Journal of Insect Behavior

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 285–295 | Cite as

Effects of Chemical Cues on Foraging in Damselfly Larvae, Enallagma antennatum



Animals experiencing a trade-off between predation risk and resource acquisition must accurately predict ambient levels of predation risk to maximize fitness. We measure this trade-off explicitly in larvae of the damselfly Enallagma antennatum, comparing consumption rates in the presence of chemical cues from predators and injured prey. Damselflies distinguished among types of chemical cues based on species of prey injured or eaten. Injured coexisting heterospecific and unknown heterospecific chemical cues did not reduce foraging relative to starved predator cues, while cues arising from predators eating a coexisting heterospecific did decrease foraging. This study shows a cost in terms of reduced foraging in response to chemical cues and further defines the ability of prey to respond discerningly to chemical cues.


Antipredator behavior chemical cues diet cues damselflies foraging behavior Odonata 


  1. Anholt BR, Werner EE (1995) Interaction between food availability and predation mortality mediated by adaptive behavior. Ecology 76:2230–2234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnold SJ (1983) Morphology, performance and fitness. Am Zool 23:347–361Google Scholar
  3. Brodin T, Mikolajewski DJ, Johansson F (2006) Behavioural and life history effects of predator diet cues during ontongeny in damselfly larvae. Oecologia 148:162–169PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown GE, Paige JA, Godin JGJ (2000) Chemically mediated predator inspection behaviour in the absence of predator visual cues by a characin fish. Anim Behav 60:315–321PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chivers DP, Mirza RS (2001) Importance of predator diet cues in responses of larval wood frogs to fish and invertebrate predators. J Chem Ecol 27:45–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chivers DP, Smith RJF (1998) Chemical alarm signalling in aquatic predator–prey systems: a review and prospectus. Ecoscience 5:338–352Google Scholar
  7. Chivers DP, Wisenden BD, Smith RJF (1996) Damselfly larvae learn to recognize predators from chemical cues in the predator’s diet. Anim Behav 52:315–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Conover W (1999) Practical Nonparametric Statistics, 3rd edn. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Dodson SI, Crowl TA, Peckarsky BL, Kats LB, Covich AP, Culp JM (1994) Non-visual communication in freshwater benthos: an overview. J N Am Benthol Soc 13:268–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ferris G, Rudolf VHW (2007) Responses of larval dragonflies to conspecific and heterospecific predator cues. Ecol Entomol 32:283–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gyssels F, Stoks R (2006) Behavioral responses to fish kairomones and autotomy in a damselfly. J Ethol 24:79–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heads P (1985) The effect of invertebrate and vertebrate predators on the foraging movements of Ischnura elegans larvae (Odonata: Zygoptera). Freshw Biol 15:559–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heads P (1986) The costs of reduced feeding due to predator avoidance: potential effects on growth and fitness in Ischnura elegans larvae (Odonata: Zygoptera). Ecol Entomol 11:369–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jeffries M (1990) Interspecific differences in movement and hunting success in damselfly larvae (Zygoptera: Insecta): responses to prey availability and predation threat. Freshw Biol 23:191–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kats LB, Dill LM (1998) The scent of death: chemosensory assessment of predation risk by prey animals. Ecoscience 5:361–394Google Scholar
  16. Kiesecker JM, Chivers DP, Blaustein AR (1996) The use of chemical cues in predator recognition by western toad tadpoles. Anim Behav 52:1237–1245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Koperski P (1997) Changes in feeding behaviour of the larvae of the damselfly Enallagma cyathigerum in response to stimuli from predators. Ecol Entomol 22:167–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Laforsch C, Beccara L, Tollrian R (2006) Inducible defenses: The relevance of chemical alarm cues in Daphnia. Limnol Oceanogr 51:1466–1472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lima SL (1985) Maximizing feeding efficiency and minimizing time exposed to predators—a trade-off in the black-capped chickadee. Oecologia 66:60–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lima SL (1998) Stress and decision making under the risk of predation: Recent developments from behavioral, reproductive, and ecological perspectives. Adv Stud Behav 27:215–290Google Scholar
  21. Lima SL, Dill LM (1990) Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation—a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 68:619–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Maerz JC, Panebianco NL, Madison DM (2001) Effects of predator chemical cues and behavioral biorhythms on foraging, activity of terrestrial salamanders. J Chem Ecol 27:1333–1344PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Marko PB, Palmer R (1991) Responses of a rocky shore gastropod to the effluents of predatory and non-predatory crabs: avoidance and attraction. Biol Bull 181:363–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McBean MC, White SA, MacGregor JA (2005) Foraging behaviour of the damsefly larva Pyrrhosoma nymphula (Sulzer) in response to predator presence (Zygoptera: Coenagrionidae). Odonatologica 34:155–164Google Scholar
  25. McPeek MA (1990) Behavioral differences between Enallagma species (Odonata) influencing differential vulnerability to predators. Ecology 71:1714–1726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McPeek MA, Grace M, Richardson JML (2001) Physiological and behavioral responses to predators shape the growth/predation risk trade-off in damselflies. Ecology 82:1535–1545Google Scholar
  27. Milinski M, Heller R (1978) Influence of a predator on the optimal foraging behaviour of sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus L.). Nature 275:642–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mirza RS, Chivers DP (2001) Learned recognition of heterospecific alarm signals: The importance of a mixed predator diet. Ethology 107:1007–1018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mirza RS, Chivers DP (2003a) Fathead minnows learn to recognize heterospecific alarm cues they detect in the diet of a known predator. Behaviour 140:1359–1369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mirza RS, Chivers DP (2003b) Predator diet cues and the assessment of predation risk by juvenile brook charr: do diet cues enhance survival? Can J Zool 81:126–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mirza RS, Fisher SA, Chivers DP (2003) Assessment of predation risk by juvenile yellow perch, Perca flavescens: Responses to alarm cues from conspecifics and prey guild members. Env Biol Fishes 66:321–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Peacor SD, Werner EE (2000) Predator effects on an assemblage of consumers through induced changes in consumer foraging behavior. Ecology 81:1998–2010Google Scholar
  33. Pollock MS, Chivers DP (2004) The effects of density on the learned recognition of heterospecific alarm cues. Ethology 110:341–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pollock MS, Chivers DP, Mirza RS, Wisenden BD (2003) Fathead minnows, Pimephales promelas, learn to recognize chemical alarm cues of introduced brook stickleback, Culaea inconstans. Env Biol Fishes 66:313–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pollock MS, Friesen RG, Pollock RJ, Kusch RC, Chivers DP (2005) The avoidance response of fathead minnows to chemical alarm cues: understanding the effects of donor gender and breeding condition. Chemoecology 15:205–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rajchard J (2006) Antipredator pheromones in amphibians: a review. Vet Med 51:409–413Google Scholar
  37. Relyea RA (2000) Trait-mediated indirect effects in larval anurans: reversing competition with the threat of predation. Ecology 81:2278–2289Google Scholar
  38. Relyea RA (2001) Morphological and behavioral plasticity of larval anurans in response to different predators. Ecology 82:523–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Relyea RA (2003) How prey respond to combined predators: A review and an empirical test. Ecology 84:1827–1839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Roh E, Mirza RS, Brown GE (2004) Quality or quantity? The role of donor condition in the production of chemical alarm cues in juvenile convict cichlids. Behaviour 141:1235–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schaffner AK, Anholt BR (1998) Influence of predator presence and prey density on behavior and growth of damselfly larvae (Ischnura elegans) (Odonata: Zygoptera). J Insect Behav 11:793–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schoeppner NM, Relyea RA (2005) Damage, digestion, and defence: the roles of alarm cues and kairomones for inducing prey defences. Ecol Lett 8:505–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Scrimgeour GJ, Culp JM, Cash KJ (1994) Anti-predator responses of mayfly larvae to conspecific and predator stimuli. J N Am Benthol Soc 13:299–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sih A (1980) Optimal behavior: can foragers balance two conflicting demands? Science 210:1041–1043PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sih A (1982) Foraging strategies and the avoidance of predation by an aquatic insect, Notonecta hoffmanni. Ecology 63:786–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sih A (1986) Antipredator responses and the perception of danger by mosquito larvae. Ecology 67:434–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stabell OB, Ogbebo F, Primicerio R (2003) Inducible defences in Daphnia depend on latent alarm signals from conspecific prey activated in predators. Chem Senses 28:141–153PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stoks R (2001) Food stress and predator-induced stress shape developmental performance in a damselfly. Oecologia 127:222–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stoks R, McPeek MA, Mitchell JL (2003) Evolution of prey behavior in response to changes in predation regime: damselflies in fish and dragonfly lakes. Evolution 57:574–585PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Trussell GC, Ewanchuk PJ, Bertness MD (2003) Trait-mediated effects in rocky intertidal food chains: predator risk cues alter prey feeding rates. Ecology 34:629–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Trussell GC, Ewanchuk PJ, Bertness MD, Silliman BR (2004) Trophic cascades in rocky shore tide pools: distinguishing lethal and nonlethal effects. Oecologia 139:427–432PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Trussell GC, Ewanchuk PJ, Matassa CM (2006) Habitat effects on the relative importance of trait- and density-mediated indirect interactions. Ecol Lett 9:1245–1252PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wilson DJ, Lefcort H (1993) The effect of predator diet on the alarm response of red-legged frog, Rana aurora, tadpoles. Anim Behav 46:1017–1019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wisenden BD, Chivers DP, Smith RJF (1997) Learned recognition of predation risk by Enallagma damselfly larvae (Odonata, Zygoptera) on the basis of chemical cues. J Chem Ecol 23:137–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesBrock UniversitySt. CatharinesCanada

Personalised recommendations