Dataset Information

Parasite and predator risk assessment: nuanced use of olfactory cues.

ABSTRACT: Foraging herbivores face twin threats of predation and parasite infection, but the risk of predation has received much more attention. We evaluated, experimentally, the role of olfactory cues in predator and parasite risk assessment on the foraging behaviour of a population of marked, free-ranging, red-necked wallabies (Macropus rufogriseus). The wallabies adjusted their behaviour according to these olfactory cues. They foraged less, were more vigilant and spent less time at feeders placed in the vicinity of faeces from dogs that had consumed wallaby or kangaroo meat compared with that of dogs feeding on sheep, rabbit or possum meat. Wallabies also showed a species-specific faecal aversion by consuming less food from feeders contaminated with wallaby faeces compared with sympatric kangaroo faeces, whose gastrointestinal parasite fauna differs from that of the wallabies. Combining both parasite and predation cues in a single field experiment revealed that these risks had an additive effect, rather than the wallabies compromising their response to one risk at the expense of the other.

SUBMITTER: Sharp JG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4633877 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Parasite and predator risk assessment: nuanced use of olfactory cues.

Sharp John G JG Garnick Sarah S Elgar Mark A MA Coulson Graeme G

Proceedings. Biological sciences 20151001 1817

Foraging herbivores face twin threats of predation and parasite infection, but the risk of predation has received much more attention. We evaluated, experimentally, the role of olfactory cues in predator and parasite risk assessment on the foraging behaviour of a population of marked, free-ranging, red-necked wallabies (Macropus rufogriseus). The wallabies adjusted their behaviour according to these olfactory cues. They foraged less, were more vigilant and spent less time at feeders placed in th ...[more]

PMID: 26468246

Similar Datasets

Project description:AbstractPrey strategically respond to the risk of predation by varying their behavior while balancing the tradeoffs of food and safety. We present here an experiment that tests the way the same indirect cues of predation risk are interpreted by bank voles, Myodes glareolus, as the game changes through exposure to a caged weasel. Using optimal patch use, we asked wild-caught voles to rank the risk they perceived. We measured their response to olfactory cues in the form of weasel bedding, a sham control in the form of rabbit bedding, and an odor-free control. We repeated the interviews in a chronological order to test the change in response, i.e., the changes in the value of the information. We found that the voles did not differentiate strongly between treatments pre-exposure to the weasel. During the exposure, vole foraging activity was reduced in all treatments, but proportionally increased in the vicinity to the rabbit odor. Post-exposure, the voles focused their foraging in the control, while the value of exposure to the predator explained the majority of variation in response. Our data also suggested a sex bias in interpretation of the cues. Given how the foragers changed their interpretation of the same cues based on external information, we suggest that applying predator olfactory cues as a simulation of predation risk needs further testing. For instance, what are the possible effective compounds and how they change “fear” response over time. The major conclusion is that however effective olfactory cues may be, the presence of live predators overwhelmingly affects the information voles gained from these cues.Significance statementIn ecology, “fear” is the strategic response to cues of risk an animal senses in its environment. The cues suggesting the existence of a predator in the vicinity are weighed by an individual against the probability of encounter with the predator and the perceived lethality of an encounter with the predator. The best documented such response is variation in foraging tenacity as measured by a giving-up density. In this paper, we show that an olfactory predator cue and the smell of an interspecific competitor result in different responses based on experience with a live-caged predator. This work provides a cautionary example of the risk in making assumptions regarding olfactory cues devoid of environmental context.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s00265-018-2600-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Dataset Information

Parasite and predator risk assessment: nuanced use of olfactory cues.

Publications

Parasite and predator risk assessment: nuanced use of olfactory cues.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets