Literature DB >> 28444848

Biologically meaningful scents: a framework for understanding predator-prey research across disciplines.

Michael H Parsons1,2, Raimund Apfelbach3, Peter B Banks4, Elissa Z Cameron5, Chris R Dickman6, Anke S K Frank5,7, Menna E Jones5, Ian S McGregor8, Stuart McLean9, Dietland Müller-Schwarze10, Elisa E Sparrow11, Daniel T Blumstein12.   

Abstract

Fear of predation is a universal motivator. Because predators hunt using stealth and surprise, there is a widespread ability among prey to assess risk from chemical information - scents - in their environment. Consequently, scents often act as particularly strong modulators of memory and emotions. Recent advances in ecological research and analytical technology are leading to novel ways to use this chemical information to create effective attractants, repellents and anti-anxiolytic compounds for wildlife managers, conservation biologists and health practitioners. However, there is extensive variation in the design, results, and interpretation of studies of olfactory-based risk discrimination. To understand the highly variable literature in this area, we adopt a multi-disciplinary approach and synthesize the latest findings from neurobiology, chemical ecology, and ethology to propose a contemporary framework that accounts for such disparate factors as the time-limited stability of chemicals, highly canalized mechanisms that influence prey responses, and the context within which these scents are detected (e.g. availability of alternative resources, perceived shelter, and ambient physical parameters). This framework helps to account for the wide range of reported responses by prey to predator scents, and explains, paradoxically, how the same individual predator scent can be interpreted as either safe or dangerous to a prey animal depending on how, when and where the cue was deposited. We provide a hypothetical example to illustrate the most common factors that influence how a predator scent (from dingoes, Canis dingo) may both attract and repel the same target organism (kangaroos, Macropus spp.). This framework identifies the catalysts that enable dynamic scents, odours or odorants to be used as attractants as well as deterrents. Because effective scent tools often relate to traumatic memories (fear and/or anxiety) that cause future avoidance, this information may also guide the development of appeasement, enrichment and anti-anxiolytic compounds, and help explain the observed variation in post-traumatic-related behaviours (including post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD) among diverse terrestrial taxa, including humans.
© 2017 Cambridge Philosophical Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  PTSD; VNO; anti-anxiolytic scents; appeasement; attractants; conservation; deterrents; ecological informatics; odors; olfaction

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28444848     DOI: 10.1111/brv.12334

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc        ISSN: 0006-3231


  18 in total

1.  Avian and rodent responses to the olfactory landscape in a Mediterranean cavity community.

Authors:  Jesús M Avilés; Deseada Parejo; Mónica Expósito-Granados
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2019-08-17       Impact factor: 3.225

2.  Novel predators emit novel cues: a mechanism for prey naivety towards alien predators.

Authors:  Alexandra J R Carthey; Martin P Bucknall; Kaja Wierucka; Peter B Banks
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-11-27       Impact factor: 4.379

3.  Olfactory cues and the value of information: voles interpret cues based on recent predator encounters.

Authors:  Sonny S Bleicher; Hannu Ylönen; Teemu Käpylä; Marko Haapakoski
Journal:  Behav Ecol Sociobiol       Date:  2018-11-26       Impact factor: 2.980

4.  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

5.  Avoidance behaviour in laboratory house mice (Musmusculus) and Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) towards predator odours.

Authors:  Luciana B Adduci; Vanina A León; Annika Schlötelburg; María Busch; Jimena Fraschina
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-01-20       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Bank vole alarm pheromone chemistry and effects in the field.

Authors:  Thorbjörn Sievert; Hannu Ylönen; James D Blande; Amélie Saunier; Dave van der Hulst; Olga Ylönen; Marko Haapakoski
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2021-06-25       Impact factor: 3.225

7.  Attractant or Repellent? Behavioral Responses to Mammalian Blood Odor and to a Blood Odor Component in a Mesopredator, the Meerkat (Suricata suricatta).

Authors:  Henrik Pettersson; Mats Amundin; Matthias Laska
Journal:  Front Behav Neurosci       Date:  2018-07-23       Impact factor: 3.558

8.  An escape theory model for directionally moving prey and an experimental test in juvenile Chinook salmon.

Authors:  Megan C Sabal; Joseph E Merz; Suzanne H Alonzo; Eric P Palkovacs
Journal:  J Anim Ecol       Date:  2020-04-28       Impact factor: 5.091

9.  Wild Norway Rats Do Not Avoid Predator Scents When Collecting Food in a Familiar Habitat: A Field Study.

Authors:  Rafał Stryjek; Berenika Mioduszewska; Ewelina Spaltabaka-Gędek; Grzegorz R Juszczak
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-06-21       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  Monitoring canid scent marking in space and time using a biologging and machine learning approach.

Authors:  Owen R Bidder; Agustina di Virgilio; Jennifer S Hunter; Alex McInturff; Kaitlyn M Gaynor; Alison M Smith; Janelle Dorcy; Frank Rosell
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-01-17       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.