Jones Maggie M, Fletcher Robert, Potash Alex, Sibiya Muzi, McCleery Robert
Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
J Anim Ecol. 2024 Dec;93(12):1983-1995. doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.14209. Epub 2024 Oct 28.
Prey can use several information sources (cues) to assess predation risk and avoid predation with a variety of behavioural responses (e.g., changes in activity, foraging, vigilance, social behaviour, space use, and reproductive behaviour). Direct cues produced by predators and indirect cues from environmental features or conspecific and heterospecific prey generally provide different types of information about predation risk. Despite widespread interest in understanding behavioural antipredator responses to direct and indirect cues, a clear general pattern of relative response strength across taxa and environments has yet to emerge. We conducted a meta-analysis of studies (N = 113 articles and 999 effect sizes taken from a search of over 7500 articles) testing behavioural responses to direct and indirect cues of predation risk, and their combination, across terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. We further contrasted if effects were moderated by ecosystem type (terrestrial, marine, or freshwater), cue source (predator, conspecific, heterospecific, or environmental feature), or sensory modality (visual, auditory, or chemosensory). Overall, there were strong effects of risk cues on prey behaviour. We found that prey responded more strongly when both types of cues were presented together compared with either cue in isolation, which was driven by changes in prey activity levels but not other behaviours. There was no general pattern in response strength to direct compared with indirect cues. Responses to these cues were moderated by interactions between environment, cue source, and cue sensory modality (e.g., visual cues elicited stronger responses than other modalities, and responses to conspecific chemosensory cues were stronger than those to predator chemosensory cues in aquatic systems). These results suggest that rather than a broad framework of direct and indirect cues, the specific context of the system should be considered in tests and predictions of how prey respond to risk to elucidate general patterns of antipredator responses.
猎物可以利用多种信息源（线索）来评估捕食风险，并通过各种行为反应（如活动、觅食、警惕、社会行为、空间利用和繁殖行为的变化）来避免被捕食。捕食者产生的直接线索以及来自环境特征、同种和异种猎物的间接线索通常会提供关于捕食风险的不同类型信息。尽管人们普遍对理解猎物对直接和间接线索的行为反捕食反应感兴趣，但尚未出现跨分类群和环境的相对反应强度的清晰总体模式。我们对研究进行了一项荟萃分析（从对7500多篇文章的搜索中选取了N = 113篇文章和999个效应量），测试了陆地和水生生态系统中猎物对捕食风险的直接和间接线索及其组合的行为反应。我们进一步对比了效应是否受到生态系统类型（陆地、海洋或淡水）、线索来源（捕食者、同种、异种或环境特征）或感官模式（视觉、听觉或化学感应）的调节。总体而言，风险线索对猎物行为有强烈影响。我们发现，与单独呈现任何一种线索相比，当两种类型的线索同时呈现时，猎物的反应更强烈，这是由猎物活动水平的变化而非其他行为驱动的。与间接线索相比，对直接线索的反应强度没有普遍模式。对这些线索的反应受到环境、线索来源和线索感官模式之间相互作用的调节（例如，视觉线索引发的反应比其他模式更强，在水生系统中，对同种化学感应线索的反应比对捕食者化学感应线索的反应更强）。这些结果表明，在测试和预测猎物如何应对风险以阐明反捕食反应的总体模式时，不应采用直接和间接线索的宽泛框架，而应考虑系统的具体背景。
