Fine-scale behavioural adjustments of prey on a continuum of risk

Abstract

In the wild, prey species often live in the vicinity of predators, rendering the ability to assess risk on a moment-to-moment basis crucial to survival. Visual cues are important as they allow prey to assess predator species, size, proximity and behaviour. However, few studies have explicitly examined prey's ability to assess risk based on predator behaviour and orientation. Using mosquitofish, Gambusia holbrooki , and their predator, jade perch, Scortum barcoo , under controlled conditions, we provide some of the first fine-scale characterization of how prey adapt their behaviour according to their continuous assessment of risk based on both predator behaviour and angular distance to the predator's mouth. When these predators were inactive and posed less of an immediate threat, prey within the attack cone of the predator showed reductions in speed and acceleration characteristic of predator-inspection behaviour. However, when predators became active, prey swam faster with greater acceleration and were closer together within the attack cone of predators. Most importantly, this study provides evidence that prey do not adopt a uniform response to the presence of a predator. Instead, we demonstrate that prey are capable of rapidly and dynamically updating their assessment of risk and showing fine-scale adjustments to their behaviour.

Simulating more realistic predation threat using attack playbacks

“…While prey species may recognize a predator based on images, they may not necessarily perceive them as threatening (Belin et al., 2018). Even for a moving visual, prey may only perceive the display as a threat if they include certain angles (Kent et al, 2019), postures (Etting & Isbell, 2014) or behaviours (Su & Lim, 2017) of the predator. Video playbacks have been used as predator cues in the past (Rowland, 1999; Carlile, Peters & Evans, 2006; Butler, Magrath & Peters, 2017).…”

“…Prey may use multiple cues to detect a predator (Gonzálvez & Rodríguez-Gironés, 2013) or multiple cues may have a different effect than a single cue (Hartman & Abrahams, 2000; Hickman, Stone & Mathis, 2004; Martin et al, 2010; Ward & Mehner, 2010). Further, prey may use specific features of the predator’s behaviour or orientation to assess the immediate risk and fine-tune their behaviour (Kent et al, 2019). Most importantly, live predators and prey will naturally interact, an element inherently lacking in the use of proxies.…”

Effects of Fish Predators on the Mass-Related Energetics of a Keystone Freshwater Crustacean

“…However, the effect of time exposure can be complex, as shown by [35]. In addition, various kinds of prey responses depend on the magnitude of the predation threat [183][184][185], which may also apply specifically to metabolic responses.…”

Peer Review #2 of "Simulating more realistic predation threat using attack playbacks (v0.2)"

“…While prey species may recognize a predator based on images, they may not necessarily perceive them as threatening (Belin et al, 2018). Even for a moving visual, prey may only perceive the display as a threat if they include certain angles (Kent et al, 2019), postures (Etting & Isbell, 2014 or behaviours (Su & Lim, 2017) of the predator. Video playbacks have been used as predator cues in the past (Rowland, 1999;Carlile, Peters & Evans, 2006;Butler, Magrath & Peters, 2017).…”

“…Prey may use multiple cues to detect a predator (Gonzálvez and Rodríguez-Gironés, 2013) or multiple cues may have a different effect than a single cue (Hartman & Abrahams, 2000;Hickman et al, 2004;Martin et al, 2010;Ward & Mehner 2010). Further, prey may use specific features of the predator's behaviour or orientation to assess the immediate risk and fine-tune their behaviour (Kent et al, 2019). Most importantly, live predators and prey will naturally interact, an element inherently lacking in the use of proxies.…”