Prey Defences and Predator Handling Behaviour: The Dangerous Prey Hypothesis

Forbes, L. Scott

doi:10.2307/3565418

Cited by 60 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 18 publications

(15 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Perhaps it is the risk of damage that explains why oystercatchers do not exclude small clams Donax serra from their diet, while kelp gulls Larus dominicanus, which open their prey by dropping them from a height of 6 to 10 m, take only large clams (Ward 1991). Many other studies have considered the role of predation costs and/or potential damage to the predator in determining its diet: energetic and time costs of foraging in harvester ants (Fewell 1988); tooth wear in wild reindeer (Skogland 1988); wear a.nd tear of mouthparts in stream animals feeding on epilithic algae (Arens 1990); tooth breakage among large predatory mammals (Van Valkenburgh 1988); prey selection by molluscivorous fishes (Stein et al 1984, Slootweg 1987; risk of injury ('the dangerous prey hypothesis') in birds feeding on spiny catfish (Forbes 1989); and, prey selection in 2 neotropical hover-gleaning bi.rds (Sherry & McDade 1982).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why do decapod crustaceans prefer small-sized molluscan prey?

Juanes¹

1992

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

180

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A survey of studies examining crab and lobster predation on hard-shelled molluscs indicated that most predators prefer small-sized prey when offered a range of sizes. I suggest that this pattern of preference for small-sized prey can be explained by considering the mechanical cost of predation. If predation costs are assumed to be non-renewable, then the probability of exhausting them can be included as an additional parameter in the classical diet breadth model. The importance of predation costs in determining prey size selection can be extended to other predators that use mechanical means to attack their prey.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why do decapod crustaceans prefer small-sized molluscan prey?

Juanes¹

1992

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

180

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several fish lineages have evolved spines that are formed from modified fin rays within one or more of their fins (dorsal, anal, pectoral or pelvic fin). Spines act as a defence against predators [17] by deterring predation attempts [18], reducing capture success or making it difficult for the predator to ingest the fish [19]. In wild fish populations, spine length increases with predator abundance [20,21] and predators have greater success eating individuals with shorter spines [22].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How predation shaped fish: the impact of fin spines on body form evolution across teleosts

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is well known that predators can induce morphological changes in some fish: individuals exposed to predation cues increase body depth and the length of spines. We hypothesize that these structures may evolve synergistically, as together, these traits will further enlarge the body dimensions of the fish that gape-limited predators must overcome. We therefore expect that the orientation of the spines will predict which body dimension increases in the presence of predators. Using phylogenetic comparative methods, we tested this prediction on the macroevolutionary scale across 347 teleost families, which display considerable variation in fin spines, body depth and width. Consistent with our predictions, we demonstrate that fin spines on the vertical plane (dorsal and anal fins) are associated with a deeper-bodied optimum. Lineages with spines on the horizontal plane ( pectoral fins) are associated with a wider-bodied optimum. Optimal body dimensions across lineages without spines paralleling the body dimension match the allometric expectation. Additionally, lineages with longer spines have deeper and wider body dimensions. This evolutionary relationship between fin spines and body dimensions across teleosts reveals functional synergy between these two traits and a potential macroevolutionary signature of predation on the evolutionary dynamics of body shape.

show abstract

“…Thus, small predators are expected to prefer relatively small prey because the time and/ or energy costs of handling and eating large prey are relatively great. Eating large prey may also involve greater risk of injury (Edmunds 1974, Forbes 1989, Shine and Webb 1993. In contrast, large predators are expected to prefer larger prey because the benefits of foraging for small prey are relatively meager (Griffiths 1980).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Body Size‐Prey Relationships in Insectivorous Marsupials: Tests of Three Hypotheses

Fisher¹,

Dickman²

1993

Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a strong positive correlation between the body sizes of dasyurid marsupials and the mean sizes of the invertebrate prey. This study tests three hypotheses proposed to explain this relationship, using 21 species of dasyurids (body mass range: 5–200 g) throughout continental Australia: (1) the maximum prey size that can be physically handled increases with dasyurid size due to the restricted gapes of forces of biting of smaller dasyurids; (2) the prey size that maximizes rate of energy intake varies with dasyurid size, with animals preferentially consuming the most profitable prey; and (3) prey sizes encountered during foraging vary with dasyurid size. Field observations of dasyurids were made at 20 study areas between January 1980 and February 1991. Most dasyurids were live—trapped, weighed, and sexed before being released at the trap site. We then tracked each animal and sampled potential prey in their foraging microhabitats. Dasyurids diets were examined using scats analysis. We measured rate of energy intake for captive dasyurids by offering different—sized cockroaches, measuring processing times, and calculating the energy content of cockroaches used. The first hypothesis was rejected. Both large and small dasyurids could grasp and pierce the largest prey offered in the laboratory, which were similar in size to the largest prey potentially available in the field. The second and third hypotheses were supported. Individuals of the smaller species maximized rates of energy gain in captivity by feeding preferentially on small prey, and their foraging trails in the field traversed microhabitats where mean potential prey size encountered was small (2–4 mm long). In contrast, larger dasyurids preferred large prey, obtained a greater rate of energy gain from them, and foraged in microhabitats where prey lengths averaged @>6 mm. There was a tendency for larger dasyurids to include progressively larger prey in their diets than were available, on average, along their foraging trails. This may reflect increasing selectivity for larger prey. However, it may also reflect a reduced susceptibility to predation on increased competitive ability for large dasyurids in productive microhabitats, and hence reflect a size—based advantage in encountering large prey. These results indicate that net energy yield and the use of microhabitats with different prey sizes are the most important determinants of the body size—prey size relationship in dasyurid marsupials.

show abstract

Prey Defences and Predator Handling Behaviour: The Dangerous Prey Hypothesis

Cited by 60 publications

References 18 publications

Why do decapod crustaceans prefer small-sized molluscan prey?

Why do decapod crustaceans prefer small-sized molluscan prey?

How predation shaped fish: the impact of fin spines on body form evolution across teleosts

Body Size‐Prey Relationships in Insectivorous Marsupials: Tests of Three Hypotheses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About