HOW PREY RESPOND TO COMBINED PREDATORS: A REVIEW AND AN EMPIRICAL TEST

By Rick A. Relyea. 2003

319 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Genetics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a31ef58be37a51ab7507fc89e9ce47bd4c9406f3

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

1. Andrew Sih
2. Josh R Auld
3. S. Peacor
4. M. Ferrari
5. D. Bolnick
6. E. Preisser
7. G. Trussell
8. David J. Harris

In Genetics

1. Josh R Auld
2. S. Peacor
3. Shira D. Gordon
4. M. Ferrari
5. O. Kishida
6. Kinya Nishimura
7. A. Mougi
8. G. Trussell

Citations in the corpus

• Temporal variability, threat sensitivity and conflicting information about the nature of risk: understanding the dynamics of tadpole antipredator behaviour (2009, unknown): “A common finding is that tadpoles show graded behavioural responses with increasing levels of risk (Van Buskirk et al. 2002; Relyea 2003a; Laurila et al. 2004; Hammond et al. 2007).”
• Horizontal dynamics of zooplankton in subtropical Lake Blanca (Uruguay) hosting multiple zooplankton predators and aquatic plant refuges (2007, background): “The response of the prey to combined predators would thus be similar to its response to the most risky predator in the pair (Relyea, 2003; Wojtal et al., 2003).”
• PREDATOR- AND COMPETITOR-INDUCED PLASTICITY: HOW CHANGES IN FORAGING MORPHOLOGY AFFECT PHENOTYPIC TRADE-OFFS (2005, background): “In predator environments, tadpoles typically forage less and develop relatively large tails and small bodies (although the suite of traits can be species specific; Relyea 2001, 2003, Van Buskirk 2002).”
• Predator-prey naïveté, antipredator behavior, and the ecology of predator invasions (2010, background): “Unfortunately for prey, responding to one predator can increase susceptibility to another species (Kotler et al. 1992, Warkentin 1995, Sih et al. 1998, Relyea 2003).”
• The significance of hydroperiod and stand maturity for pool-breeding amphibians in forested landscapes (2006, background): “…(duration of inundation), which influences interspecific competition (Wilbur 1972, 1997; Relyea 2004), predation (Wilbur 1972; Petranka et al. 1998; Relyea 2003), growth and development (Rowe and Dunson 1995), and attendant interactions (reviewed by Wellborn et al. 1996; Semlitsch 2000).”
• Having the guts to compete: how intestinal plasticity explains costs of inducible defences (2004, background): “The reduction in gut length in predator environments is parallel to the reduction in body length that typically occurs in predator environments with wood frogs ( Relyea 2001, 2003a, 2004 ).”
• Fish and dragonfly nymph predators induce opposite shifts in color and morphology of tadpoles (2008, background): “We may even expect predator-specific color responses by prey, as has been documented for morphological traits (Relyea 2001, 2003, 2004).”
• Evolutionary ecology of inducible morphological plasticity in predator–prey interaction: toward the practical links with population ecology (2009, background): “This is critical because (1) prey must often contend with multiple predators (Sih et al. 1998; Relyea 2003), (2) the interaction between inter-”
• Habituation and sensitization: new thoughts about old ideas (2016, unknown): “While humans and coyotes may indeed both be members of a category of terrestrial mammalian predators, many species have sophisticated and nuanced predator discrimination abilities (e.g. Liesenjohann & Eccard, 2008; Relyea, 2003).”
• Antipredator responses of wolf spiders (Araneae: Lycosidae) to sensory cues representing an avian predator (2009, background): “…determine the presence of a potential predator may be chemical (odours, kairomones), tactile (touch), visual (shadow, movement) or mechanical/acoustic (near-field air motion, substrate vibration, vocalization) (Lima & Dill 1990; Kats & Dill 1997; Tollrian & Harvell 1999; Relyea 2003; Turner 2008).”
• Evolution and behavioural responses to human-induced rapid environmental change (2011, background): “Examples of specialized prey responses include microhabitat shifts or escape behaviours that are highly effective against some predators, but unfortunately increase susceptibility to another species (Kotler et al. 1992; Warkentin 1995; Sih et al. 1998; Relyea 2003).”
• Behavioural response of bullfrog tadpoles to chemical cues of predation risk are affected by cue age and water source (2006, background): “For example, many prey respond differentially to different predators (Chivers & Smith, 1998; Relyea, 2003), and even between predators fed different prey (reviewed in Chivers & Smith, 1998; Kats & Dill, 1998; Schoeppner & Relyea, 2005;).”