Public information for solitary foragers: Timber rattlesnakes use conspecific chemical cues to select ambush sites

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 487-490

  Clark, Rulon W ^a  

^a Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

Author keywords

Chemical cues; Foraging behavior; Inadvertent social information; Public information; Social foraging; Timber rattlesnakes (Crotalus horridus)

Indexed keywords

CHEMICAL CUE; CONSPECIFIC; FORAGING BEHAVIOR; INFORMATION; SNAKE;

ANIMALIA; CROTALUS HORRIDUS; SERPENTES;

EID: 33847667540     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arm002     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Beauchamp G, Ruxton GD. 2005. Harvesting resources in groups or alone: the case of renewing patches. Behav Ecol. 16:989-993.
2. Beck DD. 1995. Ecology and energetics of three sympatric rattlesnake species in the Sonoran Desert. J Herpetol. 29:211-223.
3. Brown C, Laland KN. 2003. Social learning in fishes: a review. Fish Fish. 4:280-288.
4. Brown WS. 1993. Biology, status, and management of the timber rattelsnake (Crotalus horridus): a guide for conservation. Herpetol Circ. 22:1-78.
5. Brown WS, Maclean FM. 1983. Conspecific scent trailing by newborn timber rattlesnake Crotalus horridus. Herpetologica. 1983:430-436.
6. Chauvin C, Thierry B. 2005. Tonkean macaques orient their food search from olfactory cues conveyed by conspecifics. Ethology. 111: 301-310.
7. Clark RW. 2002. Diet of the timber rattlesnake, Crotalus horridus. J Herpetol. 36:494-499.
8. Clark RW. 2004a. Kin recognition in rattlesnakes. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Lett. 271:S243-S245.
9. Clark RW. 2004b. Timber rattlesnakes (Crotalus horridus) use chemical cues to select ambush sites. J Chem Ecol. 30:607-617.
10. Clark RW. 2006. Fixed videography to study predation behavior of an ambush foraging snake, Crotalus horridus. Copeia. 2006:181-187.
11. Cobb VA, Green JJ, Worrall T, Pruett J, Glorioso B. 2005. Initial den location behavior in a litter of neonate Crotalus horridus (Timber Rattlesnakes). Southeast Nat. 4:723-730.
12. Coolen I, van Bergen Y, Day RL, Laland KN. 2003. Species difference in adaptive use of public information in sticklebacks. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 270:2413-2419.
13. Coolen I, Ward AJW, Hart PJB, Laland KN. 2005. Foraging nine-spined sticklebacks prefer to rely on public information over simpler social cues. Behav Ecol. 16:865-870.
14. Danchin E, Giraldeau LA, Valone TJ, Wagner RH. 2004. Public information: from nosy neighbors to cultural evolution. Science. 305: 487-491.
15. Drapier M, Chauvin C, Thierry B. 2002. Tonkean macaques (Macaca tonkeana) find food sources from cues conveyed by group-mates. Anim Cogn. 5:159-165.
16. Duvall D, Chiszar D, Hayes WK, Leonhardt JK, Goode MJ. 1990. Chemical and behavioral ecology of foraging in prairie rattlesnakes. J Chem Ecol. 16:87-102.
17. Fernandez-Juricic E, Siller S, Kacelnik A. 2004. Flock density, social foraging, and scanning: an experiment with starlings. Behav Ecol. 15:371-379.
18. Ford NB, Burghardt GM. 1993. Perceptual mechanisms and the behavioral ecology of snakes. In: Seigel RA, Collins JT, editors. Snakes: ecology and behavior. New York: McGraw Hill, Inc. p. 117-164.
19. Ford NB, Obleness ML. 1986. Species and sexual specificity of pheromone trails of the garter snake, Thamnophis marcianus. J Herpetol. 20:259-262.
20. Galef BG, Giraldeau LA. 2001. Social influences on foraging in vertebrates: causal mechanisms and adaptive functions. Anim Behav. 61: 3-15.
21. Galef BG, Wigmore SW. 1983. Transfer of information concerning distant foods: a laboratory investigation of the information-center hypothesis. Anim Behav. 31:748-758.
22. Gillingham JC. 1987. Social behavior. In: Seigel RA, Collins JT, Novak SS, editors. Snakes: ecology and evolutionary biology. New York: Macmillan. p. 184-209.
23. Giraldeau LA, Caraco T. 2000. Social foraging theory. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
24. Graves BM, Duvall D. 1995. Aggregation of squamate reptiles associated with gestation, oviposition, and parturition. Herpetol Mon. 9:102-119.
25. Graves BM, Halpern M, Friesen JL. 1991. Snake aggregation pheromones: source and chemosensory mediation in western ribbon snakes (Thamnophis radix). J Comp Psych. 105:140-144.
26. Greene HW. 1992. The behavioral and ecological context for pitviper evolution. In: Campbell JA, Brodie ED Jr, editors. Biology of the pitvipers. Tyler (TX): Selva. p. 107-117.
27. Greene HW. 1997. Snakes: the evolution of mystery in nature. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press.
28. Greene HW, May PG, Hardy DL, Sciturro JM, Farrell TM. 2002. Parental behavior in vipers. In: Schuett GW, Hoggren M, Douglas ME, Greene HW, editors. Biology of the vipers. Eagle Mountain (UT): Eagle Mountain Publishing, LC. p. 179-205.
29. Greene MJ, Stark SL, Mason RT. 2001. Pheromone trailing behavior of the brown tree snake, Boiga irregularis. J Chem Ecol. 27:2193-2201.
30. Karuzas JM, Maerz JC, Madison DM. 2004. An alternative hypothesis for the primary function of a proposed mate assessment behaviour in red-backed salamanders. Anim Behav. 68:489-494.
31. Mason RT, Fales HM, Jones TH, Pannell LK, Chinn JW, Crews D. 1989. Sex pheromones in snakes. Science. 245:290-293.
32. Mushinsky HR. 1987. Foraging ecology. In: Seigel RA, Collins JT, Novak SS, editors. Snakes: ecology and evolutionary biology. New York: Macmillan. p. 302-334.
33. O'Donnell RP, Ford NB, Shine R, Mason RT. 2004. Male red-sided garter snakes, Thamnophis sirtalis parietalis, determine female mating status from pheromone trails. Anim Behav. 68:677-683.
34. Reinert HK, Cundall D, Bushar LM. 1984. Foraging behavior of the timber rattlesnake, Crotalus horridus. Copeia. 1984:976-981.
35. Reinert HK, Zappalorti RT. 1988. Field observation of the association of adult and neonatal timber rattlesnakes, Crotalus horridus, with possible evidence for conspecific trailing. Copeia. 1988:1057-1059.
36. Ruxton GD, Fraser C, Broom M. 2005. An evolutionarily stable joining policy for group foragers. Behav Ecol. 16:856-864.
37. Schwenk K. 1995. Of tongues and noses: chemoreception in lizards and snakes. Trends Ecol Evol. 10:7-12.
38. Shine R. 1991. Australian snakes: a natural history. Ithaca (NY): Cornell University Press.
39. Shine R, Phillips B, Waye H, LeMaster M, Mason RT. 2003. Chemosensory cues allow courting male garter snakes to assess body length and body condition of potential mates. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 54: 162-166.
40. Shine R, Shine T, Shine JM, Shine BG. 2005. Synchrony in capture dates suggests cryptic social organization in sea snakes (Emydocephalus annulatus, Hydrophiidae). Aust Ecol. 30:805-811.
41. Smith JW, Benkman CW, Coffey K. 1999. The use and misuse of public information by foraging red crossbills. Behav Ecol. 10:54-62.
42. Sokal RR, Rolf FJ. 1995. Biometery: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research. New York (NY): W.H. Freeman and Company.
43. Templeton JJ, Giraldeau LA. 1995. Patch assessment in foraging flocks of European starlings: evidence for the use of public information. Behav Ecol. 6:65-72.
44. Valone TJ, Templeton JJ. 2002. Public information for the assessment of quality: a widespread social phenomenon. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 357:1549-1557.
45. Ward P, Zahavi A. 1973. Importance of certain assemblages of birds as information-centers for food-finding. Ibis. 115:517-534.