Predator-induced nest site preference: safe nests allow courtship in sticklebacks

Abstract

Reproductive activities often increase the susceptibility of individuals to predators. Individuals may be able to reduce this risk of predation, however, by their choice of breeding habitat, as the structural complexity of habitats is known to affect predator foraging success. Here we show that the presence of predators induces a preference for structurally complex nest sites over open ones in male three-spined sticklebacks, Gasterosteus aculeatus. To investigate whether this predator-induced nest site preference can decrease the known negative effect of predators on courtship activity, we recorded the reduction in courtship activity during predator presentations for males in vegetated and open nest sites. Habitat structure affected the response to a predator when males were in competition. A male in a vegetated site reduced courtship activity less than a male in an open site. Habitat had no effect on courtship when males were solitary, however. This suggests that male-male competition and the possibility of losing mating opportunities to other males affect risk taking. Females, who were unaware of the predator, preferred the male in the vegetated site, which showed less reduction in courtship, when the males were exposed to a predator, but chose randomly between the males when the predator was absent. Thus, a preference for vegetated nest sites under predation risk may be beneficial not only by increasing the probability of survival, but also by reducing the negative impact of predators on courtship activity and mating probability.

How Predation Risk Affects the Temporal Dynamics of Avian Leks: Greater Sage Grouse versus Golden Eagles

“…It will be important to assess the generality of our conclusions in other lek systems, particularly ones that are more amenable to experimental analysis. Although our analysis has been limited to male behavior, multiple components of male and female courtship behavior may be sensitive to predation risk (Candolin 1997 and references therein;Candolin and Voight 1998;Warner and Dill 2000). Further analysis from this perspective has the potential to substantially enrich our understanding of lek dynamics.…”

Correlation between male size and territory quality: consequence of male competition or predation susceptibility?

“…Largc males that maintain large, open territories under intense male competition and high predation pressure may be of high genetic and/or phenotypic quality. Moreover, it is possible that only males of high phenotypic quality court f'emales in predator exposed arcas as habitat complcxity is known to inlluence courtship activity under the risk of predation (Candolin and Voigt 1998). Thus, costs of establishing and maintaining a territory could ensure that the best males occupy the best territories, as proposed by the handicap theory (Zahavi 1975).…”

“…Especially male compctition influences red colour expression by increasing the diff-erence among males in colour expression and by increasrng the honesty of the colour as a signal of male parental ability (Candolin 2000). It is possible that male competition and predation exposure also influcnce territory characte ristics (Rowland 1994, Whoriskcy and FitzGerald 1994, Candolin and Voigt 1998. Male competition and predation risk could thcn influence matrng succcss by influencing both malc traits and territory characteristics.…”

Detection of predator cues alters mating tactics in male wolf spiders

“…Across diverse taxa, this cost of predation (i.e., from eavesdropping) appears to have selected for males that can assess the presence or proximity of predators using a variety of environmental cues across (Lima & Dill, 1990), and subsequently alter their signaling behaviors in such a way that decreases their probability of detection (reviewed across taxa in Burk, 1982;Lima & Dill, 1990;Magnhagen, 1991;Reynolds, 1993;Sih, 1994). For example, upon detection of predators or perceived risk, males have been shown to alter various aspects of their courtship including: courtship intensity (Farr, 1975;Tuttle & Ryan, 1982;Luyten & Liley, 1985;Magurran & Seghers, 1990;Forsgren & Magnhagen, 1993;Reynolds et al, 1993;Candolin, 1997;Candolin & Voigt, 1998;Koga et al, 1998), courtship location (Tuttle & Ryan, 1982;Candolin & Voigt, 1998;Krupa & Sih, 1998), and signal characteristics (Tuttle & Ryan, 1982;Ryan, 1985;Hedrick, 2000). In some spiders, predatory attacks are often directed towards more conspicuous and courting males (Pruden & Uetz, 2004;Roberts et al, 2007;Hoefler et al, 2008;Fowler-Finn & Hebets, 2011a); however, more conspicuous males are known to wait longer to initiate courtship, thus decreasing their predation risk (Fowler-Finn & Hebets, 2011b).While these alterations in courtship behavior reduce predator-associated costs, males employing them often suffer a reduction in reproductive benefits due to lower mating success (Magnhagen, 1991).…”