Literature DB >> 19363623

Receiving behaviour is sensitive to risks from eavesdropping predators.

Nelika K Hughes1, Jennifer L Kelley, Peter B Banks.   

Abstract

Conspicuous signals may attract both intended receivers as well as unintended receivers such as predators. However, signalling individuals are not the only ones at risk when communicating, as the intended receiver may encounter eavesdropping predators that are attracted to the same signals. Here, we show that the house mouse (Mus domesticus) behaviourally responds to social signals (scents) as though receiving carries a risk of predation. We presented mice with their own scents (low social benefit to receiving) and those from an unknown "intruder" (high social benefit to receiving) under high (cat urine added) and low (water added) perceived predation risk. Mice traded-off the potential social benefits of receiving a signal against the costs of potential predator encounter. Receiving rates of both social signals (own and intruder) were high under low predation risk. Mice reduced receiving of both social signals when predation risk was increased; however, the effect was greater for their own low value scent than for the high social value intruder scent. Notably, rates of signalling did not vary with the level of perceived predation risk. Our findings suggest that mice traded-off the potential social benefits of receiving a signal (scent mark) against the costs of potential predator encounter. We suggest that, for some species, the costs of communication are borne more by the receivers than the signallers, and that the influence of risks to receivers on the design of communication systems may have been underestimated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19363623     DOI: 10.1007/s00442-009-1320-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oecologia        ISSN: 0029-8549            Impact factor:   3.225


  18 in total

1.  Nonlinearity in the predation risk of prey mobility.

Authors:  P B Banks; K Norrdahl; E Korpimäki
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2000-08-22       Impact factor: 5.349

2.  Mate selection-a selection for a handicap.

Authors:  A Zahavi
Journal:  J Theor Biol       Date:  1975-09       Impact factor: 2.691

3.  The inhibitory effect of preexposed olfactory cues on intermale aggression in mice.

Authors:  B R Kimelman; R E Lubow
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  1974-06

Review 4.  Some general comments on the evolution and design of animal communication systems.

Authors:  J A Endler
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  1993-05-29       Impact factor: 6.237

5.  Acceleration and delay of sexual maturation in female mice via chemosignals: circadian rhythm effects.

Authors:  L C Drickamer
Journal:  Biol Reprod       Date:  1982-10       Impact factor: 4.285

Review 6.  Mouse defensive behaviors: pharmacological and behavioral assays for anxiety and panic.

Authors:  D C Blanchard; G Griebel; R J Blanchard
Journal:  Neurosci Biobehav Rev       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 8.989

7.  Reproductive changes in fluctuating house mouse populations in southeastern Australia.

Authors:  G Singleton; C J Krebs; S Davis; L Chambers; P Brown
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2001-08-22       Impact factor: 5.349

8.  Unravelling the chemical basis of competitive scent marking in house mice.

Authors: 
Journal:  Anim Behav       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 2.844

9.  The ownership signature in mouse scent marks is involatile.

Authors:  C M Nevison; S Armstrong; R J Beynon; R E Humphries; J L Hurst
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2003-09-22       Impact factor: 5.349

10.  Asymmetries in mating preferences between species: female swordtails prefer heterospecific males.

Authors:  M J Ryan; W E Wagner
Journal:  Science       Date:  1987-05-01       Impact factor: 47.728

View more
  6 in total

1.  Innate threat-sensitive foraging: black-tailed deer remain more fearful of wolf than of the less dangerous black bear even after 100 years of wolf absence.

Authors:  Simon Chamaillé-Jammes; Hélène Malcuit; Soizic Le Saout; Jean-Louis Martin
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2013-11-28       Impact factor: 3.225

2.  Predator odours attract other predators, creating an olfactory web of information.

Authors:  Peter B Banks; Andrew Daly; Jenna P Bytheway
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 3.703

3.  Competitive naïveté between a highly successful invader and a functionally similar native species.

Authors:  Stephen J Heavener; Alexandra J R Carthey; Peter B Banks
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2014-01-05       Impact factor: 3.225

4.  Increased olfactory search costs change foraging behaviour in an alien mustelid: a precursor to prey switching?

Authors:  Catherine J Price; Peter B Banks
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2016-05-26       Impact factor: 3.225

5.  Predators are attracted to the olfactory signals of prey.

Authors:  Nelika K Hughes; Catherine J Price; Peter B Banks
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-09-30       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Brown rats and house mice eavesdrop on each other's volatile sex pheromone components.

Authors:  Elana Varner; Hanna Jackson; Manveer Mahal; Stephen Takács; Regine Gries; Gerhard Gries
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-10-19       Impact factor: 4.379

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.