Sensory signals and the reaction space in predator–prey interactions
Non-consumptive effects of predators (NCEs) often occur when prey alter their behavior in response to sensory signals indicative of predatory threats. The purpose of this study was to assess how the reaction to predation risk by prey changes with environmental context and predator hunting mode. We placed prey (crayfish) in two different environments (flow and no flow) in one of the three predator treatments (active predator [bass], sit-and-wait predator [catfish], no predator) and monitored the behavior of the crayfish in a resource patchy environment. Crayfish rely on chemically mediated behaviors including foraging, agonistic, and predator detection, and inhabit flow and no flow environments. Our results show predator hunting mode changes prey behavior, but only in flow water that would enhance the transmission of predator cues. The most significant interaction between predator treatment and environmental conditions was found with the active predator in flow habitats, but changes in stimulus transmission dynamics did not alter NCEs from a sit-and-wait predator.
KeywordsReaction space Non-consumptive effects Hunting mode Environmental transmission
We would like to thank members of the Laboratory for Sensory Ecology for their assistance in experimental setup and review of the manuscript. We thank the University of Michigan Biological Station for funding this research through the Marian P. and David M. Gates Graduate Student Fund and for the use of the Stream Research Facility. We thank Harrietta Hills Trout Farm LLC for working with us to obtain the fish for this study. We thank all those who assisted in animal collection for this study. We would like to thank the reviewers for their careful reading of this manuscript and their thoughtful ideas for revisions.
- Denny, M. W., 1993. Air and water: the biology and physics of life’s media. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
- Dusenbery, D. B., 1992. Measuring information in Sensory Ecology. W.H. Freeman and Company, New York.Google Scholar
- Kuhlmann, M. L., S. M. Badylak & E. L. Carvin, 2008. Testing the differential predation hypothesis for the invasion of rusty crayfish in a stream community: laboratory and field experiments. Freshwater Biology 53: 113–128.Google Scholar
- Kuznetsova, A., P. B. Brockhoff, & R. H. B. Christenesen, 2015. Package lmerTest. R package version 2.Google Scholar
- R Development Core Team, 2016. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.
- Schmitz, O. J., 2005. Behavior of predators and prey links with population level processes. In Barbosa, P. & I. Castelianos (eds), Ecology of predator-prey interactions. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK: 256–278.Google Scholar
- Seelbach, P. W., & M. J. Wiley, 1997. Overview of the Michigan rivers inventory (MRI) project. Department of Natural Resources.Google Scholar
- Smee, D. L., M. C. Ferner & M. J. Weissburg, 2010. Hydrodynamic sensory stressors produce nonlinear predation patterns. Ecology 156: 399–409.Google Scholar
- Smith, J. M. & J. Harper, 2003. Animal Signals. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
- Turner, A. & S. Peacor, 2012. Scaling up infochemicals: ecological consequences of chemosensory assessment of predation risk. In Brönmark, C. & L. Hansson (eds), Chemical Ecology in Aquatic Systems. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
- Wilson, M. L. & M. J. Weissburg, 2013. Biotic structure indirectly affects associated prey in a predator-specific manner via changes in the sensory environment. The American Naturalist 184(2): 141–157.Google Scholar