Wall Lizards Combine Chemical and Visual Cues of Ambush Snake Predators to Avoid Overestimating Risk Inside Refuges
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR, 2004, 67, 647e653 doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2003.08.005 Wall lizards combine chemical and visual cues of ambush snake predators to avoid overestimating risk inside refuges LUISA AMO, PILAR LO´ PEZ & JOSE´ MARTI´N Departamento de Ecologı´a Evolutiva, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid (Received 16 October 2002; initial acceptance 12 December 2002; final acceptance 3 August 2003; MS. number: 7503R) The threat sensitivity hypothesis assumes that multiple cues from a predator should contribute in an additive way to determine the degree of risk-sensitive behaviour. The ability to use multiple cues in assessing the current level of predation risk should be especially important to prey exposed to multiple predators. Wall lizards, Podarcis muralis, respond to predatory attacks from birds or mammals by hiding inside rock crevices, where they may encounter another predator, the smooth snake, Coronella austriaca. We investigated in the laboratory whether chemical cues may be important to wall lizards for detection of snakes. The greater tongue-flick rate and shorter latency to first tongue-flick in response to predator scents indicated that lizards were able to detect the snakes’ chemical cues. We also investigated the use of different predatory cues by lizards when detecting the presence of snakes within refuges. We simulated successive predator attacks and compared the propensity of lizards to enter the refuge and time spent within it for predator-free refuges, refuges containing either only visual or chemical cues of a snake, or a combination of these. The antipredatory response of lizards was greater when they were exposed to both visual and chemical cues than when only one cue was presented, supporting the threat sensitivity hypothesis. This ability may improve the accuracy of assessments of the current level of predation risk inside the refuge. It could be especially important in allowing lizards to cope with threats posed by two types of predators requiring conflicting prey defences. Ó 2004 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. The ability to detect the presence of predators is an 2001). The threat sensitivity hypothesis proposes that important component of antipredatory behaviour (Van animals should accurately assess the risk of predation, and Damme et al. 1995). Prey should use multiple cues of respond in a graded manner in accordance with the threat predators to assess accurately the level of predation risk posed by the predator (Helfman 1989). Animals that give (McCarthy & Fisher 2000). The importance of chemical antipredator responses to inappropriate stimuli expend cues for predator recognition has being documented for time and energy that could be used in other activities, but a number of taxa (review in Kats & Dill 1998). Chemo- animals that fail to respond to a dangerous stimulus have sensory cues may reliably reveal the presence of predators a lower probability of survival. Thus, the threat sensitivity (Kats & Dill 1998), even in the absence of other cues hypothesis assumes that multiple predator cues should (Chivers & Smith 1998; Kats & Dill 1998; Chivers et al. contribute in an additive way to determine the degree of 2001). However, visual cues, such as predator size and risk-sensitive behaviour (Helfman 1989; Smith & Belk activity, may provide information more temporally spe- 2001). For example, detection of chemical cues of an cific to a predator’s current motivation and threat (Smith ambush predator may cause prey to increase vigilance to & Belk 2001). detect the predator itself. Studies have provided support Only a few studies have compared the relative impor- for the threat sensitivity hypothesis (Mathis & Vincent tance of the two types of stimuli. These suggest that prey 2000; Chivers et al. 2001). For example, the western can combine information from both chemical and visual mosquitofish, Gambusia affinis, responded more when cues to make a better assessment of the level of risk under confronted with visual and chemical cues of predatory conflicting situations (Vanderstighelen 1987; Hartman & fish, Lepomis cyanellus, than when only one cue was Abrahams 2000; Mathis & Vincent 2000; Chivers et al. presented (Smith & Belk 2001). Prey often respond to predator presence by increasing Correspondence: J. Martı´n. Departamento de Ecologı´a Evolutiva, Museo refuge use (Sih et al. 1992; Dill & Fraser 1997). However, Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, C.S.I.C. Jose´ Gutie´rrez Abascal 2, some types of refuges may expose prey to other types of 28006 Madrid, Spain (email: [email protected]). predators (Sih et al. 1998). Thus, conflicting prey defences 647 0003e3472/03/$30.00/0 Ó 2004 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 648 ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR, 67, 4 can cause higher predation rates than expected. For indication of probable current danger (Kats & Dill 1998). example, the mortality of a mayfly, Ephemerella subvaria, However, chemical cues may persist after the predator has prey in the presence of both fish, Cottus bairdi, and left the area, so an avoidance response to such cues may be stoneflies, Agnetina capitata, was greater than expected, an overestimation of the risk of predation inside the because stoneflies under rocks caused mayflies to come refuge. If lizards emerge quickly from a refuge containing out of hiding from under rocks, thus resulting in greater only chemical cues, they could be exposed to the predator exposure to fish (Soluk 1993). However, flexibility in that hunts in the open. Therefore, according to the threat antipredator responses may help prey to avoid the risk- sensitivity hypothesis, wall lizards should use other cues enhancement effects. For example, when exposed to in addition to chemical cues to assess accurately the risk of predators that occupy different microhabitats, male predation inside the refuge. By doing this, lizards might water striders, Aquarius remigis, reduced predation risk by minimize the facilitation effects caused by both types of decreasing not only general activity but also mat- predators acting simultaneously. ing activities that attracted the attention of predators In this study, we aimed to analyse the antipredatory (Krupa & Sih 1998). strategies of lizards when simultaneously confronting two Theoretical models of refuge use suggest that prey types of predators with different foraging strategies. We should adjust the time spent in a refuge according to pre- tested in the laboratory the ability of lizards to detect the dation risk and cost of staying in the refuge. The optimal chemical cues of smooth snakes. We then simulated emergence time is the time when the costs of staying (i.e. a system with two predators, one that searches actively costs of refuge use) exceed the costs of leaving (i.e. for prey in the open (simulated by the experimenter) and predation risk in the exterior; Sih et al. 1992; Martı´n& an ambush predator that waits for prey inside refuges (the Lo´pez 1999a). When a refuge contains chemical cues from smooth snake). We compared the propensity of wall an ambush predator it is likely that the predator is there or lizards to enter the refuge, time spent in it, and variation close by and, if the prey remains in the refuge, the in repeated attacks between predator-free refuges and probability that that predator detects the prey increases refuges containing visual cues of a snake, chemical cues or over time. Hence, prey hidden in an unsafe refuge should both. We hypothesized that wall lizards should be able to emerge sooner than from a predator-free refuge. However, discriminate the chemical cues of a snake and use them to this response may expose prey to another type of predator. assess the presence of a snake inside a refuge. However, an This example may be a case of predator facilitation caused estimate of risk based only on chemical cues may be by conflicting prey defences to avoid the different types of excessively conservative, so lizards might also need visual predators acting simultaneously (Sih et al. 1998). Further- cues to assess risk level accurately, especially when more, although there are significant advantages for prey emerging from the refuge is costly in terms of predation. able to detect predators via chemical cues, particularly According to the threat sensitivity hypothesis, we hy- when other cues are unavailable, chemical assessment pothesized that lizards should respond more accurately might lead to excessively conservative estimates of risk, when they found more than a single cue inside the refuge. because chemical cues may persist long after the predator has departed, giving an inflated indication of current risk (Kats & Dill 1998). Thus, prey could overestimate the risk METHODS of predation inside a refuge, exposing itself to the risk of predation in the exterior. Minimizing the negative effects Study Animals and Maintenance of the trade-off between emerging too soon and remaining inside the refuge would require prey to discriminate During March and April 2000, we captured by noosing between different predator cues inside the refuge (in- 34 P. muralis (X G SE snoutevent length Z 66 G 2 mm) at dicating different levels of predation risk) and to adjust a rock wall (120 m long ! 5 m high) near Cercedilla, their behaviour accordingly. For individuals that can Madrid Province, Spain. This lizard is a small lacertid match their predator avoidance responses to the level of lizard widespread in Central Europe. It is common in threat, the long-term payoffs should be greater than for mountains of the northern half of the Iberian Peninsula, individuals that are less flexible (Mathis & Vincent 2000). where it occupies soil dwellings, talus and walls in shaded Wall lizards, Podarcis muralis, responded to predatory zones in forests (Martin-Vallejo et al. 1995). The smooth attacks from birds or mammals when out in the open by snake is a specialist predator that feeds mainly on these hiding inside rock crevices (Martı´n&Lo´pez 1999b).