Abstract
We examined the effects of predation and hunger levels on foraging behavior of adult neotenic graybelly salamanders, Eurycea multiplicata griseogaster. Hungry and satiated salamanders were exposed to chemical stimuli from a predatory fish (sculpin, Cottus carolinae) and from two nonpredatory species, golden redhorse fish (Moxostoma erythrurum) and tadpoles of leopard frogs (Rana sphenocephala). Latency to attack prey was lengthened in the presence of chemical stimuli from predators regardless of hunger levels, but hungry salamanders had shorter latency times than satiated salamanders. There was no interaction between hunger and threat levels. In addition, salamanders distinguished between chemical stimuli from predatory (sculpin) and nonpredatory (redhorse) fishes; responses to redhorse and tadpole stimuli were not different. Handling times were not affected by either predator treatment or hunger level. In summary, graybelly salamanders can (1) recognize sculpin predators based solely on chemical cues, (2) distinguish between chemical stimuli from predatory and nonpredatory fish, and (3) adjust their foraging behavior according to both hunger and predation risk.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
REFERENCES
Azevedo-Ramos, C., Van Sluys, M., Hero, J.-M., and Magnusson, W. E. 1992. Influence of tadpole movement on predation by odonate naiads. J. Herpetol. 26:335–338.
Cerri, R. D., and Fraser, D. F. 1983. Predation and risk in foraging minnows: Balancing conflicting demands. Am. Nat. 121:552–561.
Cupp, P. V., Jr. 1994. Salamanders avoid chemical cues from predators. Anim. Behav. 48:232–235.
Godin, J.-G. J., and Crossman, S. L. 1994. Hunger-dependent predator inspection and foraging behaviours in the threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) under predation risk. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 34:359–366.
GODIN, J.-G. J., and Sproul, C. D. 1988. Risk taking in parasitized sticklebacks under threat of predation: Effects of energetic need and food availability. Can. J. Zool. 66:2360–2367.
Heads, P. A. 1986. The costs of reduced feeding due to predator avoidance: Potential effects on growth and fitness in Ischnura elegans larvae (Odonta: Zygoptera). Ecol. Entomol. 11:369–377.
Horat, P., and Semlitsch, R. D. 1994. Effects of predation risk and hunger on the behaviour of two species of tadpoles. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 34:393–401.
Jacobs, A. J., and Taylor, D. H. 1992. Chemical communication between Desmognathus quadramaculatus and Desmognathus monticola. J. Herpetol. 26:93–95.
Jaeger, R. G., and Barnard, D. E. 1981. Foraging tactics of a terrestrial salamander: Choice of diet in structurally simple environments. Am. Nat. 117:639–664.
Kats, L. B., and Dill, L. M. 1998. The scent of death: Chemosensory assessment of predation risk by prey animals. Ecoscience 5:361–394.
Krebs, J. R. 1980. Optimal foraging, predation risk and territory defense. Ardea 68:83–90.
Lima, S. L. 1987. Vigilance while feeding and its relation to the risk of predation. J. Theor. Biol. 124:303–316.
Lima, S. L. 1998. Stress and decision making under the risk of predation: Recent developments from behavioral, reproductive, and ecological perspectives. Adv. Stud. Behav. 27:215–290.
Lima, S. L., and Dill, L. M. 1990. Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: A review and prospectus. Can. J. Zool. 68:619–640.
Magnahagen, C. 1988. Predation risk and foraging in juvenile pink (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and chum salmon (O. keta). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 45:592–596.
Mathis, A., and Lancaster, D. 1998. Response of terrestrial salamanders to chemical stimuli from distressed conspecifics. Amphibia-Reptilia 19:330–335.
McNamara, J. M., and Houston, A. I. 1986. The common currency for behavioural decisions. Am. Nat. 127:358–378.
Metcalfe, N. B., Huntingford, F. A., and Thorpe, J. E. 1987. The influence of predation risk on the feeding motivation and foraging strategy of juvenile Atlantic salmon. Anim. Behav. 35:901–911.
Milinski, M., and Heller, R. 1978. Influence of a predator on the optimal foraging behaviour of sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus L.). Nature 275:642–644.
Minitab. 1998. Minitab Statistical Software, Version 12.21. Minitab Inc., Rosemont, Pennsylvania.
Moore, F. R. 1994. Resumption of feeding under risk of predation: Effect of migratory condition. Anim. Behav. 48:975–977.
Morgan, M. J. 1988. The influence of hunger, shoal size and predator presence on foraging in bluntnose minnows. Anim. Behav. 36:1317–1322.
Murray, D. L., and Jenkins, C. L. 1999. Perceived predation risk as a function of predator dietary cues in terrestrial salamanders. Anim. Behav. 57:33–39.
Petranka, J. W. 1998. Salamanders of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.
Pflieger, W. L. 1997. The Fishes of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri.
Stauffer, H.-P., and Semlitsch, R. D. 1993. Effects of visual, chemical, and tactile cues of fish on the behavioural responses of tadpoles. Anim. Behav. 46:355–364.
Zar, J. H. 1984. Biostatistical Analysis, 2nd ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Whitham, J., Mathis, A. Effects of Hunger and Predation Risk on Foraging Behavior of Graybelly Salamanders, Eurycea multiplicata. J Chem Ecol 26, 1659–1665 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005590913680
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005590913680
- Foraging behavior
- predator recognition
- risk assessment
- hunger levels
- condition-dependent behavior
- graybelly salamander
- banded sculpin
- Eurycea multiplicata
- Cottus carolinae