Negotiating a noisy, information-rich environment in search of cryptic prey: olfactory predators need patchiness in prey cues

Abstract

Summary1. Olfactory predator search processes differ fundamentally to those based on vision, particularly when odour cues are deposited rather than airborne or emanating from a point source. When searching for visually cryptic prey that may have moved some distance from a deposited odour cue, cue context and spatial variability are the most likely sources of information about prey location available to an olfactory predator. 2. We tested whether the house mouse (Mus domesticus), a model olfactory predator, would use cue context and spatial variability when searching for buried food items; specifically, we tested the effect of varying cue patchiness, odour strength, and cue-prey association on mouse foraging success. 3. Within mouse-and predator-proof enclosures, we created grids of 100 sand-filled Petri dishes and buried peanut pieces in a set number of these patches to represent visually cryptic 'prey'. By adding peanut oil to selected dishes, we varied the spatial distribution of prey odour relative to the distribution of prey patches in each grid, to reflect different levels of cue patchiness (Experiment 1), odour strength (Experiment 2) and cue-prey association (Experiment 3). We measured the overnight foraging success of individual mice (percentage of searched patches containing prey), as well as their foraging activity (percentage of patches searched), and prey survival (percentage of unsearched prey patches). 4. Mouse foraging success was highest where odour cues were patchy rather than uniform (Experiment 1), and where cues were tightly associated with prey location, rather than randomly or uniformly distributed (Experiment 3). However, when cues at prey patches were ten times stronger than a uniformly distributed weak background odour, mice did not improve their foraging success over that experienced when cues were of uniform strength and distribution (Experiment 2). 5. These results suggest that spatial variability and cue context are important means by which olfactory predators can use deposited odour cues to locate visually cryptic prey. They also indicate that chemical crypsis can disrupt these search processes as effectively as background matching in visually based predator-prey systems.

Dangerous liaisons: the predation risks of receiving social signals

“…The risks to receivers arising from the spatial and temporal persistence of signals may be exacerbated by signal predictability, especially if predators can form a search image for signals that are typically associated with successful predation (Carthey et al 2011). Nevertheless, prey frequently use signals that are predictable in time or space as they facilitate orientation within a home range and allow for the relative assessment of competitors (e.g.…”

“…Olfactorily searching predators require small-scale patchiness in prey cues to detect them from background odours (Carthey et al 2011), for example, while the visual complexity of the background impedes the detectability of prey by visual predators (Dimitrova & Merilaita 2012). Environmental conditions also affect the persistence and directionality of some signals and thus determine a predator's foraging success.…”

The dilemma of foraging herbivores: dealing with food and fear

“…Predation risk is often associated with indirect cues from the environment, including open habitat (Powell and Banks 2004) or moonlight , or for arboreal animals, being on the ground (Mella et al 2014); and with direct cues such as the scats and urine of predators (Apfelbach et al 2005). As these cues vary spatially and temporally (Carthey et al 2011;Hughes et al 2012;Price and Banks 2012), so does the landscape of fear (Laundre et al 2001;van der Merwe and Brown 2008). Animals will forage in safe areas if they can (Banks 2001;Verdolin 2006) but when they must forage in risky areas, they adopt many behaviours to manage their risk, including reduced time allocation, increased vigilance, central place foraging and group foraging (Lima and Dill 1990).…”

Modeling habituation of introduced predators to unrewarding bird odors for conservation of ground‐nesting shorebirds

“…Although our model suggests, based on several assumptions (Table ), that nest predation could be reduced by priming, it is possible that continuing the deployment of bird odor throughout the breeding season (i.e., “camouflage”; Carthey et al. , Price and Banks , ) may have added further protective effects.…”