IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0267774.html

Can we use antipredator behavior theory to predict wildlife responses to high-speed vehicles?

Author

Listed:
  • Ryan B Lunn
  • Bradley F Blackwell
  • Travis L DeVault
  • Esteban Fernández-Juricic

Abstract

Animals seem to rely on antipredator behavior to avoid vehicle collisions. There is an extensive body of antipredator behavior theory that have been used to predict the distance/time animals should escape from predators. These models have also been used to guide empirical research on escape behavior from vehicles. However, little is known as to whether antipredator behavior models are appropriate to apply to an approaching high-speed vehicle scenario. We addressed this gap by (a) providing an overview of the main hypotheses and predictions of different antipredator behavior models via a literature review, (b) exploring whether these models can generate quantitative predictions on escape distance when parameterized with empirical data from the literature, and (c) evaluating their sensitivity to vehicle approach speed using a simulation approach wherein we assessed model performance based on changes in effect size with variations in the slope of the flight initiation distance (FID) vs. approach speed relationship. The slope of the FID vs. approach speed relationship was then related back to three different behavioral rules animals may rely on to avoid approaching threats: the spatial, temporal, or delayed margin of safety. We used literature on birds for goals (b) and (c). Our review considered the following eight models: the economic escape model, Blumstein’s economic escape model, the optimal escape model, the perceptual limit hypothesis, the visual cue model, the flush early and avoid the rush (FEAR) hypothesis, the looming stimulus hypothesis, and the Bayesian model of escape behavior. We were able to generate quantitative predictions about escape distance with the last five models. However, we were only able to assess sensitivity to vehicle approach speed for the last three models. The FEAR hypothesis is most sensitive to high-speed vehicles when the species follows the spatial (FID remains constant as speed increases) and the temporal margin of safety (FID increases with an increase in speed) rules of escape. The looming stimulus effect hypothesis reached small to intermediate levels of sensitivity to high-speed vehicles when a species follows the delayed margin of safety (FID decreases with an increase in speed). The Bayesian optimal escape model reached intermediate levels of sensitivity to approach speed across all escape rules (spatial, temporal, delayed margins of safety) but only for larger (> 1 kg) species, but was not sensitive to speed for smaller species. Overall, no single antipredator behavior model could characterize all different types of escape responses relative to vehicle approach speed but some models showed some levels of sensitivity for certain rules of escape behavior. We derive some applied applications of our findings by suggesting the estimation of critical vehicle approach speeds for managing populations that are especially susceptible to road mortality. Overall, we recommend that new escape behavior models specifically tailored to high-speeds vehicles should be developed to better predict quantitatively the responses of animals to an increase in the frequency of cars, airplanes, drones, etc. they will face in the next decade.

Suggested Citation

  • Ryan B Lunn & Bradley F Blackwell & Travis L DeVault & Esteban Fernández-Juricic, 2022. "Can we use antipredator behavior theory to predict wildlife responses to high-speed vehicles?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(5), pages 1-32, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0267774
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267774
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0267774
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0267774&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0267774?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tomas Holmern & Trine Hay Setsaas & Claudia Melis & Jarle Tufto & Eivin Røskaft, 2016. "Effects of experimental human approaches on escape behavior in Thomson’s gazelle (Eudorcas thomsonii)," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 27(5), pages 1432-1440.
    2. Daniel T. Blumstein, 2010. "Flush early and avoid the rush: a general rule of antipredator behavior?," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 21(3), pages 440-442.
    3. K. Carrie Armel & Aurelie Beaumel & Antonio Rangel, 2008. "Biasing simple choices by manipulating relative visual attention," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3, pages 396-403, June.
    4. William E. Cooper & Daniel T. Blumstein, 2014. "Novel effects of monitoring predators on costs of fleeing and not fleeing explain flushing early in economic escape theory," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 25(1), pages 44-52.
    5. Max Wolf & G. Sander van Doorn & Olof Leimar & Franz J. Weissing, 2007. "Life-history trade-offs favour the evolution of animal personalities," Nature, Nature, vol. 447(7144), pages 581-584, May.
    6. Mark Broom & Graeme D. Ruxton, 2005. "You can run--or you can hide: optimal strategies for cryptic prey against pursuit predators," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 16(3), pages 534-540, May.
    7. Maud C.O. Ferrari & Chris K. Elvidge & Christopher D. Jackson & Douglas P. Chivers & Grant E. Brown, 2010. "The responses of prey fish to temporal variation in predation risk: sensory habituation or risk assessment?," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 21(3), pages 532-536.
    8. Armel, K. Carrie & Beaumel, Aurelie & Rangel, Antonio, 2008. "Biasing simple choices by manipulating relative visual attention," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(5), pages 396-403, June.
    9. Diogo S M Samia & Daniel T Blumstein, 2014. "Phi Index: A New Metric to Test the Flush Early and Avoid the Rush Hypothesis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-13, November.
    10. repec:plo:pone00:0111854 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dana M. Williams & Diogo S.M. Samia & William E. Cooper & Daniel T. Blumstein, 2014. "The flush early and avoid the rush hypothesis holds after accounting for spontaneous behavior," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 25(5), pages 1136-1147.
    2. Michelle S. Segovia & Marco A. Palma & Jayson L. Lusk & Andreas C. Drichoutis, 2025. "Visual formats in risk preference elicitation: What catches the eye?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 70(3), pages 275-303, June.
    3. Diogo S M Samia & Daniel T Blumstein, 2014. "Phi Index: A New Metric to Test the Flush Early and Avoid the Rush Hypothesis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-13, November.
    4. Rock, Rufus & Strauss, Ilan & O'Reilly, Tim & Mazzucato, Mariana, 2024. "Behind the clicks: Can Amazon allocate user attention as it pleases?," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    5. Alejandro Hirmas & Jan B. Engelmann & Joël van der Weele, 2024. "Individual and contextual effects of attention in risky choice," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 27(5), pages 1211-1238, November.
    6. Felix Molter & Armin W Thomas & Scott A Huettel & Hauke R Heekeren & Peter N C Mohr, 2022. "Gaze-dependent evidence accumulation predicts multi-alternative risky choice behaviour," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(7), pages 1-33, July.
    7. Li, Jie & Behe, Bridget & Huddleston, Patricia & Thatcher, Scott, 2025. "The role of price in display complexity's impact on horticultural plant purchase intention: An eye-tracking study," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    8. Zhi-Wei Li & Wei Ji Ma, 2021. "An uncertainty-based model of the effects of fixation on choice," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(8), pages 1-17, August.
    9. Kremena Valkanova, 2024. "Markov Stochastic Choice," Papers 2410.22001, arXiv.org.
    10. Joachim G Frommen & Timo Thünken & Francesca Santostefano & Valentina Balzarini & Attila Hettyey, 2022. "Effects of chronic and acute predation risk on sexual ornamentation and mating preferences [Effects of perceived predation risk and social environment on the development of three-spined stickleback," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 33(1), pages 7-16.
    11. Vandenbroele, Jolien & Slabbinck, Hendrik & Van Kerckhove, Anneleen & Vermeir, Iris, 2021. "Mock meat in the butchery: Nudging consumers toward meat substitutes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 105-116.
    12. Bauer, Jan M. & Aarestrup, Simon C. & Hansen, Pelle G. & Reisch, Lucia A., 2022. "Nudging more sustainable grocery purchases: Behavioural innovations in a supermarket setting," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    13. Devdeepta Bose & Henning Cordes & Sven Nolte & Judith Christiane Schneider & Colin Farrell Camerer, 2022. "Decision Weights for Experimental Asset Prices Based on Visual Salience," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 35(11), pages 5094-5126.
    14. Xiaoling Zhang & Ke Zhang & Shibo Li & Damien Koenitz, 2023. "Effects of store fixture shape at retail checkout: Evidence from field and online studies," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 32(10), pages 3158-3173, October.
    15. Alicia L. Rihn & Chengyan Yue, 2016. "Visual Attention's Influence on Consumers’ Willingness‐to‐Pay for Processed Food Products," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(3), pages 314-328, July.
    16. Fischbacher, Urs & Hausfeld, Jan & Renerte, Baiba, 2022. "Strategic incentives undermine gaze as a signal of prosocial motives," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 63-91.
    17. Stephanie M. Smith & Ian Krajbich & Ryan Webb, 2019. "Estimating the dynamic role of attention via random utility," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(1), pages 97-111, August.
    18. Frederick Callaway & Antonio Rangel & Thomas L Griffiths, 2021. "Fixation patterns in simple choice reflect optimal information sampling," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(3), pages 1-29, March.
    19. Nathaniel J. S. Ashby & Stephan Dickert & Andreas Glockner, 2012. "Focusing on what you own: Biased information uptake due to ownership," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(3), pages 254-267, May.
    20. Mahar, Neeraj & Dobriyal, Pariva & Badola, Ruchi & Hussain, Syed Ainul, 2024. "Tourism on the roof of the world: Socio-ecological impacts of tourism on the Indian Trans-Himalaya," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0267774. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.