Behavioral Ecology Advance Access originally published online on July 13, 2005
Behavioral Ecology 2005 16(5):945-956; doi:10.1093/beheco/ari075
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Review |
Determining the fitness consequences of antipredation behavior
School of Biology, Bute Building, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Fife, KY16 9TS, UK
Address correspondence to J. Lind. E-mail: johan.lind{at}st-and.ac.uk.
Any animal whose form or behavior facilitates the avoidance of predators or escape when attacked by predators will have a greater probability of surviving to breed and therefore greater probability of producing offspring (i.e., fitness). Although in theory the fitness consequences of any antipredation behavior can simply be measured by the resultant probability of survival or death, determining the functional significance of antipredation behavior presents a surprising problem. In this review we draw attention to the problem that fitness consequences of antipredation behaviors cannot be determined without considering the potential for reduction of predation risk, or increased reproductive output, through other compensatory behaviors than the behaviors under study. We believe we have reached the limits of what we can ever understand about the ecological effects of antipredation behavior from empirical studies that simply correlate a single behavior with an apparent fitness consequence. Future empirical studies must involve many behaviors to consider the range of potential compensation to predation risk. This is because antipredation behaviors are a composite of many behaviors that an animal can adjust to accomplish its ends. We show that observed variation in antipredation behavior does not have to reflect fitness and we demonstrate that few studies can draw unambiguous conclusions about the fitness consequences of antipredation behavior. Lastly, we provide suggestions of how future research should best be targeted so that, even in the absence of death rates or changes in reproductive output, reasonable inferences of the fitness consequences of antipredation behaviors can be made.
Key words: antipredation behaviors, fitness, predation risk compensation, predator-prey interaction.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  A. Sansom, J. Lind, and W. Cresswell Individual behavior and survival: the roles of predator avoidance, foraging success, and vigilance Behav. Ecol., November 1, 2009; 20(6): 1168 - 1174. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G. Beauchamp Group-foraging is not associated with longevity in North American birds Biol Lett, September 23, 2009; (2009) rsbl.2009.0691v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. B. V. Bell, A. N. Radford, R. Rose, H. M. Wade, and A. R. Ridley The value of constant surveillance in a risky environment Proc R Soc B, August 22, 2009; 276(1669): 2997 - 3005. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. R Martin and T. Piersma Vision and touch in relation to foraging and predator detection: insightful contrasts between a plover and a sandpiper Proc R Soc B, February 7, 2009; 276(1656): 437 - 445. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. I. Peluc, T. S. Sillett, J. T. Rotenberry, and C. K. Ghalambor Adaptive phenotypic plasticity in an island songbird exposed to a novel predation risk Behav. Ecol., July 1, 2008; 19(4): 830 - 835. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C.A. Binckley and W.J. Resetarits Jr Oviposition behavior partitions aquatic landscapes along predation and nutrient gradients Behav. Ecol., February 7, 2008; (2008) arm164v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Stankowich and R. G. Coss Effects of risk assessment, predator behavior, and habitat on escape behavior in Columbian black-tailed deer Behav. Ecol., March 1, 2007; 18(2): 358 - 367. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. C. Ajie, L. M. Pintor, J. Watters, J. L. Kerby, J. I. Hammond, and A. Sih A framework for determining the fitness consequences of antipredator behavior Behav. Ecol., January 1, 2007; 18(1): 267 - 270. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Hawlena, R. Boochnik, Z. Abramsky, and A. Bouskila Blue tail and striped body: why do lizards change their infant costume when growing up? Behav. Ecol., November 1, 2006; 17(6): 889 - 896. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Reader, A. D. Higginson, C. J. Barnard, F. S. Gilbert, and The Behavioural Ecology Field Course The effects of predation risk from crab spiders on bee foraging behavior Behav. Ecol., November 1, 2006; 17(6): 933 - 939. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|