| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© 1996 International Society for Behavioral Ecology
research-article |
Influence of prey foraging posture on flight behavior and predation risk: predators take advantage of unwary prey
Department of Biology, Mount Allison University Sackville, New Brunswick FOA 3CO, Canada
ABSTRACT
Foraging in animals is often associated with characteristic body postures, such as the head-down posture. When foraging conflicts with the ability to detect predators or to flee, individuals may incur a greater risk of mortality to predation than otherwise. Here we investigate the influence of different foraging postures (horizontal versus nose-down body posture) on the ability of individuals to respond to approaching predators and on the risk of mortality to predation in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Individuals engaged in nose-down foraging were assumed to be able to visually scan a smaller area for predators and to escape less effectively due to their body posture, and thus are more vulnerable to stalking predators than horizontally foraging ones. In a first experiment, we separately exposed nonforaging, horizontally foraging, and nose-down foraging guppies to an approaching cichlid fish predator model. Nonforaging guppies reacted sooner to and initiated flight further away from the approaching model than did foraging fish collectively, and horizontally foraging individuals responded sooner to the model than nose-down foraging ones. Comparing all test guppies, nose-down foraging individuals were the most likely not to exhibit any response to the predator model. When presented with a simultaneous choice of two guppies behind a one-way mirror, individual blue acara cichlid (Aequidens pulcher), a natural predator of the guppy, preferred to attack foraging guppies over nonforaging ones and nose-down foraging guppies over horizontally foraging individuals. In a final experiment with free-swimming cichlids and guppies, we demonstrated that individual risk of predation for guppies foraging nose down was greater than for guppies foraging horizontally, and both were at greater risk than nonforaging guppies. This latter result is consistent with the above differences in the guppy's responsiveness to approaching predators depending on their foraging behavior, and with the finding that cichlid predators preferred fish that were less likely to show any response to them. Our results therefore indicate that the ability to respond to approaching predators and the risk of mortality to predation in the guppy is strongly influenced by their foraging activity, and in particular their foraging posture, and that cichlid predators preferentially select less wary and more vulnerable guppies.[Behav Ecol 7: 264–271 (1996)]
Key words: cichlid fish, fleeing, foraging, foraging posture, guppy, Poecilia reticulata, predation risk.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  K. A. Jones and J.-G. J. Godin Are fast explorers slow reactors? Linking personality type and anti-predator behaviour Proc R Soc B, October 28, 2009; (2009) rspb.2009.1607v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Tobler Does a predatory insect contribute to the divergence between cave- and surface-adapted fish populations? Biol Lett, August 23, 2009; 5(4): 506 - 509. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. C. Ioannou, G. D. Ruxton, and J. Krause Search rate, attack probability, and the relationship between prey density and prey encounter rate Behav. Ecol., July 1, 2008; 19(4): 842 - 846. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. J. Mathot and L.-A. Giraldeau Increasing vulnerability to predation increases preference for the scrounger foraging tactic Behav. Ecol., January 1, 2008; 19(1): 131 - 138. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. N. Rice and M. W. Westneat Coordination of feeding, locomotor and visual systems in parrotfishes (Teleostei: Labridae) J. Exp. Biol., September 15, 2005; 208(18): 3503 - 3518. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. D. Ruxton, C. Fraser, and M. Broom An evolutionarily stable joining policy for group foragers Behav. Ecol., September 1, 2005; 16(5): 856 - 864. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. A. Hebets Attention-altering signal interactions in the multimodal courtship display of the wolf spider Schizocosa uetzi Behav. Ecol., January 1, 2005; 16(1): 75 - 82. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. F. Sundstrom, E. Petersson, J. Hojesjo, J. I. Johnsson, and T. Jarvi Hatchery selection promotes boldness in newly hatched brown trout (Salmo trutta): implications for dominance Behav. Ecol., March 1, 2004; 15(2): 192 - 198. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. W. Clark and R. Dukas The behavioral ecology of a cognitive constraint: limited attention Behav. Ecol., March 1, 2003; 14(2): 151 - 156. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
I. T. van der Veen Effects of predation risk on diurnal mass dynamics and foraging routines of yellowhammers (Emberiza citrinella) Behav. Ecol., September 1, 1999; 10(5): 545 - 551. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. M. Hilton, W. Cresswell, and G. D. Ruxton Intraflock variation in the speed of escape-flight response on attack by an avian predator Behav. Ecol., July 1, 1999; 10(4): 391 - 395. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|