A conceptual framework for understanding behavioral responses to HIREC

Abstract

Although animals vary substantially in their behavioral responses to human-induced rapid environmental change (HIREC), we are only beginning to develop theory to explain this variation. Signal detection theory predicts variation in responses to novel dangerous organisms (exotic predators or toxic prey) or exotic organisms that are safe but might appear dangerous (e.g., ecotourists). Models of dispersal and habitat use explain variation in ability to cope with habitat change (loss, fragmentation). Many models assume that organisms use one main cue axis to evaluate options. New models are needed to account for the use of multiple cues. A general framework that treats genes as cues that set a 'prior' that can be updated by experiences predicts genetic versus plastic responses to HIREC.

Largemouth bass use prior experience, but not information from experienced conspecifics, to avoid capture by anglers

“…This need to acquire and process information is also important in environments altered by human activities, including the destruction of habitat, hunting and fishing, pollution, or the introduction of non-native species (Sih, 2013). These rapidly changing environments present situations in which individuals must learn to alter their behaviour to avoid novel threats and take advantage of novel resources (Sih, Trimmer, & Ehlman, 2016;Wong & Candolin, 2015). During this process of adjusting their behaviour, individuals must also learn to identify novel cues that indicate danger, such as visual or olfactory cues given off by novel predators, and avoid responding to these cues in an inappropriate way (Bouwman & Hawley, 2010;Chitwood, Lashley, Moorman, & DePerno, 2017)).…”

Rapid environmental change in games: complications and curiosities

“…We have also shown that to calculate the immediate effects of a change in a game-theoretic situation, additional assumptions will typically need to be introduced (on top of the assumptions of the original model and those of the environmental change), to know the degree of adaptive plasticity in the evolved organism. This contrasts with recent work on HIREC scenarios that do not involve game theory, which have used existing optimality models to set behavioral parameters before identifying how the system would respond following an environmental change (e.g., [6, 15], with the general approach specified in [8]).…”

“…Based on the evolutionary trap literature, a hypothesis is that how organisms will behave following HIREC depends on cue-response systems that they evolved in their ancestral settings [8]. Models that predict responses to an aspect of HIREC first specify the general mechanism by which cues govern behavior (and typically set parameters of that system as though they have been fine-tuned by natural selection).…”

“…This approach then posits that immediately after HIREC, organisms use their previously adaptive cue-response systems to respond to the novel situation (e.g., [6]). This approach can then identify how evolutionary match versus mismatch between the past conditions that shaped a cue-response system and the novel conditions after HIREC explains variation in performance after HIREC [7, 8, 6]. A perhaps obvious, implicit assumption is that if the organism’s previously adaptive cue-response system produces adaptive responses to HIREC, it will enjoy higher fitness than if it exhibits a fixed strategy (no adjustment to HIREC) or a less-than optimal plastic response to HIREC.…”

The influence of potential stressors on oviposition site selection and subsequent growth, survival and emergence of the non‐biting midge (Chironomus tepperi)

“…Research has focused more on documenting ecological traps than on understanding the sensory or cognitive mechanisms underpinning them (Robertson & Chalfoun, 2016). Information about habitat selection behavior will help understand why some animals respond maladaptively to HIREC (Sih, Trimmer, & Ehlman, 2016). Species with poorer knowledge of the environment (Battin, 2004), such as being less responsive to environmental cues, or less choosy between habitats (Hale, Coleman, Sievers, Brown, & Swearer, 2018), are more likely to behave suboptimally.…”