Prey risk assessment depends on conspecific density

Oikos

Volumn 120, Issue 8, 2011, Pages 1235-1239

  van Buskirk, Josh ^a   Ferrari, Manuela ^a   Kueng, Denise ^a   Näpflin, Kathrin ^a   Ritter, Nicole ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTIPREDATOR DEFENSE; DRAGONFLY; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; ESTIMATION METHOD; FROG; LARVA; NUMERICAL MODEL; POPULATION DENSITY; PREDATOR-PREY INTERACTION; RISK ASSESSMENT; SIGNAL;

AESHNA CYANEA; ANISOPTERA (DRAGONFLIES); ANURA; RANA TEMPORARIA;

EID: 79960628273     PISSN: 00301299     EISSN: 16000706     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.19311.x     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Akre B. G. and Johnson D. M. 1979. Switching and sigmoidal functional response curves by damselfly naiads with alternate prey available. J. Anim. Ecol. 48: 703-720.
2. Anholt B. R. et al. 1996. Factors modifying antipredator behavior in larval toads. Herpetologica 52: 301-313.
3. Batzli G. O. et al. 1981. Nutritional ecology of microtine rodents: linear foraging-rate curves for brown lemmings. Oikos 37: 112-116.
4. Benard M. F. 2006. Survival tradeoffs between two predator-induced phenotypes in Pacific treefrogs (Pseudacris regilla). Ecology 87: 340-346.
5. Colton T. F. 1987. Extending functional response models to include a second prey type: an experimental test. Ecology 68: 900-912.
6. Elgar M. A. 1989. Predator vigilance and group-size in mammals and birds: a critical review of the empirical evidence. Biol. Rev. 64: 13-33.
7. Gosner K. L. 1960. A simplified table for staging anuran embryos and larvae with notes on identification. Herpetologica 16: 183-190.
8. Harvell C. D. 1990. The ecology and evolution of inducible defenses. Q. Rev. Biol. 65: 323-340.
9. Holling C. S. 1959. Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism. Can. Entomol. 91: 385-398.
10. Kildaw S. D. 1995. The effect of group size manipulations on the foraging behavior of black-tailed prairie dogs. Behav. Ecol. 6: 353-358.
11. Lima S. L. 1995. Back to the basics of antipredatory vigilance: the group-size effect. Anim. Behav. 49: 11-20.
12. Peacor S. D. 2003. Phenotypic modifications to conspecific density arising from predation risk assessment. Oikos 100: 409-415.
13. Pulliam H. R. 1973. On the advantages of flocking. J. Theor. Biol. 38: 419-422.
14. Relyea R. A. 2002. Competitor-induced plasticity in tadpoles: consequences, cues and connections to predator-induced plasticity. Ecol. Monogr. 72: 523-540.
15. Roberts G. 1996. Why individual vigilance declines as group size increases. Anim. Behav. 51: 1077-1086.
16. Skelly D. K. 1994. Activity level and the susceptibility of anuran larvae to predation. Anim. Behav. 47: 465-468.
17. Smith G. R. and Awan A. R. 2009. The roles of predator identity and group size in the antipredator responses of American toad (Bufo americanus) and bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) tadpoles. Behaviour 146: 225-243.
18. Takahara T. et al. 2008. Benefit of suites of defensive behavior induced by predator chemical cues on anuran tadpoles, Hylajaponica. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 63: 235-240.
19. Thompson D. J. 1978. Towards a realistic predator-prey model: the effect of temperature on the functional response and life history of larvae of the damselfly, Ischnura elegans. J. Anim. Ecol. 47: 757-767.
20. Tollrian R. and Harvell C. D. 1999. The ecology and evolution of inducible defenses. - Princeton Univ. Press.
21. Turner A. M. 2004. Non-lethal effects of predators on prey growth rates depend on prey density and nutrient additions. Oikos 104: 561-569.
22. Van Buskirk J. 2000. The costs of an inducible defense in anuran larvae. Ecology 81: 2813-2821.
23. Van Buskirk J. and McCollum S. A. 2000. Functional mechanisms of an inducible defence in tadpoles: morphology and behaviour influence mortality risk from predation. J. Evol. Biol. 13: 336-347.