Advertisement

Mammal Research

, Volume 64, Issue 2, pp 261–269 | Cite as

Feeding behavior under predatory risk in Ctenomys talarum: nutritional state and recent experience of a predatory event

  • Valentina BrachettaEmail author
  • Cristian E. Schleich
  • Roxana R. Zenuto
Original Paper
  • 60 Downloads

Abstract

Predatory risk is recognized as an important factor that impacts on behavior, distribution, and reproduction of animals. Facing the presence of predators’ cues, preys have developed a series of anti-predatory behaviors that involve trade-offs between costs and benefits. Faced with the clear advantage of reducing the immediate risk of predation, preys are forced to modify their performance in other activities. The most documented of them is undoubtedly the foraging. In the presence of predators or their cues in the environment, a compromise between food and safety arises, so that the prey restricts the time searching for food, limits it to protected sites, or increase the vigilance, thus impacting foraging success and consequently in reproductive performance and long-term survival. However, the influence of several factors, like nutritional condition (fed or food deprived) or predator experience, on preys’ feeding choices has been comparatively less studied. Therefore, the aim of this work was to evaluate Ctenomys talarum’s feeding behavior under the presence of predator cues (cat urine) considering (1) their nutritional condition and (2) a recent experience of a failed predatory event. The results of this work show that tuco-tucos can distinguish cues indicative of the presence of a predator and prefer to feed in areas where predator cues are not present (safe sites). Also, recent predatory experiences influenced foraging decisions, increasing the time without activity previous to a new feeding excursion. In conclusion, these results demonstrate the importance of the perception of predatory risk in the foraging behavior of C. talarum.

Keywords

Ctenomys talarum Subterranean rodent Predation risk Foraging behavior 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

In this study, the capture, handling, and maintenance in captivity of all animals were conducted in accordance with the guidelines approved by the American Society of Mammalogists (Sikes et al. 2016) and the current laws of Argentina.

References

  1. Antinuchi D, Busch C (1992) Burrow structure in the subterranean rodent Ctenomys talarum. Z Säugetierkd 57:163–168Google Scholar
  2. 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 29:1123–1144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bateman PW, Fleming PA (2014) Switching to plan B: changes in the escape tactics of two grasshopper species (Acrididae: Orthoptera) in response to repeated predatory approaches. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 68:457–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bateson M (2002) Recent advances in our understanding of risk-sensitive foraging preferences. Proc Nutr Soc 61(4):509–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bleicher SS (2017) The landscape of fear conceptual framework: definition and review of current applications and misuses. PeerJ 5:e3772.  https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3772 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brachetta V, Schleich CE, Zenuto RR (2014) Effects of acute and chronic exposure to predatory cues on spatial learning capabilities in the subterranean rodent Ctenomys talarum (Rodentia: Ctenomyidae). Ethol 120:563–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brachetta V, Schleich CE, Zenuto RR (2015) Short term anxiety response of the subterranean rodent Ctenomys talarum to odors from a predator. Physiol Behav 151:596–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brachetta V, Schleich CE, Zenuto RR (2016) Source odor, intensity, and exposure pattern affect antipredatory responses in the subterranean rodent Ctenomys talarum. Ethol 122:923–936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown JS, Kotler BP (2004) Hazardous duty pay and the foraging cost of predation. Ecol Lett 7:999–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown JS, Kotler BP (2007) Foraging and the ecology of fear. In: Stephens D, Ydenberg R, Brown JS (eds) Foraging: behavior and ecology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 437–480Google Scholar
  11. Brown JS, Laundré JW, Gurung M (1999) The ecology of fear: optimal foraging, game theory, and trophic interactions. J Mammal 80:385–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Busch C, Malizia AI, Scaglia OA, Reig OA (1989) Spatial distribution and attributes of a population of Ctenomys talarum (Rodentia: Octodontidae). J Mammal 70:204–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Busch C, Antinuchi D, Del Valle J, Kittlein M, Malizia A, Vassallo A, Zenuto R (2000) Population ecology of subterranean rodents. In: Lacey EA, Patton JL, Cameron GN (eds) Life underground: the biology of subterranean rodents. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 183–226Google Scholar
  14. Bytheway JP, Carthey AJR, Banks PB (2013) Risk vs. reward: how predators and prey respond to aging olfactory cues. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 67:715–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Capers RG (2010) Foraging decisions of nocturnal mice under direct and indirect cues of predation risk. Graduate Master Theses, University of South Florida, pp 53Google Scholar
  16. Cremona T, Crowther MS, Webb JK (2014) Variation of prey responses to cues from a mesopredator and an apex predator. Austral Ecol 39:749–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cutrera AP, Antinuchi CD, Mora MS, Vassallo AI (2006) Home-range size and activity patterns of the South American subterranean rodent Ctenomys talarum. J Mammal 87:1183–1191Google Scholar
  18. del Valle JC, Lohfelt MI, Comparatore VM, Cid MS, Busch C (2001) Feeding selectivity and food preference of Ctenomys talarum (tuco-tuco). Mamm Biol 66:165–173Google Scholar
  19. Epple G, Mason JR, Nolte DL, Campbell DL (1993) Effects of predator odors on feeding in the mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa). J Mammal 74:715–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Herman CS, Valone TJ (2000) The effect of mammalian predator scent on the foraging behavior of Dipodomys merriami. Oikos 91:139–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kacelnik A, Bateson M (1996) Risky theories—the effects of variance on foraging decisions. Am Zool 36:402–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kats LB, Dill LM (1998) The scent of death: chemosensory assessment of predation risk by prey animal. Ecoscience 5:361–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kavaliers M, Choleris E (2001) Antipredator responses and defensive behavior: ecological and ethological approaches for the neurosciences. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 25:577–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kelley J, Magurran AE (2003) Effects of relaxed predation pressure on visual predator recognition in the guppy. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 54:225–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kotler BP (1997) Patch use by gerbils in a risky environment: manipulating food and safety to test four models. Oikos 78:274–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Krause ET, Liesenjohann T (2012) Predation pressure and food abundance during early life alter risk-taking behaviour and growth of guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Behaviour 149:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Laakkonen M (2007) Behavioural and physiological responses to predators of captive-bred Arctic charr: significance of genetics, learning and ontogeny. Doctoral dissertation, University of HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  28. Lagos PA, Ebensperger LA, Herberstein ME (2014) A quantitative test of the ‘economic’ and ‘optimal’ models of escape behaviour. Anim Behav 97:221–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lima SL (1998) Nonlethal effects in the ecology of predator-prey interactions. Bioscience 48:25–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lima S, Bednekoff P (1999) Temporal variation in danger drives antipredator behavior: the predation risk allocation hypothesis. Am Nat 153(6):649–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lima SL, Dill LM (1990) Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 68:619–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mastrángelo M, Schleich CE, Zenuto RR (2009) Short term effects of an acute exposure to predatory cues on the spatial memory performance in a subterranean rodent. Anim Behav 77:685–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Merlo JL, Cutrera AP, Zenuto RR (2016) Food restriction affects inflammatory response and nutritional state in tuco-tucos (Ctenomys Talarum). J Exp Zool 325A:675–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Monclús R, Rödel HG, von Holst D, de Miguel J (2005) Behavioural and physiological responses of naïve rabbits to predator odour. Anim Behav 70:753–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Morris DW, Davidson DL (2000) Optimally foraging mice match patch use with habitat differences in fitness. Ecology 81:2061–2066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Reboreda JC, Kacelnik A (1991) Risk sensitivity in starlings: variability in food amount and food delay. Behav Ecol 2:301–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schleich CE, Zenuto RR (2007) Use of vegetation chemical signals for digging orientation in the subterranean rodent Ctenomys talarum (Rodentia: Ctenomyidae). Ethol 113:573–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schleich CE, Zenuto RR, Cutrera A (2015) Immune challenge but not dietary restriction affects spatial learning in the wild subterranean rodent Ctenomys talarum. Physiol Behav 139:150–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schwanz LE, Previtali MA, Gomes-Solecki M, Brisson D, Ostfeld RS (2012) Immunochallenge reduces risk sensitivity during foraging in white-footed mice. Anim Behav 83:155–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Searle KR, Stokes CJ, Gordon IJ (2008) When foraging and fear meet: using foraging hierarchies to inform assessments of landscapes of fear. Behav Ecol 19:475–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Severud WJ, Belant JL, Bruggink JG, Windels SK (2011) Predator cues reduce American beaver use of foraging trails. Hum-Wildl Interact 5:296–305Google Scholar
  42. Siepielski A, Fallon E, Boersma K (2016) Predator olfactory cues generate a foraging–predation trade-off through prey apprehension. R Soc Open Sci 3:150537Google Scholar
  43. Sikes RS, The Animal Care and Use Committee of the American Society of Mammalogists (2016) Guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists for the use of wild mammals in research and education. J Mammal 97:663–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sullivan TP, Crump D (1986) Feeding responses of snowshoe hares (Lepus americanus) to volatile constituents of red fox (Vulpes vulpes) urine. J Chem Ecol 12:729–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sullivan TP, Nordstrom LO, Sullivan DS (1985) Use of predator odors as repellents to reduce feeding damage by herbivores I. Snowshoe hares (Lepus americanus). J Chem Ecol 11:903–919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sundell J, Ylönen H (2004) Behaviour and choice of refuge by voles under predation risk. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 56:263–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Suselbeek L, Emsens WJ, Hirsch BT, Kays R, Rowcliffe JM (2014) Food acquisition and predator avoidance in a Neotropical rodent. Anim Behav 88:41–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Thomas O (1898) Description of two Argentine rodents. Ann Mag Nat Hist Ser 7(1):283–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tidhar WL, Bonier F, Speakman JR (2007) Sex- and concentration-dependent effects of predator feces on seasonal regulation of body mass in the bank vole Clethrionomys glareolus. Horm Behav 52:436–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vassallo A, Kittlein M, Busch C (1994) Owl predation on two sympatric species of tuco-tucos (Rodentia: Octodontidae). J Mammal 75:725–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Verdolin JL (2006) Meta-analysis of foraging and predation risk trade-offs in terrestrial systems. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 60:457–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Verplancke G, Le Boulengé É, Diederich C (2010) Differential foraging in presence of predator and conspecific odors in bank voles: a field enclosure study. Ecol Res 25(5):973–981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zenuto RR, Malizia AI, Busch C (1999) Sexual size dimorphism and mating system in two populations of Ctenomys talarum (Rodentia, Octodontidae). J Nat Hist 33:305–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Mammal Research Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences, Białowieża, Poland 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratorio de Ecología Fisiológica y del Comportamiento, Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras (IIMyC)Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata – CONICETBuenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations