When is general wariness favored in avoiding multiple predators?

  1. Lookup NU author(s)
  2. Dr Ben Brilot
  3. Professor Daniel Nettle
  4. Professor Mark Whittingham
  5. Professor Melissa Bateson
  6. Dr Jennifer Read
Author(s)Brilot BO, Nettle D, Whittingham MJ, Bateson M, Read JCA
Publication type Article
JournalThe American Naturalist
Year2012
Volume179
Issue6
PagesE180-E195
ISSN (print)0003-0147
ISSN (electronic)1537-5323
Full text for this publication is not currently held within this repository. Alternative links are provided below where available.
Adaptive responses to predation are generally studied assuming only one predator type exists, but most prey species are depredated by multiple types. When multiple types occur, the optimal antipredator response level may be determined solely by the prob- ability of attack by the relevant predator: “specific responsiveness.” Conversely, an increase in the probability of attack by one predator type might increase responsiveness to an alternative predator type: “general wariness.” We formulate a mathematical model in which a prey animal perceives a cue providing information on the probability of two predator types being present. It can perform one of two evasive behaviors that vary in their suitability as a response to the “wrong” predator type. We show that general wariness is optimal when in- correct behavioral decisions have differential fitness costs. Counter- intuitively, difficulty in discriminating between predator types does not favor general wariness. We predict that where responses to pred- ator types are mutually exclusive (e.g., referential alarm-calling), spe- cific responsiveness will occur; we suggest that prey generalize their defensive responses based on cue similarity due to an assumption of response utility; and we predict, with relevance to conservation, that habituation to human disturbance should generalize only to pred- ators that elicit the same antipredator response as humans.
PublisherUniversity of Chicago Press
URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1086/665648
DOI10.1086/665648
Actions    Link to this publication