Predator Avoidance

Mark V Abrahams, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada
Melissa Pink, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Cheryl Klassen, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

Published online: March 2009

DOI: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0003660

For prey species to be successful, they must balance the conflicting demands of obtaining the resources necessary for survival while avoiding being killed by predators. This has a hierarchy of approaches that begins with avoiding dangerous (=predators) times and locations, using dangerous locations but adopting behaviours and tactics that assist prey in detecting predators first. If a predator detects them they may also plan for this by staying in groups, thereby diluting the chance of being the individual that is killed or using coordinated group defence. Individuals may also employ toxins or specialized morphologies that deter a predator from attacking or assist in escape. Assuming individual behaviour is not affected by the presence of parasites, prey may also escape predators after capture using specialized morphologies, and even ejecting limbs. Ultimately captured prey may even try to attract other predators with the hope of escaping during the ensuing melee.

Key concepts

  • Behavioural tradeoffs.
  • The role of predators in affecting habitat quality.
  • Costs and benefits of group living.
  • The role of antipredator morphology.
  • Batesian and Mullerian mimicry.
  • The impact of parasites and how they can modify behaviour.
  • Animal scaling, physics and its impact upon behaviour.
  • The ecological importance of predators.
  • Conservation ecology.

Keywords: antipredator; predator–prey; risk of predation; predator avoidance

Figure 1. The pathways by which predation can affect the population dynamics of prey. The restricted view of predation as only affecting mortality is illustrated by two black arrows linking predation to prey dynamics by the way of survival. The consequences of predator avoidance are illustrated in the yellow boxes and orange arrows. These boxes demonstrate that predator avoidance by the prey can reduce mortality rate, but does so via energetic and physiological costs that will also impact prey population dynamics. The risk effects are illustrated by the blue arrows, with the likely feedbacks illustrated by grey arrows. Reprinted from Creel and Christianson (2008). Copyright (2008), with permission from Elsevier http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01695347.
Figure 2. The cascading impact that the removal of predators has upon a marine ecosystem. As (a) catch rates of largest sharks declined, (b) the population of one of their prey, the cownose ray, increased resulting in (c) declines in the catches of North Carolina bay scallops, presumably due to increased predation from the larger population of rays. Reprinted from Heithaus et al. (2008). Copyright (2008), with permission from Elsevier http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01695347.
close
 References
    book Abrahams MV (2005) "The physiology of predator–prey interactions: what you do with what you've got". In: Sloman KA, Wilson RW and Balshine S (eds) Behaviour and Physiology of Fish, vol. 24, pp. 79–108, Fish Physiology. London, UK: Academic Press.
    Abrahams MV and Townsend L (1993) Bioluminescence in dinoflagellates: a test of the burglar alarm hypothesis. Ecology 74: 258–260.
    Beauchamp G (2003) Group-size effects on vigilance: a search for mechanisms. Behavioural Processes 63: 111–121.
    Bergstrom CT and Lachmann M (2001) Alarm calls as costly signals of antipredator vigilance: the watchful babbler game. Animal Behaviour 61: 535–543.
    Betz O and Kölschb G (2004) The role of adhesion in prey capture and predator defence in arthropods. Arthropod Structure & Development 33: 3–30.
    Burks RL, Lodge DM, Jeppesen E and Lauridsen TL (2002) Diel horizontal migration of zooplankton: costs and benefits of inhabiting the littoral. Freshwater Biology 47: 343–365.
    Chivers DP, Brown GE and Smith RJF (1996) Evolution of chemical alarm signals: attracting predators benefits alarm signal senders. American Naturalist 148: 649–659.
    Christiansen P (2002) Locomotion in terrestrial mammals: the influence of body mass, limb length and bone proportions on speed. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 136: 685–714.
    Clark CW and Levy DA (1988) Diel vertical migrations by juvenile sockeye salmon and the antipredation window. The American Naturalist 131: 271–290.
    Conover M (1994) Stimuli eliciting distress calls in adult passerines and response of predators and birds to their broadcast. Behaviour 131: 19–37.
    Creel S and Christianson D (2008) Relationship between direct predation and risk effects. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23: 194–201.
    Cresswell W (1994) Flocking is an effective anti-predation strategy in redshanks, Tringa tetanus. Animal Behaviour 47: 433–442.
    Curio E (1978) The adaptive significance of avian mobbing I. Teleonomic hypotheses and predictions. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 48: 175–183.
    Dill LM and Fraser AGH (1997) The worm re-turns: hiding behaviour of a tube-dwelling marine polychaete, Serpula vermicularis. Behavioral Ecology 8: 185–193.
    Dugatkin LA and Godin JJ (1992) Prey approaching predators: a cost-benefit perspective. Annales Zoologici Fennici 29: 233–252.
    Foster WA and Treherne JE (1981) Evidence for the dilution effect in the selfish herd from fish predation on a marine insect. Nature 293: 466–467.
    Fraser NHC, Heggenes J, Metcalfe NB and Thorpe JE (1995) Low summer temperatures cause juvenile Atlantic salmon to become nocturnal. Canadian Journal of Zoology 73: 446–451.
    Greenwood MFD and Metcalfe NB (1998) Minnows become nocturnal at low temperatures. Journal of Fish Biology 53: 25–32.
    Hamilton WD (1971) Geometry for the selfish herd. Journal of Theoretical Biology 31: 295–311.
    Heithaus MR, Frid A, Wirsing A and Worm B (2008) Predicting ecological consequences of marine top predator declines. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23: 202–210.
    Hopcraft JGC, Sinclair ARE and Packer C (2005) Planning for success: Serengeti lions seek prey accessibility rather than abundance. Journal of Animal Ecology 74: 559–566.
    Ioannou CC, Tosh CR, Neville L and Krause J (2008) The confusion effect – from neural networks to reduced predation risk. Behavioral Ecology 19: 126–130.
    Kappan DD (2001) Three-butterfly system provides a field test of müllerian mimicry. Nature 409: 338–340.
    Karels TJ and Boonstra R (1999) The impact of predation on burrow use by Arctic ground squirrels in the boreal forest. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B 266: 2117–2123.
    Krakauer DC (1995) Groups confuse predators by exploiting perceptual bottlenecks: a connectionist model of the confusion effect. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 36: 421–429.
    Lagos VO, Contreras LC, Meserve PL, Gutierrez JR and Jaksic FM (1995) Effects of predation risk on space use by small mammals: a field experiment with a Neotropical rodent. Oikos 74: 259–264.
    Lopez LCS, Goncalves DA, Mantovani and Rios RI (2002) Bromeliad ostracods pass through amphibian (Scinaxax perpusillus) and mammalian guts alive. Hydrobiologia 485: 209–211.
    Manatunge J, Asaeda T and Priyadarshana T (2000) The influence of structural complexity on fish–zooplankton interactions: a study using artificial submerged macrophytes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 58: 425–438.
    Miller RC (1922) The significance of the gregarious habit. Ecology 3: 122–126.
    Naya DE, Veloso C, Muñoz JLP and Bozinovic F (2007) Some vaguely explored (but not trivial) costs of tail autotomy in lizards. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Part A 146: 189–193.
    Neill SRSJ and Cullen JM (1974) Experiments on whether schooling by their prey affects the hunting behaviour of cephalopods and fish predators. Journal of Zoology 172: 549–569.
    Ostreiher R (2003) Is mobbing altruistic or selfish behaviour? Animal Behaviour 66: 145–149.
    Parrish JK (1993) Comparison of the hunting behavior of four piscine predators attacking schooling prey. Ethology 95: 233–246.
    Pfennig DW, Harcombe WR and Pfennig KS (2001) Predators avoid look-alikes of venomous snakes only when the real thing is around. Nature 410: 323.
    Pitt WC (1999) Effects of multiple vertebrate predators on grasshopper habitat selection: trade-offs due to predation risk, foraging and thermoregulation. Evolutionary Ecology 13: 499–515.
    Pulliam HR (1973) On the advantages of flocking. Journal of Theoretical Biology 38: 419–422.
    Quinn JL and Cresswell W (2006) Testing domains of danger in the selfish herd: sparrowhawks target widely spaced redshanks in flocks. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B 273: 2521–2526.
    Rahel FJ and Stein RA (1988) Complex predator–prey interactions and predator intimidation among crayfish, piscivorous fish, and small benthic fish. Oecologia 75: 94–98.
    Robison BH (2003) What drives the diel vertical migrations of Antarctic midwater fish? Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 83: 639–642.
    Schradin C (2000) Confusion effect in a reptilian and a primate predator. Ethology 106: 691–700.
    Stamps J (1995) Motor learning and the value of familiar space. American Naturalist 146: 51–58.
    Templeton CN, Greene E and Davis K (2005) Allometry of alarm calls: Black-Capped Chickadees encode information about predator size. Science 308: 1934–1937.
    Tosh CR, Jackson AL and Ruxton GD (2006) The confusion effect in predatory neural networks. American Naturalist 167: E52–E65.
    Tosh CR and Ruxton GD (2006) Artificial neural network properties associated with wiring patterns in the visual projections of vertebrates and arthropods. American Naturalist 168: E38–E52.
    Turner GF and Pitcher TJ (1986) Attack abatement: a model for group protection by combined avoidance and dilution. American Naturalist 128: 228–240.
    Viscido SV and Wethey DS (2002) Quantitative analysis of fiddler crab flock movement: evidence for ‘selfish herd’ behaviour. Animal Behaviour 63: 735–741.
    Yanoviak SP, Kaspari M, Dudley R and Poinar G Jr (2008) Parasite induced fruit mimicry in a tropical canopy ant. American Naturalist 171: 536–544.
 Further Reading
    Abrams PA (2000) The evolution of predator–prey interactions: theory and evidence. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 31: 79–105.
    book Barbosa P and Castellanos I (2005) Ecology of Predator–Prey Interactions, pp. 394. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
    Benard MF (2004) Predator-induced phenotypic plasticity in organisms with complex life histories. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 35: 651–673.
    Bond AB (2007) The evolution of color polymorphism: crypticity, searching images, and apostatic selection. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 38: 489–514.
    book Caro TM (2005) Antipredator Defenses in Birds and Mammals, pp. 591. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    Dial KP, Greene E and Irschick DJ (2008) Allometry of behaviour. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23: 394–401.

Related Sub-Topics:

Herbivory, Predation and Parasitism | Behavioural Ecology
Contact Editor close
Submit a note to the editor about this article by filling in the form below.

* Required Field

Article Title: Predator Avoidance
 
How to Cite close
Abrahams, Mark V, Pink, Melissa, and Klassen, Cheryl(Mar 2009) Predator Avoidance. In: eLS. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester. http://www.els.net [doi: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0003660]