Literature DB >> 15888417

Flexibility in assessment of prey cues: frog-eating bats and frog calls.

Rachel A Page1, Michael J Ryan.   

Abstract

Predators use cues associated with their prey to assess prey quality and to avoid consuming poisonous prey. Considerable attention has been given to predators' use of aposematic cues to assess prey quality, but little is known about predators that eavesdrop on prey cues that are not intended for them. Here we investigate the prey-cue/prey-quality associations of a predator that eavesdrops on the sexual advertisement signals of its prey. Stability is expected in prey-cue/prey-quality associations when mistakes in prey assessment are lethal. Conversely, flexibility is possible when mistakes are less costly. Predators that must respond to temporal and spatial fluctuations in prey availability should be more flexible in their assessment of prey quality. Given these predictions, we examined flexibility in the ability of wild-caught bats to reverse prey-cue/prey-quality associations for a preferred prey and a poisonous one. We found that the predatory bat, Trachops cirrhosus, has a heretofore undescribed ability to reverse its evaluations of the cues that signal preferred prey.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15888417      PMCID: PMC1599868          DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2004.2998

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Biol Sci        ISSN: 0962-8452            Impact factor:   5.349


  22 in total

1.  The coevolution of warning signals.

Authors:  Thomas N Sherratt
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2002-04-07       Impact factor: 5.349

2.  Conditioned aversion to saccharin resulting from exposure to gamma radiation.

Authors:  J GARCIA; D J KIMELDORF; R A KOELLING
Journal:  Science       Date:  1955-07-22       Impact factor: 47.728

3.  Polymorphism and Geographic Variation in the Feeding Behavior of the Garter Snake Thamnophis elegans.

Authors:  S J Arnold
Journal:  Science       Date:  1977-08-12       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  The comparative analysis of learning.

Authors:  M E Bitterman
Journal:  Science       Date:  1975-05-16       Impact factor: 47.728

5.  Nocturnal aerial predation of fireflies by light-seeking fireflies.

Authors:  J E Lloyd; S R Wing
Journal:  Science       Date:  1983-11-11       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  Plant poisons in a terrestrial food chain.

Authors:  L P Brower; J van Brower; J M Corvino
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1967-04       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Spatial and reversal learning in congeneric lizards with different foraging strategies.

Authors: 
Journal:  Anim Behav       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 2.844

8.  Successive olfactory reversal learning in honeybees.

Authors:  Bernhard Komischke; Martin Giurfa; Harald Lachnit; Dagmar Malun
Journal:  Learn Mem       Date:  2002 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.460

9.  Acoustic location of prey by barn owls (Tyto alba).

Authors:  R S Payne
Journal:  J Exp Biol       Date:  1971-06       Impact factor: 3.312

Review 10.  Sexually dimorphic spatial learning in meadow voles Microtus pennsylvanicus and deer mice Peromyscus maniculatus.

Authors:  L A Galea; M Kavaliers; K P Ossenkopp
Journal:  J Exp Biol       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 3.312

View more
  21 in total

1.  Eavesdropping and signal matching in visual courtship displays of spiders.

Authors:  David L Clark; J Andrew Roberts; George W Uetz
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2012-01-04       Impact factor: 3.703

2.  Linking amphibian call structure to the environment: the interplay between phenotypic flexibility and individual attributes.

Authors:  Lucía Ziegler; Matías Arim; Peter M Narins
Journal:  Behav Ecol       Date:  2011-03-11       Impact factor: 2.671

3.  Sequential assessment of prey through the use of multiple sensory cues by an eavesdropping bat.

Authors:  Rachel A Page; Tanja Schnelle; Elisabeth K V Kalko; Thomas Bunge; Ximena E Bernal
Journal:  Naturwissenschaften       Date:  2012-05-17

4.  When to approach novel prey cues? Social learning strategies in frog-eating bats.

Authors:  Patricia L Jones; Michael J Ryan; Victoria Flores; Rachel A Page
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2013-12-07       Impact factor: 5.349

5.  Non-reproductive male cane toads (Rhinella marina) withhold sex-identifying information from their rivals.

Authors:  Crystal Kelehear; Richard Shine
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2019-08-14       Impact factor: 3.703

6.  Individual variation in foraging behavior reveals a trade-off between flexibility and performance of a top predator.

Authors:  Lauren M Pintor; Katie E McGhee; Daniel P Roche; Alison M Bell
Journal:  Behav Ecol Sociobiol       Date:  2014-07-25       Impact factor: 2.980

7.  Synchronized mating signals in a communication network: the challenge of avoiding predators while attracting mates.

Authors:  Henry D Legett; Rachel A Page; Ximena E Bernal
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2019-10-09       Impact factor: 5.349

8.  A micro-geography of fear: learning to eavesdrop on alarm calls of neighbouring heterospecifics.

Authors:  Robert D Magrath; Thomas H Bennett
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2011-08-17       Impact factor: 5.349

9.  Do frog-eating bats perceptually bind the complex components of frog calls?

Authors:  Patricia L Jones; Hamilton E Farris; Michael J Ryan; Rachel A Page
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2013-01-16       Impact factor: 1.836

10.  Flower bats (Glossophaga soricina) and fruit bats (Carollia perspicillata) rely on spatial cues over shapes and scents when relocating food.

Authors:  Gerald G Carter; John M Ratcliffe; Bennett G Galef
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-05-25       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.