IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v34y2023i3p334-339..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Functionally redundant multimodal predator cues elicit changes in prey foraging behavior

Author

Listed:
  • Fiona G Shogren
  • Eileen A Hebets
  • John P DeLong

Abstract

Many prey species can assess the risk of predation from information acquired through different sensory systems. For many animals, this information is detected with sensory organs specialized for visual (sight) or chemical (smell or taste) stimuli. It is unclear; however, whether information acquired through multiple sensory systems is functionally redundant or interchangeable, especially if the message is the same. Here, we assess prey response to unimodal visual and chemical cues as well as multimodal (visual + chemical) cues. We specifically test if a foraging individual shows a stronger behavioral response to risk when they can perceive that risk through multimodal versus unimodal cues. To do this, we measured the functional response (prey abundance–foraging rate relationship) of Tibellus oblongus spiders foraging on midges while exposing them to visual stimuli, chemical stimuli, or a combination of both visual and chemical stimuli from potential predators. We then determined if the spider’s functional response for the multimodal treatment differed more strongly from a control treatment than from either unimodal treatment. We found that under any simulated predation risk (multimodal and both unimodal), T. oblongus spiders showed longer handling times than in control groups without risk. However, we saw no elevated anti-predator response in the multimodal treatment, suggesting that information from visual and chemical modalities is interchangeable and sufficient to indicate reliably predation risk.

Suggested Citation

  • Fiona G Shogren & Eileen A Hebets & John P DeLong, 2023. "Functionally redundant multimodal predator cues elicit changes in prey foraging behavior," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 34(3), pages 334-339.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:34:y:2023:i:3:p:334-339.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/arac130
    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:3:p:334-339.. 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.