Skip Navigation


Behavioral Ecology Advance Access originally published online on October 12, 2006
Behavioral Ecology 2007 18(1):267-270; doi:10.1093/beheco/arl064
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Lay Summary
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
18/1/267    most recent
arl064v2
arl064v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ajie, B. C.
Right arrow Articles by Sih, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Ajie, B. C.
Right arrow Articles by Sih, A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Forum

A framework for determining the fitness consequences of antipredator behavior

Beverly C. Ajiea,b, Lauren M. Pintorb, Jason Wattersb, Jacob L. Kerbyb, John I. Hammondb and Andrew Siha,b

a Center for Population Biology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA b Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA

Address correspondence to B.C. Ajie. E-mail: bcajie@ucdavis.edu.

Received 18 December 2005; revised 19 May 2006; accepted 30 June 2006.

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Behavioral ecologists have long been interested in understanding the adaptive value of antipredator behavior (Sih 1987Go; Lima and Dill 1990Go; Lima 1998Go). A recent review by Lind and Cresswell (2005)Go, however, noted some important difficulties with quantifying the fitness consequences of antipredator behaviors. In essence, Lind and Cresswell suggest that most studies do not provide strong evidence on the adaptive value of antipredator behavior because they do not consider 1) trade-offs between antipredator and reproductive performance, 2) the abilities of organisms to avoid fitness losses associated with constraints on focal traits by employing behavioral alternatives (behavioral compensation), and 3) the effects of behavioral defenses at different stages of the predation sequence. The authors rightfully assert that an understanding of these issues can only be accomplished by measuring multiple traits and fitness components (i.e., survival and reproduction). Nevertheless, the question of how to integrate such data into . . . [Full Text of this Article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Behav EcolHome page
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]