Abstract

By influencing critical prey traits such as foraging or habitat selection, predators can affect entire ecosystems, but the nature of cues that trigger prey reactions to predators are not well understood. Predators may scavenge to supplement their energetic needs and scavenging frequency may vary among individuals within a species due to preferences and prey availability. Yet prey reactions to consumers that are primarily scavengers versus those that are active foragers have not been investigated, even though variation in prey reactions to scavengers or predators might influence cascading nonconsumptive effects in food webs. Oysters Crassostrea virginica react to crab predators by growing stronger shells. We exposed oysters to exudates from crabs fed live oysters or fed aged oyster tissue to simulate scavenging, and to controls without crab cues. Oysters grew stronger shells when exposed to either crab exudate, but their shells were significantly stronger when crabs were fed live oysters. The stronger response to predators than scavengers could be due to inherent differences in diet cues representative of reduced risk in the presence of scavengers or to degradation of conspecific alarm cues in aged treatments, which may mask risk from potential predators subsisting by scavenging.

Highlights

  • Predator deterrence is a necessary but costly process for prey (Baldwin, 1998; Weissburg, Smee & Ferner, 2014)

  • For oyster shell strength (Fig. 1), the data fit the assumption of no interaction between predation risk treatment and shell length (F2 = 1.53, p = 0.23)

  • The quantity and characteristics of available risk cues detected by prey organisms can influence the type and degree of reactions to risk (Scherer & Smee, 2016)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Predator deterrence is a necessary but costly process for prey (Baldwin, 1998; Weissburg, Smee & Ferner, 2014). Many organisms reduce feeding activity (Smee & Weissburg, 2006; Large, Smee & Trussell, 2011), utilize refuge habitats (Mirza & Chivers, 2001; Schoeppner & Relyea, 2005), speed up reproduction (Laurila, Kujasalo & Ranta, 1998; Kiesecker et al, 2002), delay reproduction (Covich & Crowl, 1990; Laurila, Kujasalo & Ranta, 1998), and produce structural (Harvell, 1986) or chemical defenses (Pawlik et al, 1995; Baldwin, 1998) under conditions of risk Through these induced defenses, predators produce nonconsumptive effects which can have significant consequences for prey that may influence entire. Understanding factors that influence the induction of prey responses can improve our understanding of nonconsumptive predator effects (Weissburg, Smee & Ferner, 2014; Scherer & Smee, 2016)

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call