Stop-and-go approach by a predator: a novel predation risk factor for the phrynosomatid lizards Sceloporus virgatus and Callisaurus draconoides

in Amphibia-Reptilia
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

As an immobile prey monitors an approaching predator, the predator may move at a constant speed directly toward the prey or on a path that bypasses the prey. These scenarios have been studied extensively. Economic escape theory successfully predicts flight initiation distance (FID = predator-prey distance when escape begins). However, predators often alter their speed and may exhibit stops and starts during approaches. Empirical studies have shown that prey rapidly adjust assessed risk to a predator’s changes in approach speed and direction, but effects of interrupted (stop-start) approach are unknown. Because a prey is likely to assess that a nearby predator that resumes approaching has detected it and is attacking, escape theory predicts that assessed risk is greater at a given predator-prey distance when approach resumes than is continuous. Therefore, we predicted that FID is longer when a predator approaches, stops nearby, and renews its approach than when it approaches continuously. Second, although assessed risk increases as duration of the predator’s stop nearby increases, as indicated by latency to flee, we predicted that pause duration does not affect FID because prey interpret resumed approach as attack. Field experiments with two lizards, Sceloporus virgatus and Callisaurus draconoides, verified the predictions: FID was longer for discontinuous than continuous approaches and pause duration did not affect FID. We also observed distance fled and probability of entering refuge, escape behaviors for which theory is undeveloped. Distance fled was unrelated to continuity of approach in both species, as was refuge entry in S. virgatus.

Amphibia-Reptilia

Publication of the Societas Europaea Herpetologica

Sections

References

BlumsteinD.T. (2010): Flush early and avoid the rush: a general rule of antipredator behaviour? Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 21: 440-442.

BlumsteinD.T. (2003): Flight-initiation distance in birds is dependent on intruder starting distance. J. Wildl. Manag. 67: 852-857.

CaroT.M. (2005): Antipredator Defenses in Birds and Mammals. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

CohenJ. (1973): Eta-squared and partial eta-squared in fixed factor ANOVA designs. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 33: 107-112.

CooperW.E.Jr. (2000): Effect of temperature on escape behaviour by an ectothermic vertebrate, the keeled earless lizard (Holbrookia propinqua). Behaviour 137: 1299-1315.

CooperW.E.Jr. (2005): When and how does starting distance affect flight initiation distance. Can. J. Zool. 83: 1045-1050.

CooperW.E.Jr. (2007): Escape and its relationship to pursuit-deterrent signaling in the Cuban curly-tailed lizard Leiocephalus carinatus. Herpetologica 63: 144-150.

CooperW.E.Jr. (2008): Strong artifactual effect of starting distance on flight initiation distance in the actively foraging lizard Aspidoscelis exsanguis. Herpetologica 64: 200-206.

CooperW.E.Jr. (2009a): Optimal escape theory predicts escape behaviors beyond flight initiation distance: risk assessment and escape by striped plateau lizards Sceloporus virgatus. Curr. Zool. 55: 123-131.

CooperW.E.Jr. (2009b): Fleeing and hiding under simultaneous risks and costs. Behav. Ecol. 20: 665-671.

CooperW.E.Jr. (2010a): Risks associated with predator immobility, movement direction, and turn direction similarly affect pursuit-deterrent signaling and escape by zebra-tailed lizards (Callisaurus draconoides). Ethology 116: 866-875.

CooperW.E.Jr. (2010b): Pursuit deterrence varies with predation risks affecting escape behaviour in the lizard Callisaurus draconoides. Anim. Behav. 80: 249-256.

CooperW.E.Jr. (2012a): Risk, escape from ambush, and hiding time by the lizard Sceloporus virgatus. Herpetologica 68: 505-513.

CooperW.E.Jr. (2012b): Risk factors affecting escape behavior by the Jamaican lizard Anolis lineatopus (Polychrotidae, Squamata). Carib. J. Sci. 46: 1-12.

CooperW.E.Jr. (2015a): Theory: cost-benefit and related models of escape behavior and refuge use. In: Escaping From Predators: An Integrative View of Escape Decisions, p.  17-60. CooperW.E.BlumsteinD.T., Eds, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

CooperW.E.Jr. (2015b): Escape behavior in reptiles. In: Escaping From Predators: An Integrative View of Escape Decisions, p.  113-151. CooperW.E.BlumsteinD.T., Eds, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

CooperW.E.Jr.BlumsteinD.T. (2014): Novel effects of monitoring predators on costs of fleeing and not fleeing explain flushing early in economic escape theory. Behav. Ecol. 25: 44-52.

CooperW.E.Jr.BlumsteinD.T. (2015): Escaping From Predators: An Integrative View of Escape Decisions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

CooperW.E.Jr.FrederickW.G. (2007): Optimal flight initiation distance. J. Theor. Biol. 244: 52-67.

CooperW.E.Jr.SherbrookeW.C. (2013a): Risk and cost of immobility in the presence of an immobile predator: effects on latency to flee or approach food or a potential mate. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 67: 583-592.

CooperW.E.Jr.SherbrookeW.C. (2013b): Effects of recent movement, starting distance and other risk factors on escape behaviour by two phrynosomatid lizards. Behaviour 150: 447-469.

CooperW.E.Jr.WilsonD.S. (2007): Beyond optimal escape theory: microhabitats as well as predation risk affect escape and refuge use by the phrynosomatid lizard Sceloporus virgatus. Behaviour 144: 1235-1254.

CooperW.E.Jr.HawlenaD.Pérez-MelladoV. (2009): Interactive effect of starting distance and approach speed on escape behaviour challenges theory. Behav. Ecol. 20: 542-546.

CooperW.E.Jr.HawlenaD.Pérez-MelladoV. (2010): Escape and alerting responses by Balearic lizards (Podarcis lilfordi) to movement and turning direction by nearby predators. J. Ethol. 28: 67-73.

CooperW.E.Jr.LópezP.MartínJ.Pérez-MelladoV. (2012): Latency to flee from an immobile predator: effects of risk and cost of immobility for the prey. Behav. Ecol. 23: 790-797.

CooperW.E.Jr.Pérez-MelladoV.BairdT.BairdT.A.CaldwellJ.P.VittL.J. (2003): Effects of risk, cost, and their interaction on optimal escape by nonrefuging Bonaire whiptail lizards, Cnemidophorus murinus. Behav. Ecol. 14: 288-293.

CorcoranA.J.WagnerR.D.ConnerW.E. (2013): Optimal predator risk assessment by the sonar-jamming Arctic moth Bertholdia trigona. PLOS ONE 8: e63609.

DumontF.PasquarettaC.RéaleD.BoglianiG.Von HardenbergA. (2012): Flight initiation distance and starting distance: biological effect or mathematical artefact. Ethology 118: 1051-1062.

EdmundsM. (1974): Defence in Animals. Longman, Harlow, Essex, UK.

EterovickP.C.OliveiraF.F.R.TattersallG.J. (2010): Threatened tadpoles of Bokermannohyla alvarengai (Anura: Hylidae) choose backgrounds that enhance crypsis potential. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 101: 437-446.

MartínJ.Luque-LarenaJ.J.LópezP. (2009): When to run from an ambush predator: balancing crypsis benefits with costs of fleeing in lizards. Anim. Behav. 78: 1011-1018.

PerryG. (1999): The evolution of search modes: ecological versus phylogenetic perspectives. Amer. Nat. 153: 99-109.

PiankaE.R.ParkerW.S. (1972): Ecology of the iguanid lizard Callisaurus draconoides. Copeia 1972: 493-508.

RuxtonG.D.SherrattT.N.SpeedM. (2004): Avoiding Attack: The Evolutionary Ecology of Crypsis, Warning Signals and Mimicry. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

SamiaD.S.M.BlumsteinD.T. (2015): Birds flush early and avoid the rush. PLOS ONE 10: e0119906.

SamiaD.S.M.NomuraF.BlumsteinD.T. (2013): Do animals generally flush early and avoid the rush? A meta-analysis. Biol. Lett. 9: 20130016.

SamiaD.S.M.BlumsteinD.T.StankowichT.S.CooperW.E. (2015): Fifty years of chasing lizards: new insights advance optimal escape theory. Biol. Rev. DOI:10.1111/brv.12173.

SihA. (1992): Prey uncertainty and the balancing of antipredator and feeding needs. Amer. Nat. 139: 1052-1069.

SmithG.R. (1996): Habitat use and fidelity in the striped plateau lizard Sceloporus virgatus. Am. Midl. Nat. 135: 68-80.

StankowichT.BlumsteinD.T. (2005): Fear in animals: a meta-analysis and review of risk assessment. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond., Ser. B, Biol. Sci. 272: 2627-2634.

StankowichT.CossR.G. (2007): Effects of risk assessment, predator behavior, and habitat on escape behavior in Columbian black-tailed deer. Behav. Ecol. 18: 358-367.

StebbinsR.C. (2003): A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians, 3rd Edition. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.

WattersJ.L. (2010): A test of optimal foraging and the effects of predator experience in the lizards Sceloporus jarrovii and Sceloporus virgatus. Behaviour 147: 933-951.

WrightS.P. (1992): Adjusted p-values for simultaneous inference. Biometrics 48: 1005-1013.

YdenbergR.C.DillL.M. (1986): The economics of fleeing from predators. In: Advances in the Study of Behavior, Vol. 16, p. 229-249. RosenblattJ.S.BeerC.BusnelM.-C.SlaterP.J.B., Eds, Academic Press, Orlando.

Figures

  • Fluxogram of decisions made by prey when a predator approaches continuously or pauses during its approach. If the predator approaches continuously, the prey’s flight initiation distance (FID) is determined economically based on costs of not fleeing and cost of fleeing. If the predator stops during its approach, the prey flees before the predator resumes moving if the predator stops long enough to meet the economic criteria for latency to flee. If the predator resumes its approach before that time, FID is again determined economically, but is longer a response to an increase in assessed risk that occurs when the predator resumes approach.

    View in gallery
  • Flight initiation distance by Sceloporus virgatus was longer for approaches interrupted by pauses during a predator’s approach than for continuous approaches. C: continuous approach, I5: 5 s pause, I15: 15 s pause, I30: 30 s pause. Bars represent means; vertical lines represent 1.0 SE.

    View in gallery
  • Flight initiation distance by Callisaurus draconoides was longer for approaches interrupted by pauses in a predator’s approach than for continuous approaches. C: continuous approach, I5: 5 s pause, I30: 30 s pause. Bars represent means; vertical lines represent 1.0 SE.

    View in gallery

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 6 6 4
Full Text Views 2 2 2
PDF Downloads 1 1 1
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0