IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v34y2023i1p117-124..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ineffective integration of multiple anti-predator defenses in a rotifer: a low-cost insurance?

Author

Listed:
  • Yuhan He
  • Konghao Zhu
  • Kangshun Zhao
  • Liang He
  • Ulrika Candolin
  • Jun Xu
  • Huan Zhang

Abstract

To maximize survival, prey often integrates multiple anti-predator defenses. How the defenses interact to reduce predation risk is, however, poorly known. We used the rotifer Brachionus calyciflorus to investigate how morphological (spines) and behavioral (floating) defenses are integrated against a common predatory rotifer, Asplanchna brightwellii, and if their combined use improves survival. To this end, we assessed the cost of the behavioral defense and the efficiency of both defenses, individually and combined, as well as their mutual dependency. The results show that the behavioral defense is costly in reducing foraging activity, and that the two defenses are used simultaneously, with the presence of the morphological defense enhancing the use of the behavioral defense, as does the pre-exposure to predator cues. However, while the morphological defense reduces predation risk, the behavioral defense does not, thus, adding the costly behavioral defense to the morphological defense does not improve survival. It is likely that the cost of the behavioral defense is low given its reversibility—compared to the cost of misidentifying the predator species—and that this has promoted the adoption of both defenses, as general low-cost insurance rather than as a tailored strategy toward specific predators. Thus, the optimal strategy in the rotifer appears to be to express both morphological and behavioral defenses when confronted with the cues of a potential predator.

Suggested Citation

  • Yuhan He & Konghao Zhu & Kangshun Zhao & Liang He & Ulrika Candolin & Jun Xu & Huan Zhang, 2023. "Ineffective integration of multiple anti-predator defenses in a rotifer: a low-cost insurance?," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 34(1), pages 117-124.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:34:y:2023:i:1:p:117-124.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/arac106
    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.

    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:34:y:2023:i:1:p:117-124.. 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.