Seasonal variations in bird selection pressure on prey colouration

Zvereva, Elena L.; Kozlov, Mikhail V.

doi:10.1007/s00442-021-04994-9

Cited by 8 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…By contrast, in mid-summer, the live prey are attacked only twice more frequently than plasticine models. This result is in line with earlier findings on seasonal changes in bird preference for differently colored plasticine models: birds clearly avoided models with warning coloration in the early summer but not in mid-summer (Mappes et al, 2014;Zvereva & Kozlov, 2021). These changes were explained by the naïvety of juvenile birds (which fledge and start feeding independently in mid-summer: Mappes et al, 2014) with respect to different prey items.…”

Section: Bird Predationsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…This controversy may be partly explained by the considerable changes that occur in predation during the breeding season (Remmel et al, 2009; Zvereva & Kozlov, 2021). The abundance of foraging birds changes through the season due to fledging of young birds, so do the responses of the bird community to prey characteristics, and particularly coloration, due to changes in the proportions of juvenile birds relative to adult birds (Mappes et al, 2014; Zvereva & Kozlov, 2021). Ant predatory activity and diet preferences also change during the season (Domisch et al, 2009; Drozdová et al, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Predation risk estimated on live and artificial insect prey follows different patterns

Zvereva

Kozlov

2023

Ecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Models mimicking prey organisms are increasingly used in ecological studies, including testing fundamental ecological and evolutionary theories. The general consensus is that predation risk estimated on artificial models may not quantitatively correspond to predation pressure on live prey, but it still can be used in various comparisons. We tested whether the use of live and artificial prey reveals the same patterns of variation in predation risk. We exposed live prey (blowfly larvae and puparia) and plasticine models of blowfly puparia in two boreal forest sites, both openly and in ant‐ and bird‐exclusion treatments, and we quantified attacks by both avian and invertebrate predators. Bird attack rates were always higher on live puparia than on their plasticine models, but the magnitude of this difference declined from 8.4‐fold in early summer to 2‐fold in mid‐ and late‐summer. We attribute these changes to different responses to prey by experienced adult birds that dominate the bird communities in early summer versus explorative juvenile birds that are abundant later in the season. Invertebrate daily predation rates on maggots decreased from 56% in early summer to 28% in late summer, but invertebrate attacks on plasticine models showed no seasonal changes. Overall, invertebrate predation on maggots was 67‐fold greater than their predation on models. Observations showed that wood ants did not attack plasticine models and did not leave on them any damage marks. Estimates based on artificial prey indicate a much greater role of bird predation than invertebrate predation, while estimates based on live prey suggest the opposite pattern. Thus, using live and artificial prey may lead to different conclusions about relative importance of different predator groups in a locality. Moreover, for both avian and invertebrate predators, predation risk based on artificial and live prey shows different seasonal changes and may potentially demonstrate different spatial patterns.

show abstract

Section: Bird Predationsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predation risk estimated on live and artificial insect prey follows different patterns

Zvereva

Kozlov

2023

Ecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our characterization of green plasticine models as cryptic and red plasticine models as conspicuous from the viewpoint of insectivorous birds is supported by previous work (e.g. [22,26]). Further, human vision detects most of the relevant variation in colour within the visible range and is a valid proxy for avian colour perception [27,28].…”

Section: (B) Field Methodssupporting

confidence: 83%

Selfish herd effects depend on prey crypsis

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Determining why some animals form groups while others remain solitary is a longstanding goal in behavioural ecology. Group formation can help mitigate predation risk through various mechanisms, including risk dilution and group vigilance. The selfish herd hypothesis proposes that prey can reduce their risk by minimizing the area around which all points in that area are closer to them than to another conspecific (i.e. by minimizing their ‘domain of danger’ (DOD)). This hypothesis assumes that an individual's predation risk is proportional to the size of its DOD; however, the relationship between risk and proximity to conspecifics may depend on additional factors. Specifically, approaching conspecifics may be costly for prey that rely on crypsis because group formation increases detectability. Using plasticine model prey, we experimentally manipulated prey coloration as well as the DOD, and then tracked their ‘survival’ under natural field conditions. We found that an individual's predation risk increased with their DOD for conspicuous (red) prey, but decreased with the DOD in cryptic (green) prey. Our results are consistent with patterns in natural systems and indicate that the relationship between predation risk and DOD depends on additional factors like prey coloration.

show abstract

“…Experiments using plasticine caterpillars are aided by the establishment of comprehensive image databases showing the imprints of predator attacks, to identify the predators at coarse (e.g., arthropod, bird, mammal, or reptile) and more detailed taxonomic levels (e.g., ant, beetle, rat, possum, gecko, or snake) (Low et al, 2014). Manipulative studies using plasticine caterpillars are widely employed to improve our understanding of complex predator–prey relationships (Remmel & Tammaru, 2009; Tvardikova & Novotny, 2012; Volf et al, 2021) and to investigate predation pressure among habitats and across time (Howe et al, 2009; Mappes et al, 2014; Seifert et al, 2016; Ferrante et al, 2017; Roslin et al, 2017; Liu et al, 2020; Zvereva & Kozlov, 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is known that ants utilize chemical cues released from real caterpillars (Vet & Dicke, 1992; Sam et al, 2015), and some parasitoids use chemical signals of prey excrements (Agelopoulos et al, 1995) and herbivore‐induced plant volatiles (Lövei & Ferrante, 2017; Volf et al, 2021). Studies utilizing plasticine caterpillars, nevertheless, assume that predation bias was equal for predators utilizing visual, tactile, behavioral, or olfactory cues among habitats and across time (Howe et al, 2009; Ferrante et al, 2014; Mappes et al, 2014; Zvereva & Kozlov, 2021), without systematically scrutinizing this assumption (but see Tvardikova & Novotny, 2012; Suzuki & Sakurai, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating predation pressure in ecological studies: controlling bias imposed by using sentinel plasticine prey

Nimalrathna

Solina

Mon

et al. 2022

Entomologia Exp Applicata

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sentinel plasticine prey has been increasingly used to estimate predation pressure. The use of plasticine prey may, however, bias the results, as this method was originally designed to account for predation by organisms that can visually recognize the shapes and colors of their prey. To evaluate the limitations of using sentinel plasticine prey, we compared predator attack rates between real prey – dead and live mealworms, Tenebrio molitor L. (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) – and plasticine models in a monsoonal tropical rainforest of southeastern China. The attack rates by invertebrates were highest on dead prey followed by live prey and plasticine models, whereas the attack rates by vertebrates were lowest on dead prey, and did not differ between live prey and plasticine models. These results confirm that bias imposed by using the plasticine models is affected by the type of predators. In addition, we tested the validity and generality of the premise that predators can distinguish the shapes of plasticine model prey and preferentially attack a caterpillar‐like shape over other shapes. To test this hypothesis, we conducted three independent experiments in China, Papua New Guinea, and Finland. In the two latter localities, predation rates on plasticine caterpillars were higher than on models of other shapes, whereas in China, these differences were not significant. Taken together, our study suggests that plasticine models may underestimate the predation by invertebrates to a greater extent than predation by vertebrates, and the preference of model shape by predators may be locality‐specific, presumably due to differences in the composition of the predator community. We propose that predation be estimated on both live and plasticine prey in future studies to measure the potential bias imposed by using plasticine models and its variation among various habitats and predator groups.

show abstract

Seasonal variations in bird selection pressure on prey colouration

Cited by 8 publications

References 49 publications

Predation risk estimated on live and artificial insect prey follows different patterns

Predation risk estimated on live and artificial insect prey follows different patterns

Selfish herd effects depend on prey crypsis

Estimating predation pressure in ecological studies: controlling bias imposed by using sentinel plasticine prey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About