Animal Cognition

, 14:809

Prey behaviour across antipredator adaptation types: how does growth trajectory influence learning of predators?

  • Maud C. O. Ferrari
  • Grant E. Brown
  • Gary R. Bortolotti
  • Douglas P. Chivers
Original Paper


Despite the fact that the ability of animals to avoid being consumed by predators is influenced by their behaviour, morphology and life history, very few studies have attempted to integrate prey responses across these adaptation types. Here, our goal was to address the link between life-history traits (size and growth trajectory) of tadpoles and behavioural responses to predators. Specifically, we wanted to determine whether information learned about predators was influenced by prey growth trajectory before and after learning. We manipulated the size/growth trajectory of tadpoles by raising them under different temperatures. Tadpoles raised on a slow-growth trajectory (under cold conditions) and taught to recognize a salamander subsequently showed stronger responses after 2 weeks than tadpoles that were raised on a fast-growth trajectory (under warm conditions). When we account for the effect of size (r2 = 0.22) on the responses of prey to predator cues, we find that the growth trajectory pre-learning but not post-learning influences the learned responses of the tadpoles. The differences in responses to predators may reflect differential memory associated with the predator. To our knowledge, this is the first study that has attempted to link life-history traits (size and growth rate) with learning of predators. In order to gain a comprehensive understanding of antipredator responses of prey animals, we call for additional integrative studies that examine prey anti-predator responses across adaptation types.


Learning Predator recognition Growth rate Antipredator behaviour Risk assessment Woodfrog 


  1. Bednekoff PA, Lima SL (1998) Re-examining safety in numbers: interactions between risk dilution and collective detection depend upon predator targeting behaviour. Proc Roy Soc B Biol Sci 265(1409):2021–2026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bouskila A, Blumstein DT (1992) Rules of thumb for predation hazard assessment—predictions from a dynamic-model. Am Natural 139(1):161–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bronmark C, Miner JG (1992) Predator-induced phenotypical change in body morphology in crucian carp. Science 258(5086):1348–1350PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown GE, Chivers DP (2005) Learning as an adaptive response to predation. In: Barbosa P, Castellanos I (eds) Ecology of predator-prey interactions. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 34–54Google Scholar
  5. Brown GE, Smith RJF (1996) Foraging trade-offs in fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas, Osteichthyes, Cyprinidae): Acquired predator recognition in the absence of an alarm response. Ethology 102(9):776–785Google Scholar
  6. Brown GE, Ferrari MCO, Malka PH, Oligny M-A, Romano M, Chivers DP (2011) Growth rate and retention of learned predator cues in juvenile rainbow trout: faster growing fish forget sooner. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology (in press)Google Scholar
  7. Chivers DP, Smith RJF (1993) The role of olfaction in chemosensory-based predator recognition in the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas. J Chem Ecol 19(4):623–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chivers DP, Smith RJF (1998) Chemical alarm signalling in aquatic predator-prey systems: A review and prospectus. Ecoscience 5(3):338–352Google Scholar
  9. Chivers DP, Zhao XO, Ferrari MCO (2007) Linking morphological and behavioural defences: prey fish detect the morphology of conspecifics in the odour signature of their predators. Ethology 113(8):733–739. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.2006.001385.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de Barros FC, de Carvalho JE, Abe AS, Kohlsdor T (2010) Fight versus flight: the interaction of temperature and body size determines antipredator behaviour in tegu lizards. Anim Behav 79(1):83–88. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.10.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DeWitt TJ, Sih A, Hucko JA (1999) Trait compensation and cospecialization in a freshwater snail: size, shape and antipredator behaviour. Anim Behav 58:397–407PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ferrari MCO, Chivers DP (2006) Learning threat-sensitive predator avoidance: how do fathead minnows incorporate conflicting information? Anim Behav 71:19–26. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.02.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ferrari MCO, Chivers DP (2008) Cultural learning of predator recognition in mixed-species assemblages of frogs: the effect of tutor-to-observer ratio. Anim Behav 75:1921–1925. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.10.037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ferrari MCO, Chivers DP (2009a) Latent inhibition of predator recognition by embryonic amphibians. Biol Lett 5(2):160–162. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2008.0641 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Ferrari MCO, Chivers DP (2009b) Temporal variability, threat sensitivity and conflicting information about the nature of risk: understanding the dynamics of tadpole antipredator behaviour. Anim Behav 78(1):11–16. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.03.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ferrari MCO, Trowell JJ, Brown GE, Chivers DP (2005) The role of learning in the development of threat-sensitive predator avoidance by fathead minnows. Anim Behav 70:777–784. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.01.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ferrari MCO, Messier F, Chivers DP (2008) Larval amphibians learn to match antipredator response intensity to temporal patterns of risk. Behav Ecol 19(5):980–983. doi:10.1093/beheco/arn056 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ferrari MCO, Brown GE, Messier F, Chivers DP (2009) Threat-sensitive generalization of predator recognition by larval amphibians. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63(9):1369–1375. doi:10.1007/s00265-009-0779-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ferrari MCO, Brown GE, Bortolotti GR, Chivers DP (2010a) Linking predator risk and uncertainty to adaptive forgetting: a theoretical framework and empirical test using tadpoles. Proc Roy Soc B Biol Sci 277(1691):2205–2210. doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.2117 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ferrari MCO, Wisenden BD, Chivers DP (2010b) Chemical ecology of predator-prey interactions in aquatic ecosystems: a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 88:698–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gonzalo A, Lopez P, Martin J (2009) Learning, memorizing and apparent forgetting of chemical cues from new predators by Iberian green frog tadpoles. Anim Cogn 12(5):745–750. doi:10.1007/s10071-009-0232-1 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gosner KL (1960) A simplified table for staging anuran embryos and larvae with notes on identification. Herpetologica 16:183–190Google Scholar
  23. Harvell CD (1990) The ecology and evolution of inducible defences. Q Rev Biol 63:323–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Helfman GS (1989) Threat-sensitive predator avoidance in damselfish-trumpetfish interactions. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 24(1):47–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hoverman JT, Auld JR, Relyea RA (2005) Putting prey back together again: integrating predator-induced behaviour, morphology and life history. Oecologia 144:481–491PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Laurila A, Pakkasmaa S, Crochet PA, Merila J (2002) Predator-induced plasticity in early life history and morphology in two anuran amphibians. Oecologia 132(4):524–530. doi:10.1007/s00442-002-0984-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lima SL (1998a) Nonlethal effects in the ecology of predator-prey interactions—what are the ecological effects of anti-predator decision-making? Bioscience 48(1):25–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lima SL (1998b) Stress and decision making under the risk of predation: Recent developments from behavioral, reproductive, and ecological perspectives. In: Stress and Behavior, vol 27. Advances in the Study of Behavior, pp 215–290Google Scholar
  29. Lima SL, Dill LM (1990) Behavioral decision made under the risk of predation—a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 68(4):619–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lind J, Cresswell W (2005) Determining the fitness consequences of antipredation behaviour. Behav Ecol 16:945–956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mathis A, Murray KL, Hickman CR (2003) Do experience and body size play a role in responses of larval ringed salamanders, Ambystoma annulatum, to predator kairomones? Laboratory and field assays. Ethology 109(2):159–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mirza RS, Chivers DP (2003) Influence of body size on the responses of fathead minnows, Pimephales promelas, to damselfly alarm cues. Ethology 109(8):691–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Neissen U (2004) Memory development: new questions and old. Dev Rev 24:154–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Parkos JJ, Wahl DH (2010) Influence of body size and prey type on the willingness of age-0 fish to forage under predation risk. Trans Am Fish Soc 139(4):969–975. doi:10.1577/t09-098.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Relyea RA (2001) Morphological and behavioral plasticity of larval anurans in response to different predators. Ecology 82(2):523–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical analysis, 4th edn. Prentice-Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maud C. O. Ferrari
    • 1
    • 4
  • Grant E. Brown
    • 2
  • Gary R. Bortolotti
    • 3
  • Douglas P. Chivers
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Environmental Science and PolicyUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyConcordia UniversityMontrealCanada
  3. 3.Department of BiologyUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada
  4. 4.Department of Biomedical Sciences, WCVMUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada

Personalised recommendations