2017
DOI: 10.1007/s10211-017-0259-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of size, caudal autotomy, and predator kairomones on the foraging behavior of Allegheny Mountain dusky salamanders (Desmognathus ochrophaeus)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 61 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Forfeiture of the tail can also negatively affect future foraging, as autotomized salamanders have been found to have a significantly greater latency to strike at prey and to make fewer predatory strikes than intact salamanders (Gildemeister et al 2017). The Chinese skink Eumeces chinensis, as an example, also seems to experience reduced sprint speed following experimental tail removal (Lin et al 2006).…”
Section: Which Taxa Deflect Their Predators' Attacks and By What Mechmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Forfeiture of the tail can also negatively affect future foraging, as autotomized salamanders have been found to have a significantly greater latency to strike at prey and to make fewer predatory strikes than intact salamanders (Gildemeister et al 2017). The Chinese skink Eumeces chinensis, as an example, also seems to experience reduced sprint speed following experimental tail removal (Lin et al 2006).…”
Section: Which Taxa Deflect Their Predators' Attacks and By What Mechmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They can also assess the amount of time organisms will spend in the vicinity of a predator before fleeing, and be expanded to help understand the negative outcomes of autotomy on foraging [57]. According to these models, organisms that have recently undergone autotomy are more likely to seek refuge and forgo foraging opportunities compared to non-injured conspecifics [57][58][59], reducing overall pressure on prey populations and further supporting the trends described by Barrios et al [54] in the sea star H. helianthus.…”
Section: (D) Foraging Successmentioning
confidence: 71%
“…Individuals may use predator-avoidance mechanisms to avoid the foraging areas of predators and anti-predator mechanisms to reduce the probability of predation when they are within the perceptual fields of predators (Brodie et al 1991). Predatoravoidance mechanisms include behavioral responses to predators such as hiding in refuges, altering foraging, and changing activity level or period (e.g., Smith 1979;Watson et al 2004;Epp and Gabor 2008;Gildemeister et al 2017). Anti-predator mechanisms include morphological traits (e.g., spines and shells), behavioral responses to predators (e.g., alterations in posture, immobility, biting, and fleeing), and physiological responses to predators (e.g., autotomy of an appendage and secretion of distasteful chemicals) that increase the probability of surviving an attack (e.g., Brodie 1977;Ducey and Brodie 1983;Dowdey and Brodie 1989).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similarly, individuals that detect alarm chemicals released from injured individuals may increase refuge use or avoid areas with such chemicals (e.g., Lutterschmidt et al 1994;Marvin and Hutchison 1995;Chivers and Smith 1998). Individuals that detect predator cues may also decrease activity (e.g., Smith 1979;Mathis et al 2003;Epp and Gabor 2008) and alter foraging and mating behavior to reduce exposure to predators (Whitham and Mathis 2000;Sullivan et al 2002;Watson et al 2004;Johnson and Sullivan 2014;Fonner and Woodley 2015;Gildemeister et al 2017). In addition to adaptive behavioral responses to predation stress, acute physiological responses may enhance some anti-predator mechanisms.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%