Dangerous liaisons: The predation risks of receiving social signals

Ecology Letters

Volumn 15, Issue 11, 2012, Pages 1326-1339

  Hughes, Nelika K ^a,b   Kelley, Jennifer L ^a,c   Banks, Peter B ^a,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ANTWERP   (Belgium)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

^d UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Communication network; Eavesdropping; Olfaction; Predation risk; Receiving; Sensory modality; Signalling; Sociality; Spatial perception

Indexed keywords

COMMUNICATION NETWORK; COMMUNITY ECOLOGY; CONSPECIFIC; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; OLFACTION; PERCEPTION; PREDATION RISK; SENSORY SYSTEM; SEXUAL SELECTION; SIGNAL;

ANIMAL; ANIMAL COMMUNICATION; ARTICLE; EVOLUTION; FOOD CHAIN; FORECASTING; PREDATION; RISK; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR;

ANIMAL COMMUNICATION; ANIMALS; BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION; FOOD CHAIN; FORECASTING; PREDATORY BEHAVIOR; RISK; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR;

EID: 84867097571     PISSN: 1461023X     EISSN: 14610248     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2012.01856.x     Document Type: Article

References (99)

1. Able, D.J. (1996). The contagion indicator hypothesis for parasite-mediated sexual selection. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 93, 2229-2233..
2. Alberts, A.C. (1992). Constraints on the design of chemical communication systems in terrestrial vertebrates. Am. Nat., 139, S62-S89.
3. Aldrich, J.R. (1995). Chemical communication in the true bugs and parasitoid exploitation. In: Chemical Ecology of Insects II (eds Cardé, R.T. & Bell, W.J.). Chapman and Hall, New York, pp. 318-363.
4. Alonzo, S.H. (2002). State-dependent habitat selection games between predators and prey: the importance of behavioural interactions and expected lifetime reproductive success. Evol. Ecol. Res., 4, 759-778.
5. Arnqvist, G. & Rowe, L. (2005). Sexual Conflict. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
6. Aukema, B.H. & Raffa, K.F. (2004). Gender- and sequence-dependent predation within group colonizers of defended plants: a constraint on cheating among bark beetles? Oecologia, 138, 253-258.
7. Banks, P.B., Norrdahl, K. & Korpimäki, E. (2000). Nonlinearity in the predation risk of prey mobility. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 267, 1621-1625.
8. Belwood, J.J. & Morris, G.K. (1987). Bat predation and its influence on calling behavior in neotropical katydids. Science, 238, 64-67.
9. Berger-Tal, O., Mukherjee, S., Kotler, B.P. & Brown, J.S. (2010). Complex statedependent games between owls and gerbils. Ecol. Lett., 13, 302-310.
10. Bonachea, L.A. & Ryan, M.J. (2011). Simulated predation risk influences female choice in tungara frogs, Physalaemus pustulosus. Ethology, 117, 400-407.
11. Booksmythe, I., Detto, T. & Backwell, P.R.Y. (2008). Female fiddler crabs settle for less: the travel costs of mate choice. Anim. Behav., 76, 1775-1781.
12. Bradbury, J.W. & Vehrencamp, S.L. (1998). Principles of Animal Communication. Sinauer Press, Sunderland, USA.
13. Brown, R.E. & MacDonald, D.W. (1985). Social Odours in Mammals, Vols 1 & 2. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK.
14. Carthey, A.J.R., Bytheway, J.P. & Banks, P.B. (2011). Negotiating a noisy, information-rich environment in search of cryptic prey: olfactory predators need patchiness in prey cues. J. Anim. Ecol., 80, 742-752.
15. Dall, S.R.X., Giraldeau, L.A., Olsson, O., McNamara, J.M. & Stephens, D.W. (2005). Information and its use by animals in evolutionary ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol., 20, 187-193.
16. Darwin, C. (1871). The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. Murray, London, UK.
17. Dawkins, M.S. & Guilford, T. (1991). The corruption of honest signalling. Anim. Behav., 41, 865-873.
18. Demary, K., Michaelidis, C.I. & Lewis, S.M. (2006). Firefly courtship: behavioral and morphological predictors of male mating success in Photinus greeni. Ethology, 112, 485-492.
19. Dimitrova, M. & Merilaita, S. (2012). Prey pattern regularity and background complexity affect detectability of background-matching prey. Behav. Ecol., 23, 384-390.
20. Dukas, R. (2002). Behavioural and ecological consequences of limited attention. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B, 357, 1539-1547.
21. Dukas, R. & Kamil, A.C. (2000). The cost of limited attention in blue jays. Behav. Ecol., 11, 502-506.
22. Earley, R.L. & Dugatkin, L.A. (2002). Eavesdropping on visual cues in green swordtail (Xiphophorus helleri) fights: a case for networking. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 269, 943-952.
23. Endler, J.A. (1980). Natural selection on color patterns in Poecilia reticulata. Evolution, 34, 76-91.
24. Endler, J.A. (1992). Signals, signal conditions and the direction of evolution. Am. Nat., 139, S125-S153.
25. Endler, J.A. (1993). Some general comments on the evolution and design of animal communication systems. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B, 340, 215-225.
26. Endler, J.A. & Théry, M. (1996). Interacting effects of lek placement, display behavior, ambient light, and color patterns in three neotropical forest-dwelling birds. Am. Nat., 148, 421-452.
27. Ferrari, M.C.O., Sih, A. & Chivers, D.P. (2009). The paradox of risk allocation: a review and prospectus. Anim. Behav., 78, 579-585.
28. Fisher, J. (1954). Evolution and bird sociality. In: Evolution as a Process (eds Huxley, J., Hardy, A.C. & Ford, E.B.). Allen and Unwin, London, UK, pp. 71-83.
29. Forsgren, E. (1992). Predation risk affects mate choice in a gobiid fish. Am. Nat., 140, 1041-1049.
30. Gibson, R.M. & Bachman, G.C. (1992). The costs of female choice in a lekking bird. Behav. Ecol., 3, 300-309.
31. Godin, J.G.J. & Briggs, S.E. (1996). Female mate choice under predation risk in the guppy. Anim. Behav., 51, 117-130.
32. Gong, A. (1997). The effects of predator exposure on the female choice of guppies (Poecilla reticulata) from a high-predation population. Behaviour, 134, 373-389.
33. Gong, A. & Gibson, R.M. (1996). Reversal of a female preference after visual exposure to a predator in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata. Anim. Behav., 52, 1007- 1015.
34. Goodale, E., Beauchamp, G., Magrath, R.D., Nieh, J.C. & Ruxton, G.D. (2010). Interspecific information transfer influences animal community structure. Trends Ecol. Evol., 25, 354-361.
35. Grafe, T.U. (1997). Costs and benefits of mate choice in the lek-breeding reed frog, Hyperolius marmoratus. Anim. Behav., 53, 1103-1117.
36. Hamer, R., Lemckert, F.L. & Banks, P.B. (2011). Adult frogs are sensitive to the predation risks of olfactory communication. Biol. Lett., 7, 361-363.
37. Hebets, E.A. (2005). Attention-altering signal interactions in the multimodal courtship display of the wolf spider Schizocosa uetzi. Behav. Ecol., 16, 75-82.
38. Hedrick, A.V. (2000). Crickets with extravagant mating songs compensate for predation risk with extra caution. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 267, 671-675.
39. Hedrick, A.V. & Dill, L.M. (1993). Mate choice by female crickets is influenced by predation risk. Anim. Behav., 46, 193-196.
40. Hughes, N.K. & Banks, P.B. (2010). Interacting effects of predation risk and signal patchiness on activity and communication in house mice. J. Anim. Ecol., 79, 88-97.
41. Hughes, N.K., Kelley, J.L. & Banks, P.B. (2009). Receiving behaviour is sensitive to risks from eavesdropping predators. Oecologia, 160, 609-617.
42. Hughes, N.K., Korpimäki, E. & Banks, P.B. (2010a). The predation risks of interspecific eavesdropping: weasel-vole interactions. Oikos, 119, 1210-1216.
43. Hughes, N.K., Price, C.J. & Banks, P.B. (2010b). Predator attraction to prey olfactory signals places conspecific receivers at risk. PLoS ONE, 5, e13114.
44. Hurst, J.L. (1989). The complex network of olfactory communication in populations of wild house mice Mus domesticus Rutty: urine marking and investigation within family groups. Anim. Behav., 37, 705-725.
45. Hurst, J.L. (1990a). Urine marking in populations of wild house mice Mus domesticus Rutty I. Communication between males. Anim. Behav., 40, 209-222.
46. Hurst, J.L. (1990b). Urine marking in populations of wild house mice Mus domesticus Rutty II. Communication between females. Anim. Behav., 40, 223-232.
47. Hurst, J.L. & Beynon, R.J. (2004). Scent wars: the chemobiology of competitive signalling in mice. BioEssays, 26, 1288-1298.
48. Jennions, M.D. & Petrie, M. (1997). Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biol. Rev., 72, 283-327.
49. Johnson, J.B. & Basolo, A.L. (2003). Predator exposure alters female mate choice in the green swordtail. Behav. Ecol., 14, 619-625.
50. Kallio, E.R., Klingstrom, J., Gustafsson, E., Manni, T., Vaheri, A., Henttonen, H. et al. (2006). Prolonged survival of Puumala hantavirus outside the host: evidence for indirect transmission via the environment. J. Gen. Virol., 87, 2127-2134.
51. Kats, L.B. & Dill, L.M. (1998). The scent of death: chemosensory assessment of predation risk by prey animals. Ecoscience, 5, 361-394.
52. Kavaliers, M. & Colwell, D.D. (1995). Discrimination by female mice between the odours of parasitized and non-parasitized males. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 261, 31-35.
53. Kavaliers, M., Choleris, E., Agmo, A. & Pfaff, D.W. (2004). Olfactory-mediated parasite recognition and avoidance: linking genes to behavior. Horm. Behav., 46, 272-283.
54. Koga, T., Backwell, P.R.Y., Jennions, M.D. & Christy, J.H. (1998). Elevated predation risk changes mating behaviour and courtship in a fiddler crab. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 265, 1385-1390.
55. Kokko, H., Brooks, R., Jennions, M.D. & Morley, J. (2003). The evolution of mate choice and mating biases. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 270, 653-664.
56. Korpimäki, E., Koivunen, V. & Hakkarainen, H. (1996). Microhabitat use and behavior of voles under weasel and raptor predation risk: predator facilitation? Behav. Ecol., 7, 30-34.
57. Krama, T. & Krams, I. (2005). Cost of mobbing call to breeding pied flycatcher, Ficedula hypoleuca. Behav. Ecol., 16, 37-40.
58. Lafaille, M., Bimbard, G. & Greenfield, M.D. (2010). Risk trading in mating behavior: forgoing anti-predator responses reduces the likelihood of missing terminal mating opportunities. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 64, 1485-1494.
59. Laumann, R.A., Moraes, M.C.B., Cokl, A. & Borges, M. (2007). Eavesdropping on sexual vibratory signals of stink bugs (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) by the egg parasitoid Telenomus podisi. Anim. Behav., 73, 637-649.
60. Laumann, R.A., Cokl, A., Lopes, A.P.S., Fereira, J.B.C., Moraes, M.C.B. & Borges, M. (2011). Silent singers are not safe: selective response of a parasitoid to substrate-borne vibratory signals of stink bugs. Anim. Behav., 82, 1175-1183.
61. Lima, S.L. (1998). Stress and decision making under the risk of predation: recent developments from behavioral, reproductive, and ecological perspectives. Adv. Study Behav., 27, 215-290.
62. Lima, S.L. (2002). Putting predators back into behavioral predator-prey interactions. Trends Ecol. Evol., 17, 70-75.
63. Lima, S.L. & Bednekoff, P.A. (1999). Temporal variation in danger drives antipredator behavior: the predation risk allocation hypothesis. Am. Nat., 153, 649-659.
64. Mafra-Neto, A. & Cardé, R.T. (1994). Fine-scale structure of pheromone plumes modulates upwind orientation of flying moths. Nature, 369, 142-144.
65. Magnhagen, C. (1991). Predation risk as a cost of reproduction. Trends Ecol. Evol., 6, 183-185.
66. Matos, R.J. & Schlupp, I. (2005). Performing in front of an audience: signallers and the social environment. In: Animal Communication Networks (ed. McGregor, P.K.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 63-83.
67. McGregor, P.K. (2005). Animal Communication Networks. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
68. McGregor, P.K. & Dabelsteen, T. (1996). Communication networks. In: Ecology and Evolution of Acoustic Communication in Birds (eds Kroodsma, D.E. & Miller, E.H.). Cornell University Press, Ithaca, USA, pp. 409-425.
69. Milinski, M. (1984). A predator's costs of overcoming the confusion-effect of swarming prey. Anim. Behav., 32, 1157-1162.
70. Mitchell, W.A. & Lima, S.L. (2002). Predator-prey shell games: large-scale movement and its implications for decision-making by prey. Oikos, 99, 249-259.
71. Nevison, C.M., Armstrong, S., Beynon, R.J., Humphries, R.E. & Hurst, J.L. (2003). The ownership signature in mouse scent marks is involatile. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 270, 1957-1963.
72. Peake, T.M. (2005). Eavesdropping in communication networks. In: Animal Communication Networks (ed. McGregor, P.K.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 13-37.
73. Penn, D. & Potts, W.K. (1998). Chemical signals and parasite-mediated sexual selection. Trends Ecol. Evol., 13, 391-396.
74. Penn, D., Schneider, G., White, K., Slev, P. & Potts, W.K. (1998). Influenza infection neutralizes the attractiveness of male odor to female mice (Mus musculus). Ethology, 104, 685-694.
75. Pocklington, R. & Dill, L.M. (1995). Predation on females or males: who pays for bright male traits? Anim. Behav., 49, 1122-1124.
76. Rechav, Y., Norval, R.A.I., Tannock, J. & Colborne, J. (1978). Attraction of the tick Ixodes neitzi to twigs marked by the klipspringer antelope. Nature, 342, 796-797.
77. Roberts, S.C., Gosling, L.M., Thornton, E.A. & McClung, J. (2001). Scentmarking by male mice under the risk of predation. Behav. Ecol., 12, 698-705.
78. Roberts, J.A., Taylor, P.W. & Uetz, G.W. (2007). Consequences of complex signaling: predator detection of multimodal cues. Behav. Ecol., 18, 236-240.
79. Roth, T.C. & Lima, S.L. (2007). Use of prey hotspots by an avian predator: purposeful unpredictability? Am. Nat., 169, 264-273.
80. Rundus, A.S., Sullivan-Beckers, L., Wilgers, D.J. & Hebets, E.A. (2011). Females are choosier in the dark: environment-dependent reliance on courtship components and its impact on fitness. Evolution, 65, 268-282.
81. Ryan, M.J. (1998). Sexual selection, receiver biases, and the evolution of sex differences. Science, 281, 1999-2003.
82. Ryan, M.J., Tuttle, M.D. & Rand, A.S. (1982). Bat predation and sexual advertisement in a neotropical anuran. Am. Nat., 119, 136-139.
83. Sakaluk, S.K. & Belwood, J.J. (1984). Gecko phonotaxis to cricket calling song: a case of satellite predation. Anim. Behav., 32, 659-662.
84. Schalk, G. & Forbes, M.R. (1997). Male biases in parasitism of mammals: effects of study type, host age and parasite taxon. Oikos, 78, 67-74.
85. Schmidt, K.A., Dall, S.R.X. & van Gils, J.A. (2010). The ecology of information: an overview on the ecological significance of making informed decisions. Oikos, 119, 304-316.
86. Schmitz, O.J. (2005). Behavior of predators and prey and links with poulationlevel processes. In: Ecology of Predator-Prey Interactions (eds Barbosa, P. & Castellanos, I.). Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 256-278.
87. Schmitz, O.J., Krivan, V. & Ovadia, O. (2004). Trophic cascades: the primacy of trait-mediated indirect interactions. Ecol. Lett., 7, 153-163.
88. Snedden, W.A. & Sakaluk, S.K. (1992). Acoustic signaling and its relation to male mating success in sagebrush crickets. Anim. Behav., 44, 633-639.
89. Stephens, D.W., Brown, J.S. & Ydenberg, R.C. (eds) (2007). Foraging: Behaviour and Ecology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA.
90. Templeton, C.N. & Greene, E. (2007). Nuthatches eavesdrop on variations in heterospecific chickadee mobbing alarm calls. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 104, 5479-5482.
91. Tersago, K., Verhagen, R. & Leirs, H. (2011). Temporal variation in individual factors associated with hantavirus infection in bank voles during an epizootic: implications for Puumala virus transmission dynamics. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis., 11, 715-721.
92. Uy, J.A.C. & Endler, J.A. (2004). Modification of the visual background increases the conspicuousness of golden-collared manakin displays. Behav. Ecol., 15, 1003-1010.
93. Vergassola, M., Villermaux, E. & Shraiman, B.I. (2007). 'Infotaxis' as a strategy for searching without gradients. Nature, 445, 406-409.
94. Viitala, J., Korpimäki, E., Palokangas, P. & Koivula, M. (1995). Attraction of kestrels to vole scent marks visible in ultraviolet light. Nature, 373, 425-427.
95. Weissburg, M.J. & Zimmerfaust, R.K. (1993). Life and death in moving fluids: hydrodynamic effects on chemosensory-mediated predation. Ecology, 74, 1428- 1443.
96. Wingfield, J.C., Lynn, S. & Soma, K.K. (2001). Avoiding the " costs" of testosterone: ecological bases of hormone-behavior interactions. Brain Behav. Evol., 57, 239-251.
97. Wolff, J.O. (2004). Scent marking by voles in response to predation risk: a fieldlaboratory validation. Behav. Ecol., 15, 286-289.
98. Zala, S.M., Potts, W.K. & Penn, D.J. (2004). Scent-marking displays provide honest signals of health and infection. Behav. Ecol., 15, 338-344.
99. Zuk, M. & Kolluru, G.R. (1998). Exploitation of sexual signals by predators and parasitoids. Q. Rev. Biol., 73, 415-438.