Reid Emma L C, LaRocque Megan, Arteaga-Torres Josue David, Mathot Kimberley J
Department of Biological Sciences University of Alberta Edmonton Alberta Canada.
Canada Research Chair in Integrative Ecology, Department of Biological Sciences University of Alberta Edmonton Alberta Canada.
Ecol Evol. 2025 Aug 17;15(8):e72016. doi: 10.1002/ece3.72016. eCollection 2025 Aug.
Prey animals must accurately assess predation risk within their environment. To gather information about this risk, prey animals may personally sample the environment ("personal information") or observe the behavior of congeners ("social information"). Personal information is thought to be more accurate and reliable but may also require more time and energy to acquire. On the other hand, social information, such as alarm calls, tends to be less costly to obtain but may also be less reliable if congeners assess risk differently from one another, or if the information quickly becomes outdated. Theoretical models predict that individuals will differ in how they value personal versus social information. We used previously collected data from a marked population of black-capped chickadees () to test this prediction. Chickadees were exposed to three different predator cue types: a predator mount (personal information), conspecific mobbing calls (social information), and a combination of both (personal + social information) near feeders established on their territory. We recorded the time it took a chickadee to visit a feeder following cue exposure (i.e., latency to resume feeding) to evaluate individual differences in response to predator cues. Contrary to our prediction, we found no evidence that individuals differed in how they valued personal versus social information about predation risk. Instead, our results suggest that responses to predator cues are state-dependent, with some individuals consistently responding more strongly than others, regardless of cue type. We also found that when chickadees were exposed to a combination of social and personal predator cues, they exhibited higher among-individual variation in latency to resume feeding than when they were exposed to social or personal cues alone. We discuss how individual differences in cue integration (i.e., cue redundancy/equivalence, enhancement, and antagonism) may account for this finding.
被捕食动物必须在其所处环境中准确评估捕食风险。为了收集有关这种风险的信息，被捕食动物可能会亲自对环境进行采样（“个人信息”）或观察同类的行为（“社会信息”）。个人信息被认为更准确可靠，但获取时可能也需要更多时间和精力。另一方面，社会信息，如警报叫声，获取成本往往较低，但如果同类对风险的评估彼此不同，或者信息很快过时，其可靠性可能也较低。理论模型预测，个体在如何权衡个人信息与社会信息方面会存在差异。我们使用先前从有标记的黑顶山雀种群中收集的数据来检验这一预测。在黑顶山雀领地内设置的喂食器附近，让它们接触三种不同类型的捕食者线索：一个捕食者标本（个人信息）、同种的围攻叫声（社会信息）以及两者的组合（个人 + 社会信息）。我们记录了山雀在接触线索后访问喂食器所需的时间（即恢复进食的潜伏期），以评估对捕食者线索反应的个体差异。与我们的预测相反，我们没有发现证据表明个体在如何权衡关于捕食风险的个人信息与社会信息方面存在差异。相反，我们的结果表明，对捕食者线索的反应取决于个体状态，一些个体始终比其他个体反应更强烈，而与线索类型无关。我们还发现，当黑顶山雀接触社会和个人捕食者线索的组合时，它们恢复进食潜伏期的个体间差异比单独接触社会或个人线索时更高。我们讨论了线索整合中的个体差异（即线索冗余/等效性、增强和拮抗作用）如何解释这一发现。
