Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 70, Issue 10, pp 1755–1763 | Cite as

Deep evolutionary experience explains mammalian responses to predators

  • Rosemary Atkins
  • Daniel T. Blumstein
  • Katherine E. Moseby
  • Rebecca West
  • Matthew Hyatt
  • Mike Letnic
Original Article

Abstract

Prey may have ontogenetic experience, evolutionary experience, or both types of experiences with their predators and how such experiences influences their ability to identify their predators is of great theoretical and applied interest. We capitalized on predator-free exclosures containing populations of native burrowing bettongs (Bettongia lesueur) and introduced rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) that ensured we had knowledge of our subjects’ ontogenetic experiences with predators and asked whether evolutionary experience influenced their visual predator discrimination abilities. Rabbits evolved with red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) and wolves (Canis lupus) but had less than 200 years of prior exposure to dingoes. The rabbit population we studied had been exposed to dingoes (Canis dingo) and foxes 8 months prior to our study and had heightened responses to red fox models, but not dingo/dog (Canis dingo/Canis familiaris) models. The insular burrowing bettong population had no ontogenetic exposure to mammalian predators, brief evolutionary exposure to domestic dogs and possibly dingoes, and a deeper evolutionary history of exposure to thylacines (Thylacinus cynocephalus)—another large mammalian predator with convergent body morphology to dingoes/dogs but no evolutionary or ontogenetic exposure to foxes. Bettongs showed a modest response to the dingo/dog model and no response to the fox model. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that deep evolutionary history plays an essential role in predator discrimination and provides support for the multipredator hypothesis that predicts the presence of any predators can maintain antipredator behavior for other absent predators.

Significance statement

Prey may have ontogenetic experience and or evolutionary experience with their predators. How such experiences influence prey species’ ability to identify their predators is of significance to theory on the evolution of antipredator response and to improve the success of translocations and reintroductions for conservation purposes which often fail because of predation on predator naïve prey. Here, we show that prey recognition for two prey species with limited or no ontogenetic exposure to predators, rabbits, and burrowing bettongs was greatest toward the predator to which they had the longest period of coevolution. The results are consistent with the hypothesis that evolutionary history plays an essential role in predator discrimination and provides support for the multipredator hypothesis that predicts the presence of any predators can maintain antipredator behavior for other absent predators.

Keywords

Antipredator behavior Visual predator discrimination Multipredator hypothesis 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the Arid Recovery staff and volunteers for their assistance with the study and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors. Work was conducted under animal ethics APEC Approval Number 15/19A and in accordance with The Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes (1997).

Funding

Funding for this project was provided by the Australian Research Council (LP130100173).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. Anson JR, Dickman CR (2013) Behavioral responses of native prey to disparate predators: naiveté and predator recognition. Oecologia 171:367–377CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Banks PB, Dickman CR (2007) Alien predation and the effects of multiple levels of prey naiveté. Tr Ecol Evol 22:229-230.Google Scholar
  3. Barrio IC, Bueno CG, Banks PB, Tortosa FS (2010) Prey naivete? In an introduced prey species: the wild rabbit in Australia. Behav Ecol 21:986–991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berger J, Swenson J, Persson I (2001) Recolonizing carnivores and naive prey: conservation lessons from Pleistocene extinctions. Science 291:1036–1039CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Biggins DE, Vargas A, Godbey JL, Anderson SH (1999) Influence of prerelease experience on reintroduced black-footed ferrets (Mustela nigripes). Biol Conserv 89:121–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blumstein DT (2002) Moving to suburbia: ontogenetic and evolutionary consequences of life on predator-free islands. J Biogeogr 29:685–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blumstein DT (2006) The multipredator hypothesis and the evolutionary persistence of antipredator behavior. Ethology 112:209–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blumstein DT, Daniel JC (2005) The loss of anti-predator behaviour following isolation on islands. Proc R Soc Lond B 272:1663–1668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blumstein DT, Daniel J, Griffin A, Evans C (2000) Insular tammar wallabies (Macropus eugenii) respond to visual but not acoustic cues from predators. Behav Ecol 11:528–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blumstein DT, Ferando E, Stankowich T (2009) A test of the multipredator hypothesis: yellow-bellied marmots respond fearfully to the sight of novel and extinct predators. Anim Behav 78:873–878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bowen Z, Read J (1998) Population and demographic patterns of rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) at Roxby Downs in arid South Australia and the influence of rabbit haemorrhagic disease. Wildl Res 25:655–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brown JS (1988) Patch use as an indicator of habitat preference, predation risk, and competition. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 22:37–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burbidge AA, McKenzie NL (1989) Patterns in the modern decline of western Australia’s vertebrate fauna: causes and conservation implications. Biol Conserv 50:143–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carthey AJR, Banks PB (2012) When does an alien become a native species? A vulnerable native mammal recognizes and responds to its long-term alien predator. PLoS One 7:e31804CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Cooper WE Jr, Blumstein DT (eds) (2015) Escaping from predators: an integrative view of escape decisions. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Cox JG, Lima SL (2006) Naiveté and an aquatic-terrestrial dichotomy in the effects of introduced predators. Trends Ecol Evol 21:674–680CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Cupples JB, Crowther MS, Story G, Letnic M (2011) Dietary overlap and prey selectivity among sympatric carnivores: could dingoes suppress foxes through competition for prey? J Mammal 92:590–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dortch CE, Morse K (1984) Prehistoric stone artefacts on some offshore islands in Western Australia. Aust Archaeol 19:31–47Google Scholar
  19. Griffin A, Blumstein DT, Evans C (2000) Training captive-bred or translocated animals to avoid predators. Conserv Biol 14:1317–1326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hänninen L, Pastell M. (2009) CowLog: Open-source software for coding behaviors from digital video. Behavior Research Methods 41:472-476Google Scholar
  21. Johnson C (2006) Australia’s mammal extinctions: a 50000 year history. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnson CN, Isaac JL (2009) Body mass and extinction risk in Australian marsupials: the “critical weight range” revisited. Austral Ecol 34:35–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kats LB, Dill LM (1998) The scent of death: chemosensory assessment of predation risk by prey animals. Ecoscience 5:361–394Google Scholar
  24. King CM (1984) Immigrant killers: introduced predators and the conservation of birds in New Zealand. Oxford University Press, AucklandGoogle Scholar
  25. Lahti DC, Johnson NA, Ajie BC, Otto SP, Hendry AP, Blumstein DT, Coss RG, Donohue K, Foster SA (2009) Relaxed selection in the wild: contexts and consequences. Trends Ecol Evol 24:487–496CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Letnic M, Fillios M, Crowther MS (2012a) Could direct killing by larger dingoes have caused the extinction of the thylacine from mainland Australia? PLoS One 7:e34877CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Letnic M, Ritchie EG, Dickman CR (2012b) Top predators as biodiversity regulators: the dingo Canis lupus dingo as a case study. Biol Rev 87:390–413CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Lima S, Dill L (1990) Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 68:619–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lombardi L, Fernández N, Moreno S, Villafuerte R (2003) Habitat-related differences in rabbit abundance, distribution and activity. J Mammal 84:26–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Moseby KE, Blumstein DT, Letnic M (2015) Harnessing natural selection to tackle the problem of prey naïveté. Evol Appl 9:334–343CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Moseby KE, Hill BM, Read JL (2009) Arid recovery—a comparison of reptile and small mammal populations inside and outside a large rabbit, cat and fox-proof exclosure in arid South Australia. Austral Ecol 33:156–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Moseby KE, Read JL, Paton DC, Copley P, Hill BM, Crisp HA (2011) Predation determines the outcome of 10 reintroduction attempts in arid South Australia. Biol Conserv 1442:863–872Google Scholar
  33. Quinn GP, Keough MJ (2002) Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Robley A, Short J, Bradley S (2001) Dietary overlap between the burrowing bettong (Bettongia lesueur) and the European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) in semi-arid coastal Western Australia. Wildl Res 28:341–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Savidge JA (1987) Extinction of an island forest avifauna by an introduced snake. Ecology 68:660–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Short J, Turner B (1993) The distribution and abundance of the burrowing bettong (Marsupialia: Macropoidea). Wildl Res 20:525–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Short J, Turner B (2000) Reintroduction of the burrowing bettong Bettongia lesueur (Marsupialia: Potoroidae) to mainland Australia. Biol Conserv 96:185–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Short J, Turner B. (1999) Ecology of burrowing bettongs, Bettongia lesueur (Marsupialia: Potoroidae), on Dorre and Bernier Islands, Western Australia. Wildl Res, 26:651-669Google Scholar
  39. Short J, Turner B, Majors C Leone J, (1997) The fluctuating abundance of endangered mammals on Bernier and Dorre Islands, Western Australia-conservation implications. Aust. Mammal. 20:53-62Google Scholar
  40. Shortridge GC (1910) Account of the geographical distribution of the marsupials and monotremes of south-west Australia, having special reference to the specimens collected during the Balston expedition of 1904-1907. Proc Zool Soc London 1909:803–848Google Scholar
  41. Stringmore JL (2010) Surviving the "cure": life on Bernier and Dorre Islands under the lock hospital regime. PhD Dissertation, University of Western AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  42. Tortosa FS, Barrio IC, Carthey AJ, Banks PB (2015) No longer naïve? Generalized responses of rabbits to marsupial predators in Australia. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 69:1649–1655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vanak AT, Gompper ME (2009) Dogs Canis familiaris as carnivores: their role and function in intraguild competition. Mammal Rev 39:265–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rosemary Atkins
    • 1
  • Daniel T. Blumstein
    • 2
  • Katherine E. Moseby
    • 1
    • 3
  • Rebecca West
    • 1
    • 3
  • Matthew Hyatt
    • 1
  • Mike Letnic
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Ecosystem Science, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental SciencesUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.Arid Recovery Ltd.Roxby DownsAustralia

Personalised recommendations