Red kangaroos ( Macropus rufus ) receive an antipredator benefit from aggregation

Abstract

For species that cannot seek cover to escape predators, aggregation becomes an important strategy to reduce predation risk. However, aggregation may not be entirely beneficial because aggregated animals may compete for access to limited resources and might even attract predators. Available evidence suggests that foraging competition influences time allocation in large-bodied macropodid marsupials, but previous studies have focused primarily on species in areas with protective cover. We studied red kangaroos, a species often found in open country without noticeable cover, to determine whether they experienced a net benefit by aggregation. Red kangaroos varied their time allocation as a function of group size and, importantly, more variation in time allocation to vigilance and foraging was explained by non-linear models than by linear models. This suggests red kangaroos directly translated the reduction of predation risk brought about by aggregation into greater time foraging and less time engaged in vigilance. We infer that red kangaroos received a net benefit by aggregation. Social species living in the open may be generally expected to rely on others to help manage predation risk.Keywords Antipredator behavior · Benefits and costs of sociality · Group-size effects · Red kangaroo Communicated by K. Kotrschal

Animal personality: what are behavioural ecologists measuring?

“…A further important consideration is that a test for one species/taxon is not necessarily appropriate as a test for another (Weiss & Adams, 2013). For example, while some animals may perceive a greater risk of predation in an open as opposed to a closed habitat (Blumstein & Daniel, 2003), the same may not be true for species that are predated primarily in closed habitats (Whittingham et al, 2004). Although comparability between studies is desirable, if a test is to be adapted to a new system, every effort should be made to make the test as ecologically relevant as possible.…”

Evidence of effects of human disturbance on alert response in Père David's deer (Elaphurus davidianus)

“…Group living in animals is believed to confer advantages related to a decrease in predation risk [Krebs and Davies, 1993]. An interesting viewpoint is that group vigilance can increase eyes or ears of each individual, so that they can detect predators easily [Kenward, 1978;Blumstein and Daniel, 2003]. Pe`re David's deer usually live in groups [Wemmer, 1983;Jiang et al, 2000].…”

Persistence and space preemption explain species‐specific founder effects on the organization of marine sessile communities

“…Attraction through chemical cues may constitute an efficient way to promote aggregation in suitable habitats (Pawlik, 1992;Robinson, Larsen, & Kerr, 2011;Silva-Filho, Bailez, & Viana-Bailez, 2012), indirectly increasing the strength of densitydependent regulation mechanisms of founder populations. Positive density-dependent interactions include the mitigation of abiotic stress in crowding intertidal invertebrates (Jurgens & Gaylord, 2016;Minchinton, 1997), caterpillars (Klok & Chown, 1999), and plants (Vogt et al, 2014); enhanced reproduction, such as fruit dispersal in plants (Blendinger, Loiselle, & Blake, 2008) and fertilization in marine invertebrates (Kent, Hawkins, & Doncaster, 2003;Levitan, Sewell, & Chia, 1992) and terrestrial woodlice (Broly, Deneubourg, & Devigne, 2013); and diminishing of predation risk in invertebrates (Denno & Benrey, 1997;Turchin & Kareiva, 1989) and vertebrates (Blumstein & Daniel, 2003;Carrascal, Alonso, & Alonso, 1990). Negative interactions usually lie in some sort of intraspecific competition, which may reach unsustainable levels under conditions of very high-population density (Branch, 1975;Chisholm & Muller-Landau, 2011;Gerla & Mooij, 2014;Hart & Marshall, 2009;Robins & Reid, 1997).…”