Ineffective integration of multiple antipredator defences in a rotifer: a low-cost insurance?
To maximize survival, prey often integrates multiple anti-predator defenses. How the defenses interact to reduce predation risk is, however, poorly known. We used the rotifer Brachionus calyciflorus to investigate how morphological (spines) and behavioral (floating) defenses are integrated against a...
Gespeichert in:
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Dataset |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext bestellen |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | To maximize survival, prey often integrates multiple anti-predator
defenses. How the defenses interact to reduce predation risk is, however,
poorly known. We used the rotifer Brachionus calyciflorus to investigate
how morphological (spines) and behavioral (floating) defenses are
integrated against a common predatory rotifer, Asplanchna brightwellii,
and if their combined use improves survival. To this end, we assessed the
cost of the behavioral defense and the efficiency of both defenses,
individually and combined, as well as their mutual dependency. The results
show that the behavioral defense is costly in reducing foraging activity,
and that the two defenses are used simultaneously, with the presence of
the morphological defense enhancing the use of the behavioral defense, as
does the pre-exposure to predator cues. However, while the morphological
defense reduces predation risk, the behavioral defense does not, thus,
adding the costly behavioral defense to the morphological defense does not
improve survival. It is likely that the cost of the behavioral defense is
low given its reversibility – compared to the cost of misidentifying the
predator species – and that this has promoted the adoption of both
defenses, as general low-cost insurance rather than as a tailored strategy
toward specific predators. Thus, the optimal strategy in the rotifer
appears to be to express both morphological and behavioral defenses when
confronted with the cues of a potential predator. |
---|---|
DOI: | 10.5061/dryad.bvq83bkd2 |