Literature DB >> 26363906

Dissecting the smell of fear from conspecific and heterospecific prey: investigating the processes that induce anti-predator defenses.

Heather M Shaffery1, Rick A Relyea2.   

Abstract

Prey use chemical cues from predation events to obtain information about predation risk to alter their phenotypes. Though we know how many prey respond to predators, we still have a poor understanding of the processes and chemical cues involved during a predation event. We examined how gray treefrog tadpoles (Hyla versicolor) altered their behavior and morphology when raised with cues from different stages of predator attack, predators fed different amounts of prey, and predators consuming different combinations of treefrog tadpoles or snails (Helisoma trivolvis). We found that starved predators and predators fed snails induced no defensive responses whereas tadpoles exposed to a predator consuming gray treefrogs induced greater hiding, lower activity, and relatively deeper tails. We also found that the tadpoles did not respond to crushed, chewed, or digested conspecifics, but they did respond to consumed (i.e., chewed plus digested) conspecifics. When we increased the treefrog biomass consumed by predators, tadpoles frequently increased their defenses when only tadpoles were consumed and always increased their defenses when the total diet biomass was held constant via the inclusion of snails. When predators experienced temporal variation in diet composition, including cues from snails to cause additional digestive cues or chemical noise, there was no effect on tadpole phenotypes. Our results suggest that amphibian prey rely on cues from both chewing and digestion of conspecifics and that the presence of cues from digested heterospecifics play little or no role in adding chemical noise or increased digestive enzymes and by-products that could potentially interfere with induced defenses.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Alarm cues; Chemical cues; Dose response; Phenotypic plasticity; Predation risk

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26363906     DOI: 10.1007/s00442-015-3444-x

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


  34 in total

1.  Prioritized phenotypic responses to combined predators in a marine snail.

Authors:  Paul E Bourdeau
Journal:  Ecology       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 5.499

Review 2.  Pheromone communication in amphibians and reptiles.

Authors:  Lynne D Houck
Journal:  Annu Rev Physiol       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 19.318

3.  Damage, digestion, and defence: the roles of alarm cues and kairomones for inducing prey defences.

Authors:  Nancy M Schoeppner; Rick A Relyea
Journal:  Ecol Lett       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 9.492

4.  Predator identity and consumer behavior: differential effects of fish and crayfish on the habitat use of a freshwater snail.

Authors:  Andrew M Turner; Shelley A Fetterolf; Randall J Bernot
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 3.225

5.  COSTS AND BENEFITS OF A PREDATOR-INDUCED POLYPHENISM IN THE GRAY TREEFROG HYLA CHRYSOSCELIS.

Authors:  S Andy McCollum; Josh Van Buskirk
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 3.694

6.  Predator induced phenotypic plasticity in the pinewoods tree frog, Hyla femoralis: necessary cues and the cost of development.

Authors:  Emily May LaFiandra; Kimberly J Babbitt
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2003-12-12       Impact factor: 3.225

7.  Detecting small environmental differences: risk-response curves for predator-induced behavior and morphology.

Authors:  Nancy M Schoeppner; Rick A Relyea
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2007-10-06       Impact factor: 3.225

8.  A community-level evaluation of the impact of prey behavioural and ecological characteristics on predator diet composition.

Authors:  Susanne Shultz; Ronald Noë; W Scott McGraw; R I M Dunbar
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2004-04-07       Impact factor: 5.349

9.  Avoidance response of a terrestrial salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum) to chemical alarm cues.

Authors:  D P Chivers; J M Kiesecker; M T Anderson; E L Wildy; A R Blaustein
Journal:  J Chem Ecol       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 2.626

10.  Why are predator urines aversive to prey?

Authors:  D L Nolte; J R Mason; G Epple; E Aronov; D L Campbell
Journal:  J Chem Ecol       Date:  1994-07       Impact factor: 2.626

View more
  5 in total

1.  Inducible defenses in Olympia oysters in response to an invasive predator.

Authors:  Jillian M Bible; Kaylee R Griffith; Eric Sanford
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2017-01-13       Impact factor: 3.225

Review 2.  The information provided by the absence of cues: insights from Bayesian models of within and transgenerational plasticity.

Authors:  Judy A Stamps; Alison M Bell
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2020-10-30       Impact factor: 3.225

3.  Temporal clustering of prey in wildlife passages provides no evidence of a prey-trap.

Authors:  April Robin Martinig; Mahnoor Riaz; Colleen Cassady St Clair
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-07-13       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  Habituation in anuran tadpoles and the role of risk uncertainty.

Authors:  Mariana Pueta; Dolores Ardanaz; Juan Cruz Tallone
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2021-07-24       Impact factor: 3.084

5.  Phenotypic plasticity in specialists: How long-spined larval Sympetrum depressiusculum (Odonata: Libellulidae) responds to combined predator cues.

Authors:  Hana Šigutová; Martin Šigut; Aleš Dolný
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-08-08       Impact factor: 3.240

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.