak; David A Pike; Jonathan K Webb; Richard Shine
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-06-12       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Antipredatory reaction of the leopard gecko Eublepharis macularius to snake predators.

Authors:  Eva Landová; Veronika Musilová; Jakub Polák; Kristýna Sedláčková; Daniel Frynta
Journal:  Curr Zool       Date:  2016-04-22       Impact factor: 2.624

5.  Fears from the past? The innate ability of dogs to detect predator scents.

Authors:  Lydia Samuel; Charlotte Arnesen; Andreas Zedrosser; Frank Rosell
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2020-04-08       Impact factor: 3.084

Review 6.  Are single odorous components of a predator sufficient to elicit defensive behaviors in prey species?

Authors:  Raimund Apfelbach; Michael H Parsons; Helena A Soini; Milos V Novotny
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2015-07-29       Impact factor: 4.677

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.