Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 68, Issue 3, pp 457–465 | Cite as

Switching to Plan B: changes in the escape tactics of two grasshopper species (Acrididae: Orthoptera) in response to repeated predatory approaches

Original Paper


Most studies examining escape behaviour have considered single approaches and single fleeing responses; few have considered how organisms’ response is influenced by persistent pursuit. We explored fleeing behaviour of two grasshopper species to test whether they modified escape behaviour when approached repeatedly. Schistocerca alutacea did not increase flight initiation distance (FID) upon repeated approach but fled farther. Psinidia fenestralis increased its FID on the second approach but decreased its flight distance over successive escapes. Both species showed a bimodal pattern of flight direction, either flying directly away or flying perpendicular to the direction of the observer’s approach. Neither species showed a significant pattern of flight direction or change in flight direction with successive escapes. Most (88 %) P. fenestralis initially landed on sand, but after repeated approaches an increasing proportion landed in grass and hid. Both species therefore changed escape behaviour with persistent pursuit but used different tactics, suiting their flight ability or camouflage, and optimised habitat use. Three grasshopper species have now been examined for responses to repeated approach by predators and all show different tactics supporting escape decision theory. Our results emphasise the variety of escape responses across species and how the dynamic nature of escape responses vary according to an animal’s situation. Rather than single optimum escape options, each grasshopper species shows a range of responses, which vary with risk from persistent predators. Although grasshoppers provide an excellent model, it would be profitable to examine responses of a range of species according to levels of predation risk.


Predation Risk-sensitivity hypothesis Repeated pursuit 


  1. Amo L, López P, Martín J (2004) Wall lizards combine chemical and visual cues of ambush snake predators to avoid overestimating risk inside refuges. Anim Behav 67:647–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Banjo AD, Lawal OA, Songonuga EA (2006) The nutritional value of fourteen species of edible insects in southwestern Nigeria. Afr J Biotechnol 5:298–301Google Scholar
  3. Bateman PW, Fleming PA (2006) Sex, intimidation and severed limbs: the effect of simulated predator attack and limb autotomy on calling behavior and level of caution in the field cricket Gryllus bimaculatus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 59:674–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bateman PW, Fleming PA (2009) There will be blood: autohaemorrhage behaviour as part of the defence repertoire of an insect. J Zool (Lond) 278:342–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bateman PW, Fleming PA (2011a) Failure to launch? The influence of limb autotomy on the escape behavior of a semiaquatic grasshopper Paroxya atlantica (Acrididae). Behav Ecol 22:763–768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bateman PW, Fleming PA (2011b) Who are you looking at? Hadeda ibises use direction of gaze, head orientation and approach speed in their risk assessment of a potential predator. J Zool (Lond) 285:316–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bateman PW, Fleming PA (2013a) The influence of the presence and size of silk decorations in webs on fleeing behaviour of Florida orb weaver spiders, Argiope florida (Aranaeidae). Can J Zool 91:468–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bateman PW, Fleming PA (2013b) Signaling or not-signaling: variation in vulnerability and defense tactics of armored ground crickets (Acanthoplus speiseri: Orthoptera, Tettigoniidae, Hetrodinae). J Insect Behav 26:14–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Belovsky GE, Slade JB, Stockhoff BA (1990) Susceptibility to predation for different grasshoppers: an experimental study. Ecology 71:624–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Broom M, Ruxton GD (2005) You can run—or you can hide: optimal strategies for cryptic prey against pursuit predators. Behav Ecol 16:534–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Capinera JL, Scherer CW, Simkins JB (1997) Habitat associations of grasshoppers at the MacArthur agro-ecology research center, Lake Placid, Florida. Fla Entomol 80:253–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Capinera JL, Scherer CW, Squitier JM (2001) Grasshoppers of Florida. University Press of FloridaGoogle Scholar
  13. Carrete M, Tella JL (2010) Individual consistency in flight initiation distances in burrowing owls: a new hypothesis on disturbance-induced habitat selection. Biol Lett 6:167–170PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cooper WEJ (1997) Threat factors affecting antipredatory behavior in the broad-headed skink (Eumeces laticeps): repeated approach, change in predator path, and predator’s field of view. Copeia 1997:613–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cooper WEJ (1998) Effects of refuge and conspicuousness on escape behavior by the broad-headed skink (Eumeces laticeps). Amphibia-Reptilia 19:103–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cooper WEJ (2006a) Dynamic risk assessment: prey rapidly adjust flight initiation distance to changes in predator approach speed. Ethology 112:858–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cooper WEJ (2006b) Risk factors and escape strategy in the grasshopper Dissosteira carolina. Behaviour 143:1201–1218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cooper WEJ (2012) Risk, escape from ambush, and hiding time in the lizard Sceloporus virgatus. Herpetologica 68:505–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cooper WEJ, Avalos A (2010) Predation risk, escape and refuge use by mountain spiny lizards (Sceloporus jarrovii). Amphibia-Reptilia 31:363–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cooper WEJ, Frederick WG (2007) Optimal flight initiation distance. J Theor Biol 244:59–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cooper WEJ, Hawlena D, Pérez-Mellado V (2009) Effects of predation risk factors on escape behavior by Balearic lizards (Podarcis lilfordi) in relation to optimal escape theory. Amphibia-Reptilia 30:99–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cooper WEJ, Pérez-Mellado V, Hawlena D (2006) Magnitude of food reward affects escape behavior and acceptable risk in Balearic lizards, Podarcis lilfordi. Behav Ecol 17:554–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Domenici P, Blagburn JM, Bacon JP (2011a) Animal escapology I: theoretical issues and emerging trends in escape trajectories. J Exp Biol 214:2463–2473PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Domenici P, Blagburn JM, Bacon JP (2011b) Animal escapology II: escape trajectory case studies. J Exp Biol 214:2474–2494PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Domenici P, Booth D, Blagburn JM, Bacon JP (2008) Cockroaches keep predators guessing by using preferred escape trajectories. Curr Biol 18:1792–1796PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dukas R (1998) Cognitive ecology: the evolutionary ecology of information processing and decision making. University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
  27. Eterovick PC, Côrtes Figueira JE, Vasconcellos-Neto J (1997) Cryptic coloration and choice of escape microhabitats by grasshoppers (Orthoptera: Acrididae). Biol J Linn Soc 61:485–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fogarty MJ, Hetrick WM (1973) Foods of cattle egrets in north Central Florida. Auk 90:268–280Google Scholar
  29. Hassenstein B, Hustert R (1999) Hiding responses of locusts to approaching objects. J Exp Biol 202:1701–1710PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Higaki M, Ando Y (2003) Effects of crowding and photoperiod on wing morph and egg production in Eobiana engelhardti subtropica (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae). Appl Entomol Zool 38:321–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Humphries DA, Driver PM (1970) Protean defence by prey animals. Oecologia 5:285–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Javůrková V, Šizling AL, Kreisinger J, Albrecht T (2012) An alternative theoretical approach to escape decision-making: the role of visual cues. PLoS ONE 7:e32522PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jones KA, Jackson AL, Ruxton GD (2011) Prey jitters; protean behaviour in grouped prey. Behav Ecol 22:831–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kotiaho J, Alatalo RV, Mappes J, Parri S, Rivero A (1998) Male mating success and risk of predation in a wolf spider: a balance between sexual and natural selection? J Anim Ecol 67:287–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kral K (2010) Escape behaviour in blue-winged grasshoppers, Oedipoda caerulescens. Physiol Entomol 35:240–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lee S-I, Hwang S, Joe Y-E, Cha H-K, Joo G-H, Lee H-J, Kim J-W, Jablonski PG (2013) Direct look from a predator shortens the risk-assessment time by prey. PLoS ONE 8:e64977PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Martín J, López P (1999) When to come out from a refuge: risk-sensitive and state-dependent decisions in an alpine lizard. Behav Ecol 10:487–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Martín J, López P (2003) Changes in the escape responses of the lizard Acanthodactylus erythrurus under persistent predatory attacks. Copeia 2003:408–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Masaki S, Walker TJ (1987) Cricket life cycles. Evol Biol 21:349–423Google Scholar
  40. Petersen BS, Christensen KD, Falk K, Jensen FP, Ouambama Z (2008) Abdim’s Stork Ciconia abdimii exploitation of Senegalese grasshopper Oedaleus senegalensis in South-eastern Niger. Waterbirds 31:159–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pitt WC (1999) Effects of multiple vertebrate predators on grasshopper habitat selection: trade-offs due to predation risk, foraging, and thermoregulation. Evol Ecol 13:499–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Reimers E, Loe LE, Eftestøl S, Colman JE, Dahle B (2009) Effects of hunting on response behaviors of wild reindeer. J Wildl Manag 73:844–851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rind FC, Simmons PJ (1992) Orthopteran DCMD neuron: a reevaluation of responses to moving objects. I. Selective responses to approaching objects. J Neurophysiol 68:1654–1666PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Rodríguez-Prieto I, Fernández-Juricic E (2005) Effects of direct human disturbance on the endemic Iberian frog Rana iberica at individual and population levels. Biol Conserv 123:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ruddle K (1973) The human use of insects: examples from the Yukpa. Biotropica 5:94–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Scott D (1984) The feeding success of cattle egrets in flocks. Anim Behav 32:1089–1100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stankowich T (2008) Ungulate flight responses to human disturbance: a review and meta-analysis. Biol Cons 141:2159–2173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tikkanen P, Muotka T, Huhta A (1996) Fishless-stream mayflies express behavioural flexibility in response to predatory fish. Anim Behav 51:1391–1399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ydenberg RC, Dill LM (1986) The economics of fleeing from predators. Adv Stud Behav 16:229–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environment and AgricultureCurtin UniversityPerthAustralia
  2. 2.Veterinary and Life SciencesMurdoch UniversityPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations