Running away or running to? Do prey make decisions solely based on the landscape of fear or do they also include stimuli from a landscape of safety?

Abstract

Predator prey interactions are a key part of ecosystem function, and non-consumptive effects fall under the landscape of fear theory. Under the landscape of fear, the antipredator responses of prey are based on the spatial and temporal distribution of predatory cues in the environment. However, the aversive stimuli (fear) are not the only stimuli prey can utilize when making behavioral decisions. Prey might also be using attractive stimuli that represent safety to guide decision making. Using a novel, orthogonal design, we were able to spatially separate aversive and attractive stimuli to determine if prey are utilizing safety cues to navigate their environment. Crayfish Faxonius rusticus were placed in the center of a behavioral arena. Aversive stimuli of either predatory bass Micropterus salmoides cues or conspecific alarm cues increased along the x-axis of the behavioral arena. Safety cues (shelters) increased along the y-axis by decreasing the number of shelter openings in this direction. Crayfish were allowed two phases to explore the arena: one without the fearful stimuli and one with the stimuli. Linear mixed models were conducted to determine if movement behaviors and habitat utilization were affected by the phase of the trial and the type of aversive stimuli. Crayfish responded more strongly to alarm cues than fear cues, with only alarm cues significantly impacting habitat utilization. When responding to alarm cues, crayfish used safety cues as well as fear cues to relocate themselves within the arena. Based on these results, we argue that crayfish are utilizing a landscape of safety in conjunction with a landscape of fear when navigating their environment.

Effects of chemical cues and prior experience on predator avoidance in crayfish

“…The P + A group juveniles spent the least time in the inlet zone, significantly differing from control. Our results agree with those of previous studies, confirming that, in a threatening sensory landscape, prey will avoid risky areas (landscape of fear) and move towards safer places (landscape of safety; Gaynor et al, 2019 ; MacKay et al, 2021 ). The control juveniles showed a similar pattern, even in the lack of threat, perhaps initially attracted by feed and, when satiated, the shelter was the primary attractant as a basic crayfish resource to protect them from predation and cannibalism (Holdich, 2002 ; Kubec et al, 2019 ).…”

“…Previous studies have shown decreased foraging (Gherardi et al, 2011 ) and increased shelter seeking (Beattie & Moore, 2018 ; Gherardi et al, 2011 ; MacKay et al, 2021 ) in crayfish exposed to cues associated with the predator and/or active predation of conspecifics. Our results showed crayfish juveniles to forage less and be more likely to remain in the shelter zone in the presence of both predator and alarm cues than when exposed to predator cues only and control treatment.…”

Sensory integration of danger and safety cues may explain the fear of a quiet coyote

“…Physiological constraints dictate that coyotes must urinate within their home range-regardless of their motivational state-whereas calls offer specific information about predator intent because stalking predators rarely vocalize when hunting [51,98]. Thus, coyote calls could represent safety-rather than danger-cues to ground squirrels, contributing to the growing literature suggesting that prey optimize decisions by avoiding danger and seeking safety [99]. It is also possible that squirrels discounted the danger of calls because they could not see nearby coyotes.…”

Fear changes traits and increases survival: a meta‐analysis evaluating the efficacy of antipredator training in captive‐rearing programs

“…Variation in these factors and cue levels might influence survival more than, or interact with or even override, the threat of predation. Food (Matassa et al 2016) and shelter availability (MacKay et al 2021), for example, may lead to prey traits that appeared in lab studies not developing in the wild or having little impact on organism fitness. Success may also depend on factors such as the evolutionary relationship between predator and prey (Griffin et al 2000).…”