Are behavioural responses to predation cues linked across life cycle stages?

Abstract

1. Prey organisms can perceive cues to predation hazard and adopt low‐risk behaviours to increase survival. Animals with complex life cycles, such as insects, can exhibit such anti‐predatory behaviours in multiple life stages.2. Cues to predation risk may induce ovipositing females to choose habitats with low predation risk. Cues to predation risk may also induce larvae to adopt facultative behaviours that reduce risk of predation.3. One hypothesis postulates that anti‐predation behaviours across adult and larval stages may be negatively associated because selection for effective anti‐predator behaviour in one stage leads to reduced selection for avoidance of predators in other stages. An alternative hypothesis suggests that selection by predation favours multi‐component defences, with both avoidance of oviposition and facultative adoption of low‐risk behaviours by larvae.4. Laboratory and field experiments were used to determine whether defensive responses of adult and larval mosquitoes are positively or negatively associated. The study tested effects of waterborne cues from predatory Toxorhynchites theobaldi on oviposition choices and larval behaviours of three of its common prey: Culex mollis, Limatus durhamii and Aedes albopictus.5. Culex mollis shows strong anti‐predator responses in both life stages, consistent with the hypothesis of a multi‐component behavioural defence. The other two species showed no detectable responses to waterborne predator cues in either adult or larval stages. Larvae of these unresponsive species were significantly more vulnerable to this predator than was C. mollis.6. For these mosquitoes, species appear either to have been selected for multi‐component defences against predation or to act in ways that could be called predator‐naïve.

Prey colonization in freshwater landscapes can be stimulated or inhibited by the proximity of remote predators

“…It was selected as the model predator for this experiment due to their observed behaviour as voracious generalist predators (Campos & Lounibos, 2000). Furthermore, prey behavioural responses to chemical cues produced by Toxorhynchites have been documented (Andrade, Albeny-Simões, Breaux, Juliano, & Lima, 2017;Kesavaraju, Damal, & Juliano, 2007;Zuharah, Fadzly, Yusof, Dieng, & Ni, 2015), indicating the existence of molecular mechanisms needed for its detection and subsequent avoidance.…”

Inside‐container effects drive mosquito community structure in Brazilian Atlantic forest

“…It is intuitive that higher predator abundances on the island (ICE), especially on sampling day 45, could have contributed to the reduced abundance of Culex larvae, even though predator abundance did not significantly affect prey abundance. However, OCE may also play a role, as Culex females are known to strongly avoid ovipositing in containers holding predators (Andrade et al, ). Toxorhynchites larvae were the main predators in our system.…”

“…Conversely, Culex may benefit from the presence of Aedes and Limatus . For example, Aedes is a late container colonizer (Murrell & Juliano, ) and although it is a better resource competitor (Costanzo et al, ), mosquitoes from this genus are preferentially eaten by Toxorhynchites (Andrade et al, ). Preferential feeding on Aedes larvae by Toxorhynchites would then release Culex from predation pressure and interspecific competition, leading to persistence in containers despite predator presence.…”

A wolf in sheep's clothing: Predatory fish have convergent consumptive effects but divergent predation‐risk effects

“…Conversely, if terrestrial adults do not avoid aquatic habitats with predators, then their larvae are expected to evolve behavioral or morphological traits to improve survival (Kats et al, 1988). However, recent work has shown that responses across life stages may be positively correlated and prey may utilize multicomponent anti‐predator defenses (Andrade et al, 2017; Vonesh, 2005).…”