Naïve, bold, or just hungry? An invasive exotic prey species recognises but does not respond to its predators
Alien species experience both costs and benefits in invaded environments, through naiveté of potential prey species, but also predation pressure from native predators. The question of whether alien prey recognise and respond to native predators has been relatively understudied, despite the hypothesised potential for native predators to provide biotic resistance to invasion. There are two main hypotheses about whether exotic prey should recognise native and exotic predators in their new ranges: (1) naiveté—predicting recognition of evolutionarily familiar predators only, and (2) pre-adaptation—predicting recognition of all predators through a generalist recognition template. With regards to antipredator responses, (3) naïveté theory presumes that exotic prey will respond to the predators they recognise, but we suggest that (4) a bold behavioural syndrome, and/or a high marginal value of food in invaded environments might result in weak or absent responses, even to recognised predators. Here we combine the giving-up density framework with behavioural analysis of remote camera footage to experimentally test these ideas in a disturbed, peri-urban, Australian ecosystem, where alien black rats are predated on by alien dogs, foxes, cats, and native quolls. Black rats recognised dogs and foxes, but appear naïve towards quolls. However, they showed no antipredator responses at all, consistent with a bold behavioural syndrome, elevated predation risk, and/or a high marginal value of food in invaded environments.
KeywordsExotic prey Native predator Olfactory recognition Odour cues Alien Predator–prey interaction
The authors would like to thank Malith Weerakoon, Timothy Ralph, and a long list of volunteers for assistance with odour sample donation, field work, and video scoring. We would also like to thank the editor and one anonymous reviewer for their comments and suggestions, which greatly improved the manuscript.
AJRC and PBB conceived of and designed the study, AJRC completed the fieldwork, analyses, and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. PBB contributed to the data analysis and editing of the manuscript.
AJRC was funded by an Ethel Mary Read Grant from the Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, and a Joyce W Vickery Fund Research Grant from the Linnean Society of New South Wales. AJRC and PBB were funded by a Hermon Slade Foundation grant, HSF 10/10.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This work was carried out under Australian ethics approval, granted by the University of New South Wales Animal Ethics Committee (approval number 09/99B).
All data will be deposited in Dryad upon acceptance.
- Blumstein DT, Daniel JC (2007) Quantifying behavior the JWatcher Way. Sinauer Associates Incorporated, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
- Blumstein DT, Daniel JC, Evans C (2006) JWatcherGoogle Scholar
- Brown JS (1999) Vigilance, patch use and habitat selection: foraging under predation risk. Evol Ecol Res 1:49–71Google Scholar
- Caro T (2005) Antipredator defenses in birds and mammals. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- Carthey AJR (2013) Naivete, novelty and native status: mismatched ecological interactions in the Australian environment. University of Sydney, SydneyGoogle Scholar
- Diamond J, Case TJ (1986) Overview: introductions, extinctions, exterminations, and invasions. In: Diamond J, Case TJ (eds) Community ecology. Harper and Row, New York, pp 65–79Google Scholar
- Endler JA (1991) Interactions between predators and prey. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach, 3rd edn. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp 169–202Google Scholar
- Goldyn B, Hromada M, Surmacki A et al (2003) Habitat use and diet of the red fox Vulpes vulpes in an agricultural landscape in Poland. Zeitschrift für Jagdwissenschaft 49:191–200Google Scholar
- Krause J, Ruxton GD (2002) Living in groups. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Long JL (2003) Introduced mammals of the world: their history, distribution and influence. CSIRO Publishing, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
- Nelson DWM, Crossland MR, Shine R (2011) Behavioural responses of native predators to an invasive toxic prey species. Aust Ecol 36:605–611Google Scholar
- Primer-E Ltd. (2012) Primer-E v.6 and PERMANOVA+. Primer-E Ltd, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
- Pulliam HR, Caraco T (1984) Living in groups: is there an optimal group size? Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp 122–147Google Scholar
- Roberts SC (2007) Scent marking. In: Wolff JO, Sherman PW (eds) Rodent societies: an ecological and evolutionary perspective. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 255–266Google Scholar
- SAS Institute Inc. (1989–2007) JMP. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC,Google Scholar
- Sherman PW, Reeve HK, Pfennig DW (1997) Recognition systems. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology, 4th edn. Blackwell Science, Oxford, p 456Google Scholar
- Weerakoon MK, Ruffino L, Cleary GP et al (2014) Can camera traps be used to estimate small mammal population size. Camera Trapping: wildlife management and research. CSIRO Publishing, Clayton, pp 307–316Google Scholar