acta ethologica

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 163–168 | Cite as

European rabbits recognise conspecifics in their predators’ diets

  • Laura M. Prada
  • José Guerrero-Casado
  • Francisco S. Tortosa
Original Paper


Rabbits can successfully avoid their enemies by evaluating the risk of predation. They have various defensive strategies, such as morphological adaptations and behaviours patterns, which enable them to perceive their predators and thus reduce the risk of predation. It is well documented that rabbits recognise the scats of terrestrial predators and avoid those areas in which they are present. However, few studies show whether the prey species can recognise the presence of congeners in carnivores’ scats, which would allow them to identify their predators in a more efficient manner. We have carried out a comparative analysis of the use of space made by rabbits on plots on which a neutral odour (water) or the odours of the ferrets’ scats that had consumed either rabbit or another mammal (beef) were applied. Our results showed a lower number of rabbit pellets on those plots containing predator odours than on the control plots. During the first 6 days after applying the first odour, the number of rabbit pellets was lower on plots on which rabbit had been included in the diet when compared with scats obtained from a beef diet. However, no differences between the two experimental plots were recorded during the third visit (9 days after applying the first odour). Our results suggest that rabbits may be able to detect congeners in their predators’ scats, thus leading them to, in the short term, avoid areas in which their terrestrial predators’ diet is based on conspecifics, probably as the result of them perceiving a higher risk of predation.


Anti-predator strategies Oryctolagus cuniculus Predator diet Predator-prey interaction Predation risk 



We would like to thank the landowners that allowed us to work in their fields. We are indebted to A. J. Carpio and our others partners for their help during the fieldwork and to the farmers for their cooperation. Two anonymous reviewers provided useful comments that greatly improved the manuscript.


This work was supported by the AGL2012–40128-C03–01 project and EU-FEDER funds from the Spanish government.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.


  1. Apfelbach R, Blanchard CD, Blanchard RJ, Hayes RA, McGregor IS (2005) The effects of predator odors in mammalian prey species: a review of field and laboratory studies. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 29:1123–1144CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Apfelbach R, Soini HA, Vasilieva NY, Novotny MV (2015) Behavioral responses of predator-naïve dwarf hamsters (Phodopus campbelli) to odor cues of the European ferret fed with different prey species. Physiol Behav 146:57–66CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Barreto GR, Macdonald D (1999) The response of water voles, Arvicola terrestris, to the odours of predators. Anim Behav 57:1107–1112CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrio IC, Bueno CG, Tortosa FS (2010a) Alternative food and rabbit damage in vineyards of southern Spain. Agric Ecosyst Environ 138:51–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barrio IC, Bueno CG, Banks PB, Tortosa FS (2010b) Prey naiveté in an introduced prey species: the wild rabbit in Australian. Behav Ecol 21:986–991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beja P, Pais M, Palma L (2007) Rabbit Oryctolagus Cuniculus habitats in Mediterranean scrubland: the role of scrub structure and composition. Wildl Biol 13:28–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beltran JF (1991) Temporal abundance pattern of the wild rabbit in Doñana, SW Spain. Mammalia 55:591–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caine NG, Weldon PJ (1989) Responses by red-bellied tamarins (Saguinus labiatus) to fecal scents of predatory and nonpredatory neotropical mammals. Biotropica 21:186–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carpio AJ, Soriano MA, Guerrero-Casado J, Prada LM, Tortosa FS, Lora Á, Gómez JA (2017) Evaluation of an unpalatable species (Anthemis arvensis L.) as an alternative cover crop in olive groves under high grazing pressure by rabbits. Agric Ecosyst Environ 246:48–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cox TE, Murray PJ, Hall GP, Li X (2010) Pest responses to odors from predators fed a diet of target species conspecifics and heterospecifics. JWM 74:1737–1744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cremona T, Crowther MS, Webb JK (2014) Variation of prey responses to cues from a mesopredator and an apex predator. Aust Ecol 39:749–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Delibes-Mateos M, Redpath SM, Angulo E, Ferreras P, Villafuerte R (2007) Rabbits as a keystone species in southern Europe. Biol Conserv 137:149–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Díaz M, Torre I, Peris A, Tena L (2005) Foraging behavior of wood mice as related to presence and activity of genets. J Mammal 86:1178–1185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Diete RL, Meek PD, Dickman CR, Lisle A, Leung LKP (2017) Diel activity patterns of northern Australian small mammals: variation, fixity, and plasticity. J Mammal 98:848–857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fernandez-de-Simon J, Díaz-Ruiz F, Cirilli F, Tortosa FS, Villafuerte R, Delibes-Mateos M, Ferreras P (2011) Towards a standardized index of European rabbit abundance in Iberian Mediterranean habitats. Eur J Wildl Res 57(5):1091–1100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ferrero DM, Lemon JK, Fluegge D, Pashkovski SL, Korzan WJ, Datta SR, Spehr M, Fendt M, Liberles SD (2011) Detection and avoidance of a carnivore odour by prey. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108:11235–11240CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Guerrero-Casado J, Ruiz-Aizpurua L, Tortosa FS (2013) The short-term effect of total predation exclusion on wild rabbit abundance in restocking plots. Acta Theriol 58:415–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guerrero-Casado J, Carpio AJ, Prada LM, Tortosa FS (2015) Short communication. The role of rabbit density and the diversity of weeds in the development of cover crops in olive groves. Span J Agric Res 13:e03SC01CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hettyey A, Thonhauser KE, Bókony V, Penn DJ, Hoi H, Griggio M (2016) Naive tadpoles do not recognize recent invasive predatory fishes as dangerous. Ecology 97:2975–2985CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Jedrzejewski W, Jedrzejewska B (1990) Effect of a predator’s visit on the spatial distribution of bank voles: experiments with weasels. Can J Zool 68:660–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Johnson-Delaney CA (2014) Ferret nutrition. Vet Clin North Am Exot Anim Pract 17:449–470CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Lima SL, Bednekoff P (1999) Temporal variation in danger drives antipredator behavior: thepredation risk allocation hypothesis. Am Nat 153:649–659CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. McPhee ME, Segal A, Johnston RE (2010) Hamsters use predator odors as indirect cues of predation risk. Ethology 116:517–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Monclús R, Rödel HG, Von Holstet D, De Miguel J (2005) Behavioural and physiological responses of naïve European rabbits to predator odour. Anim Behav 70:753–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Monclús R, Palomares F, Tablado Z, Martínez-Fontúrbel A, Palme R (2009) Testing the threat-sensitive predator avoidance hypothesis: physiological responses and predator pressure in wild rabbits. Oecologia 158:615–623CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Nersesian CL, Banks PB, McArthur C (2011) Behavioural responses to indirect and direct predator cues by a mammalian herbivore, the common brushtail possum. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 66:47–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Parsons MH, Apfelbach R, Banks PB, Cameron EZ, Dickman CR, Frank ASK, Jones ME, McGregor IS, McLean S, Müller-Schwarze D, Sparrow EE, Blumstein DT (2018) Biologically meaningful scents: a framework for understanding predator–prey research across disciplines. Biol Rev 93:98–114CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Pereira RT, Leutz JDACM, Valença-Silva G, Barcellos LJG, Barreto RE (2017) Ventilation responses to predator odors and conspecific chemical alarm cues in the frillfin goby. Physiol Behav 179:319–323CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Pillay N, Alexander GJ, Lazenby SL (2003) Responses of striped mice, Rhabdomys pumilio, to faeces of a predatory snake. Behaviour 140:125–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Preston DB, Forstner MR (2015) Houston toad (Bufo (Anaxyrus) houstonensis) tadpoles decrease their activity in response to chemical cues produced from the predation of conspecifics and congeneric (Bufo (Incilius) nebulifer) tadpoles. J Herpetol 49:170–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reichard U (1998) Sleeping sites, sleeping places, and presleep behavior of gibbons (Hylobates lar.). Am J Primatol 46:35–62CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Ríos-Saldaña CA, Delibes-Mateos M, Castro F, Martínez E, Vargas JM, Cooke BD, Villafuerte R (2013) Control of the European rabbit in Central Spain. Eur J Wildl Res 59:573–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rödel HG, Monclús R, Von Holst D (2006) Behavioral styles in European rabbits: social interactions and responses to experimental stressors. Physiol Behav 89:180–188CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Rosen JB, Asok A, Chakraborty T (2015) The smell of fear: innate threat of 2, 5-dihydro-2, 4, 5-trimethylthiazoline, a single molecule component of a predator odor. Front Neurosci 9:292PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Rouco C, Santoro S, Delibes-Mateos M, Villafuerte R (2016) Optimization and accuracy of faecal pellet count estimates of population size: the case of European rabbits in extensive breeding nuclei. Ecol Indic 64:212–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Santilli F, Bagliacca M (2010) Habitat use by the European wild rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) in a coastal sandy dune ecosystem of Central Italy. Hystrix. Ital J Mammal 21:57–64Google Scholar
  37. Scherer AE, Smee DL (2016) A review of predator diet effects on prey defensive responses. Chemoecology 26:83–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shaffery HM, Relyea RA (2015) Dissecting the smell of fear from conspecific and heterospecific prey: investigating the processes that induce anti-predator defenses. Oecologia 180:55–65CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Stankowich T, Haverkamp PJ, Caro T (2014) Ecological drivers of antipredator defenses in carnivores. Evolution 68:415–1425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tortosa FS, Barrio IC, Carthey A, Banks P (2015) No longer naïve? Generalized responses of rabbits to marsupial predators in Australia. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 69:1649–1655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vilhunen S, Hirvonen H (2003) Innate antipredator responses of Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus) depend on predator species and their diet. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 55:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Viota M, Rodríguez A, López-Vao JV, Palomares F (2012) Shift in microhabitat use as a mechanism allowing the coexistence of victim and killer carnivore predators. Open J Ecol 2:115–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature and ISPA 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura M. Prada
    • 1
  • José Guerrero-Casado
    • 1
    • 2
  • Francisco S. Tortosa
    • 1
  1. 1.Departamento de ZoologíaUniversidad de CórdobaCórdobaSpain
  2. 2.Facultad de Ciencias VeterinariasUniversidad Técnica de ManabíPortoviejoEcuador

Personalised recommendations