Oecologia

, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp 285–302 | Cite as

Protean defence by prey animals

  • D. A. Humphries
  • P. M. Driver
Article

Summary

Attention is drawn to the widespread occurrence ofprotean phenomena, in which the appearance and behaviour of prey animals are rendered variable and irregular, as a weapon in the biological arms race between predators and their prey. Protean behaviour is defined as that behaviour which is sufficiently unsystematic to prevent a reactor predicting in detail the position or actions of the actor.

Single prey animals frequently flee from a predator in an irregular manner, zigzagging, spinning, looping, or bouncing. Thissingle erratic display occurs widely in the Animal Kingdom, and may also be utilised in everyday movements of potential prey as insurance against possible attack. Examples are given.

In a group of prey animals the protean aspect of escape is enhanced by the effect of numbers. In scatter reactions the effect is of multiple choice and of the simultaneous operation of several single erratics. In mobbing displays there are also successive changes in the actors' behavioural role. In protean deterrence the shuffling of individuals within a tightly packed group prevents a predator from singling one out for attack.

In many species the confusing effect of changes in movement and behavioural role is enhanced by rapid changes in appearance, particularly colour.

It is suggested that those prey individuals which employ escape patterns unfamiliar to the predator will tend to be at a selective advantage. During phylogeny this is likely to lead to intra-specific and inter-specific increase in the number and diversity of escape behaviours. Apostatic polymorphism is seen as a special case of protean variation within populations.

There is evidence that protean displays operate by arousing neurological conflict, thereby delaying the predator's reactions and reducing the effectiveness of predatory mechanisms. Also they insure against learned countermeasures by incorporating irregularities as a basic principle. It is stressed that the irregular variability of protean displays is not accidental but has been selected for in phylogeny. A number of poorly understood behavioural aspects of the ecology of predator-prey relationships are thus united in a single theory.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Armstrong, E. A.: Bird display and behaviour. London: Lindsey Press 1947.Google Scholar
  2. —: Diversionary display. Fart I. Connotation and terminology. Part II. The nature and origin of distraction display. Ibis91, 88–97, 179–188 (1949).Google Scholar
  3. —: The ecology of distraction display. Brit. J. Anim. Behav.2, 121–135 (1954).Google Scholar
  4. Audubon, J. J.: Birds of America. New York: Macmillan 1950.Google Scholar
  5. Baerends, G. P.: Specializations in organs and movements with a releasing function. Symp. Soc. exp. Biol.4, 337–360 (1950).Google Scholar
  6. Bergman, G.: Om simfalgars och vadares hackning i masfagelkolonier. Dansk orn. Foren. Tidsskr.35, 120–123 (1941).Google Scholar
  7. Berlyne, D. E.: Conflict, arousal and curiosity. London: McGraw-Hill 1960.Google Scholar
  8. Beukema, J. J.: Predation by the three-spined sticklebach (Gasterosteus aculeatus L.): The influence of hunger and experience. Behaviour31, 1–126 (1968).Google Scholar
  9. Blest, A. D.: The function of eyespot patterns in the Lepidoptera. Behaviour11, 209–255 (1957a).Google Scholar
  10. —: The evolution of protective displays in the Saturnioidea and Sphingidae (Lepidoptera). Behaviour11, 257–309 (1957b).Google Scholar
  11. —: Protective display and sound production in some New World aretiid and ctenuchid moths. Zoologica49, 161–181 (1964).Google Scholar
  12. Bowen, E. S.: The role of the sense organs in aggregations ofAmeiurus melas. Ecol. Monogr.1, 1–35 (1931).Google Scholar
  13. Boycott, B. B.: A comparison of livingSepioteuthis sepioidea andDoryteuthis plei with other squids and withSepia officinalis. Proc. zool. Soc. Lond.147, 344–351 (1965).Google Scholar
  14. Bristowe, W. S.: The world of spiders. London: Collins 1958.Google Scholar
  15. Brower, L. P.: Ecological chemistry. Scient. Amer.220 (2), 22–29 (1969).Google Scholar
  16. Bullock, T. H.: Evolution of neurophysiological mechanisms. Behaviour and evolution. New Haven: Yale University Press 1958.Google Scholar
  17. Chance, M. R. A.: The role of convulsions in behaviour. Behav. Sci.2, 30–45 (1957).Google Scholar
  18. Chance, M. R. A.: Polyethism — cryptic behaviour. Proc. 5th internat. Congr. Zool. Section11 (1) (1959).Google Scholar
  19. —, Russell, W. M. S.: Protean displays: a form of allaesthetic behaviour. Proc. zool. Soc. Lond.132, 65–70 (1959).Google Scholar
  20. —, Yaxley, D. C.: New aspects of the behaviour ofPeromyscus under audiogenic hyper-excitement. Behaviour2, 96–105 (1949).Google Scholar
  21. Clarke, B. C.: Balanced polymorphism and the diversity of sympatric species. Taxonomy and geography. London: Systematics Association 1962a.Google Scholar
  22. —: Natural selection in mixed populations of two polymorphic snails. Heredity (Lond.)17, 319–345 (1962b).Google Scholar
  23. Cott, H. B.: Adaptive coloration in animals. London: Methuen 1940.Google Scholar
  24. Denton, E. J., Nicol, J. A. C.: Why fish have silvery sides: a method of measuring reflectivity. J. Physiol. (Lond.)165, 13–15 (1962).Google Scholar
  25. Driver, P. M.: Behaviour studies in sea ducklings. Ph. D. Thesis, McGill University, Montreal 1960.Google Scholar
  26. —, Humphries, D. A.: Protean behaviour; systematic unpredictability in interspecific encounters. Preprint 197, Mental Health Research Institute, Ann Arbor 1966.Google Scholar
  27. —: The significance of the high-intensity alarm call in captured passerines. Ibis111, 243–244 (1969).Google Scholar
  28. —: Protean displays as conflict inducers. Nature (Lond.)226, 968–969 (1970).Google Scholar
  29. Dunning, D. C., Roeder, K. D.: Moth sounds and insect-catching behaviour of bats. Science147, 173–174 (1965).Google Scholar
  30. Gurney, J. H.: On some additional species of birds received in collections from Natal. Ibis12, 132 (1861).Google Scholar
  31. Hemmings, C. C.: Factors influencing the visibility of objects underwater. Symposium on light as an ecological factor, p. 359–374. Oxford: Blackwell 1966.Google Scholar
  32. Hinde, R. A.: Factors governing the changes in strength of a partially inborn response, as shown by the mobbing behaviour of the chaffinch,Fringilla coelebs. Proc. roy. Soc. B142, 306–358 (1954).Google Scholar
  33. Holmes, W.: The colour changes and colour patterns ofSepia officinalis L. Proc. zool. Soc. Lond.110, 17–35 (1940).Google Scholar
  34. Howard, L. O.: The insect book. New York: Doubleday and Page 1901.Google Scholar
  35. Humphries, D. A.: Erratic movement and a cataleptic posture in the escape behaviour of fleas. Entomologist's mon. Mag. (in press).Google Scholar
  36. —, Driver, P. M.: Erratic display as a device against predators. Science156, 1767–1768 (1967).Google Scholar
  37. Kennedy, J. S., Booth, C. O.: Free flight of aphids in the laboratory. J. exp. Biol.40, 67–85 (1963).Google Scholar
  38. Kruuk, H.: Predators and anti-predator behaviour of the black-headed gull (Larus ridibundus L.). Behaviour, Suppl.11, 1–129 (1964).Google Scholar
  39. Leyhausen, P.: Verhaltensstudien an Katzen. Z. Tierpsychol., Suppl.2 (1956).Google Scholar
  40. Lind, H.: Studies on the behaviour of the black-tailed godwit (Limosa limosa L.). Meddelelser fra Naturfrednings rådets reservatudvalg. 66 (1961).Google Scholar
  41. Markgren, M.: Fugitive reactions in avian behaviour. Acta vertebr.2, 1–160 (1960).Google Scholar
  42. Marler, P.: Behaviour of the chaffinchFringilla coelebs. Behaviour, Suppl.5 (1956).Google Scholar
  43. Marshall, S. M., Orr, A. P.: The biology of a marine copepod,Calanus finmarchicus (Gunnerus). Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd 1955.Google Scholar
  44. Meinertzhagen, R.: Pirates and predators: habits of birds. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd 1959.Google Scholar
  45. Millais, J. G.: British diving ducks. London: Longmans 1913.Google Scholar
  46. Nicol, J. A. C.: The biology of marine animals. London: Pitman 1960.Google Scholar
  47. Owen, D. F.: Density effects in polymorphic land snails. Heredity (Lond.)20, 312–315 (1965).Google Scholar
  48. —: The interpretation of polymorphism in the African bush-shrikes. Ibis109, 278–279 (1967).Google Scholar
  49. —, Wiegert, R. G.: Balanced polymorphism in the meadow spittlebug,Philaenus spumarius. Amer. Nat.96, 353–359 (1962).Google Scholar
  50. Panceri, P.: The luminous organs and light of the Pennatulae. Quart. J. micr. Sci.12, 248–254 (1872).Google Scholar
  51. Payne, R. B.: Interspecific communication signals in parasitic birds. Amer. Nat.101, 363–375 (1967).Google Scholar
  52. Rapoport, A.: The use and misuse of game theory. Scient. Amer.207, 108–118 (1962).Google Scholar
  53. Roeder, K. D.: The behaviour of free flying moths in the presence of artificial ultrasonic pulses. Anim. Behav.10, 300–304 (1962).Google Scholar
  54. Roeder, K. D., Treat, A. E.: The acoustic detection of bats by moths. Proc. 11th intern. Ent. Congr. (1960).Google Scholar
  55. ——: The detection and evasion of bats by moths. Amer. Scient.49, 135–148 (1961).Google Scholar
  56. Ruiter, L. de: Some experiments on the camouflage of stick caterpillars. Behaviour4, 222–232 (1952).Google Scholar
  57. Simmons, K. E. L.: The nature of the predator — reactions of waders towards humans; with special reference to the role of the aggressive —, escape —, and brooding drives. Behaviour8, 130–173 (1955).Google Scholar
  58. Spencer, K. G.: The lapwing in Britain. London: Brown 1953.Google Scholar
  59. Spooner, G. M.: Some observations on schooling in fish. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K.17, 421–448 (1931).Google Scholar
  60. Tinbergen, N.: The study of instinct. Oxford: Clarendon Press 1951.Google Scholar
  61. —: Bullfinch escaping from cat by “playing dead”. Br. Birds55, 420 (1962).Google Scholar
  62. —, Impekoven, N., Franck, D.: An experiment on spacing-out as a defence against predation. Behaviour28, 307–321 (1967).Google Scholar
  63. Tuck, L. M.: The murres. Ottawa: Duhamel 1960.Google Scholar
  64. Webster, F. A., Griffin, D. R.: The role of flight membranes in insect capture by bats. Anim. Behav.10, 332–340 (1962).Google Scholar
  65. Welty, J. C.: Experiments in group behaviour of fishes. Physiol. Zool.7, 85–128 (1934).Google Scholar
  66. Witherby, H. G., Jourdain, F. C. R., Ticehurst, N. F., Tucker, B. W.: The handbook of British birds. London: Witherby 1947.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1970

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. A. Humphries
    • 1
    • 2
  • P. M. Driver
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of Aston in BirminghamBirminghamUK
  2. 2.Department of ZoologyUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations