Abstract
Since 1986, studies about the escape decisions made by prey are grounded in optimal escape theory (OET) which states that prey will initiate escape when the risk of remaining and the costs of leaving are equal. However, a recent hypothesis, Flush Early and Avoid the Rush (FEAR), acknowledged that the cost of monitoring approaching predators might be a ubiquitous cost. The FEAR hypothesis predicts that prey will generally flee soon after they detect a predator so as to minimize the costs incurred by monitoring the predator. Knowing whether animals flee to reduce monitoring costs is of applied interest because wildlife managers use escape behavior to create set-back zones to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Here we provide the most comprehensive assessment of the FEAR hypothesis using data collected from 178 bird species representing 67 families from two continents. The FEAR hypothesis explains escape behavior in 79% of studied species. Because the FEAR hypothesis is a widespread phenomenon that drives escape behavior in birds, alert distance must be systematically incorporated into the design of set-back zones to protect vulnerable species.
Highlights
Optimal escape theory (OET) states that prey initiate flight at the distance at which the risk of remaining and the cost of flight are equal [1]
A recent hypothesis acknowledged a ubiquitous cost in the trade-off predicted by OET that apparently explains most of variation in prey’s decision to flee: the cost individuals pay to monitor an approaching predator [5]
The “Flush Early and Avoid the Rush” (FEAR) hypothesis states that animals will flee an approaching predator soon after detection in order to minimize costs incurred by monitoring predator behavior [5]
Summary
Optimal escape theory (OET) states that prey initiate flight at the distance at which the risk of remaining and the cost of flight are equal [1]. Since this seminal paper, hundreds of studies have generated a rich and diverse set of evidence that has documented various factors that influence flight decisions (reviewed in [2,3,4]). A recent hypothesis acknowledged a ubiquitous cost in the trade-off predicted by OET that apparently explains most of variation in prey’s decision to flee: the cost individuals pay to monitor an approaching predator [5]. Ongoing monitoring is expected to increase costs by diverting attention away from beneficial activities, as well as by incurring energetic costs [5,6,7].
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.