IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v16y2005i5p945-956.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Determining the fitness consequences of antipredation behavior

Author

Listed:
  • Johan Lind
  • Will Cresswell

Abstract

Any animal whose form or behavior facilitates the avoidance of predators or escape when attacked by predators will have a greater probability of surviving to breed and therefore greater probability of producing offspring (i.e., fitness). Although in theory the fitness consequences of any antipredation behavior can simply be measured by the resultant probability of survival or death, determining the functional significance of antipredation behavior presents a surprising problem. In this review we draw attention to the problem that fitness consequences of antipredation behaviors cannot be determined without considering the potential for reduction of predation risk, or increased reproductive output, through other compensatory behaviors than the behaviors under study. We believe we have reached the limits of what we can ever understand about the ecological effects of antipredation behavior from empirical studies that simply correlate a single behavior with an apparent fitness consequence. Future empirical studies must involve many behaviors to consider the range of potential compensation to predation risk. This is because antipredation behaviors are a composite of many behaviors that an animal can adjust to accomplish its ends. We show that observed variation in antipredation behavior does not have to reflect fitness and we demonstrate that few studies can draw unambiguous conclusions about the fitness consequences of antipredation behavior. Lastly, we provide suggestions of how future research should best be targeted so that, even in the absence of death rates or changes in reproductive output, reasonable inferences of the fitness consequences of antipredation behaviors can be made. Copyright 2005.

Suggested Citation

  • Johan Lind & Will Cresswell, 2005. "Determining the fitness consequences of antipredation behavior," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 16(5), pages 945-956, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:16:y:2005:i:5:p:945-956
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/ari075
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Melia G. Nafus & Jennifer M. Germano & Jeanette A. Perry & Brian D. Todd & Allyson Walsh & Ronald R. Swaisgood, 2015. "Hiding in plain sight: a study on camouflage and habitat selection in a slow-moving desert herbivore," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 26(5), pages 1389-1394.
    2. Jennie M. Carr & Steven L. Lima, 2012. "Heat-conserving postures hinder escape: a thermoregulation–predation trade-off in wintering birds," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 23(2), pages 434-441.
    3. N. A. Freidenfelds & T. R. Robbins & T. Langkilde, 2012. "Evading invaders: the effectiveness of a behavioral response acquired through lifetime exposure," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 23(3), pages 659-664.
    4. Bettridge, Caroline & Lehmann, J. & Dunbar, R.I.M., 2010. "Trade-offs between time, predation risk and life history, and their implications for biogeography: A systems modelling approach with a primate case study," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 221(5), pages 777-790.
    5. Emma Lynch & Joseph M. Northrup & Megan F. McKenna & Charles R. Anderson & Lisa Angeloni & George Wittemyer, 2015. "Landscape and anthropogenic features influence the use of auditory vigilance by mule deer," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 26(1), pages 75-82.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:16:y:2005:i:5:p:945-956. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.