Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T05:04:54.491Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

IId - Refuge use

from Part II - Escape and refuge use: theory and findings for major taxonomic groups

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2015

Edited by
William E. Cooper, Jr  and
Daniel T. Blumstein
William E. Cooper, Jr
Affiliation:
Indiana University–Purdue University, Indianapolis
Daniel T. Blumstein
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Escaping From Predators
An Integrative View of Escape Decisions
 , pp. 225 - 226
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abrams, P. A. (1994). Should prey overestimate the risk of predation? American Naturalist, 144, 317–328.Google Scholar
Amo, L., López, P. & Martín, J. (2003). Risk level and thermal costs affect the choice of escape strategy and refuge use in the wall lizard, Podarcis muralis. Copeia, 2003, 899–905.Google Scholar
Amo, L., López, P. & Martín, J. (2004). Wall lizards combine chemical and visual cues of ambush snake predators to avoid overestimating risk inside refuges. Animal Behaviour, 67, 647–653.Google Scholar
Amo, L., López, P. & Martín, J. (2005). Flexibility in antipredatory behavior allows wall lizards to cope with multiple types of predators. Annales Zoologici Fennici, 42, 109–121.Google Scholar
Amo, L., López, P. and Martín, J.(2007a). Refuge use: a conflict between avoiding predation and losing mass in lizards. Physiology and Behavior, 90, 334–343.Google Scholar
Amo, L., López, P. & Martín, J. (2007b). Pregnant female lizards Iberolacerta cyreni adjust refuge use to decrease thermal costs for their body condition and cell mediated immune response. Journal of Experimental Zoology A, 307, 106–112.Google Scholar
Bateman, P. W. & Fleming, P. A. (2006). Sex, intimidation and severed limbs: The effect of simulated predator attack and limb autotomy on calling and emergence behaviour in the field cricket Gryllus bimaculatus. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 59, 674–681.Google Scholar
Blumstein, D. T. & Pelletier, D. (2005). Yellow-bellied marmot hiding time is sensitive to variation in costs. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 83, 363–367.Google Scholar
Bouskila, A. & Blumstein, D. T. (1992). Rules of thumb for predation hazard assessment: Predictions from a dynamic model. American Naturalist, 139, 161–176.Google Scholar
Bouwma, P. & Hazlett, B. A. (2001). Integration of multiple predator cues by the crayfish Orconectes propinquus. Animal Behaviour, 61, 771–776.Google Scholar
Brown, G. P. & Shine, R. (2004). Effects of reproduction on the antipredator tactics of snakes (Tropidonophis mairii, Colubridae). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 56, 257–262.Google Scholar
Brunel-Pons, O., Alem, S. & Greenfield, M. D. (2011). The complex auditory scene at leks: Balancing antipredator behaviour and competitive signalling in an acoustic moth. Animal Behaviour, 81, 231–239.Google Scholar
Cabido, C., Galán, P., López, P. & Martín, J. (2009). Conspicuousness-dependent antipredatory behavior may counteract coloration differences in Iberian rock lizards. Behavioral Ecology, 20, 362–370.Google Scholar
Christian, K. A. & Tracy, C. R. (1981). The effect of the thermal environment on the ability of Galapagos land iguanas to avoid predation during dispersal. Oecologia, 49, 218–223.Google Scholar
Clark, C. W. (1994). Antipredator behavior and the asset protection principle. Behavioral Ecology, 5, 159–170.Google Scholar
Cooper, W. E. Jr. (1998). Risk factors and emergence from refuge in the lizard Eumeces laticeps. Behaviour, 135, 1065–1076.Google Scholar
Cooper, W. E. Jr. (2008). Visual monitoring of predators: occurrence, cost and benefit for escape. Animal Behaviour, 76, 1365–1372.Google Scholar
Cooper, W. E. Jr. (2009a). Theory successfully predicts hiding time: new data for the lizard Sceloporus virgatus and a review. Behavioral Ecology, 20, 585–592.Google Scholar
Cooper, W. E. Jr. (2009b). Fleeing and hiding under simultaneous risks and costs. Behavioral Ecology, 20, 665–671.Google Scholar
Cooper, W. E. Jr. (2009c). Variation in escape behavior among individuals of the striped plateau lizard Sceloporus virgatus may reflect differences in boldness. Journal of Herpetology, 43, 495–502.Google Scholar
Cooper, W. E. Jr. (2011a). Risk, escape from ambush, and hiding time in the lizard Sceloporus virgatus. Herpetologica, 68, 505–513.Google Scholar
Cooper, W. E. Jr. (2011b). Escape strategy and vocalization during escape by American Bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus). Amphibia-Reptilia, 32, 213–221.Google Scholar
Cooper, W. E. Jr. & Avalos, A. (2010). Predation risk, escape and refuge use by mountain spiny lizards (Sceloporus jarrovii). Amphibia-Reptilia, 31, 363–373.Google Scholar
Cooper, W. E. Jr. & Blumstein, D. T. (2014). Novel effects of monitoring predators on costs of fleeing and not fleeing explain flushing early in economic escape theory. Behavioral Ecology, 25, 44–52.Google Scholar
Cooper, W. E. Jr. & Frederick, W. G. (2007). Optimal time to emerge from refuge. Biological Journal of The Linnean Society, 91, 375–382.Google Scholar
Cooper, W. E. Jr. & Wilson, D. S. (2008). Thermal cost of refuge use affects refuge entry and hiding time by striped plateau lizards Sceloporus virgatus. Herpetologica, 64, 406–412.Google Scholar
Cooper, W. E. Jr. & Wilson, D. S. (2010). Longer hiding time in refuge implies greater assessed risk after capture and autotomy in striped plateau lizards (Sceloporus virgatus). Herpetologica, 66, 425–431.Google Scholar
Cooper, W. E. Jr., Martín, J. & López, P. (2003). Simultaneous risks and differences among individual predators affect refuge use by a lizard, Lacerta monticola. Behaviour, 140, 27–41.Google Scholar
Cooper, W. E. Jr., Hawlena, D. & Pérez-Mellado, V. (2009). Islet tameness: Escape behavior and refuge use in populations of the Balearic lizard (Podarcis lilfordi) exposed to differing predation pressure. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 87, 912–919.Google Scholar
Cooper, W. E. Jr., Hawlena, D. & Pérez-Mellado, V. (2010). Influence of risk on hiding time by Balearic lizards (Podarcis lilfordi): Predator approach speed, directness, persistence, and proximity. Herpetologica, 66, 131–141.Google Scholar
Díaz-Uriarte, R. (1999). Anti-predator behaviour changes following an aggressive encounter in the lizard Tropidurus hispidus. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B, Biological Sciences, 266, 2457–2464.Google Scholar
Díaz-Uriarte, R. (2001). Territorial intrusion risk and antipredator behaviour: A mathematical model. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B, Biological Sciences, 268, 1165–1173.Google Scholar
Dill, L. M. & Fraser, A. H. G. (1997). The worm re-turns: hiding behavior of a tube-dwelling marine polychaete, Serpula vermicularis. Behavioral Ecology, 8, 186–193.Google Scholar
Dill, L. M. & Gillet, J. F. (1991). The economic logic of the barnacle Balanus glandula (Darwin) hiding behaviour. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 153, 115–127.Google Scholar
Doncaster, C. P. (1993). Influence of predation threat on foraging pattern: The hedgehog’s gambit. Revue d Ecologie-la Terre et la Vie, 48, 207–213.Google Scholar
Dowling, L. M. & Godin, J.-G. J. (2002). Refuge use in a killifish: influence of body size and nutritional state. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 80, 782–788Google Scholar
Downes, S. & Shine, R. (1998). Sedentary snakes and gullible geckos: Predator–prey coevolution in nocturnal rock dwelling reptiles. Animal Behaviour, 55, 1373–1385.Google Scholar
Godin, J. G. L. & Sproul, C. D. (1988). Risk taking in parasitized sticklebacks under threat of predation: Effects of energetic need and food availability. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 66, 2360–2367.Google Scholar
Guliam, J. F. & Fraser, D. F. (1987). Habitat selection under predation hazard: Test of a model with foraging minnows. Ecology, 68, 1856–1862.Google Scholar
Harris, S., Ramnarine, I. W., Smith, H. G. & Pettersson, L. B. (2010). Picking personalities apart: estimating the influence of predation, sex and body size on boldness in the guppy Poecilia reticulata. Oikos, 119, 1711–1718.Google Scholar
Hedrick, A. V. (2000). Crickets with extravagant mating songs compensate for predation risk with extra caution. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 267, 671–675.Google Scholar
Hedrick, A. V. & Kortet, R. (2006). Hiding behaviour in two cricket populations that differ in predation pressure. Animal Behaviour, 72, 1111–1118.Google Scholar
Helfman, G. S. (1989). Threat-sensitive predator avoidance in damselfish–trumpetfish interactions. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 24, 47–58.Google Scholar
Hemmi, J. & Merkle, T. (2009). High stimulus specificity characterizes anti-predator habituation under natural conditions. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B, Biological Sciences, 276, 4381–4388.Google Scholar
Huey, R. B. (1982). Temperature, physiology and the ecology of reptiles. In Gans, C. & Pough, F. H. (ed.), Biology of the Reptilia, Vol. 12, pp. 25–91. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hugie, D. M. (2003). The waiting game: A ‘‘battle of waits’’ between predator and prey. Behavioral Ecology, 14, 807–817.Google Scholar
Jennions, M. D., Backwell, P. R. Y., Mourai, M. & Christy, J. H. (2003). Hiding behaviour in fiddler crabs: How long should prey hide in response to a potential predator? Animal Behaviour, 66, 251–257.Google Scholar
Jensen, E. L., Dill, L. M. & Cahill, J. F. Jr. (2011). Applying behavioral–ecological theory to plant defense: Light-dependent movement in Mimosa pudica suggest a trade-off between predation risk and energetic reward. American Naturalist, 177, 377–381.Google Scholar
Johansson, A. & Englund, G. (1995). A predator–prey game between bullheads and case-making caddis larvae. Animal Behaviour, 50, 785–792.Google Scholar
Journey, L., Drury, J. P., Haymer, M., Rose, K. & Blumstein, D. T. (2013). Vivid birds respond more to acoustic signals of predators. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 67, 1285–1293.Google Scholar
Koivula, K., Rytkönen, S. & Orell, M. (1995). Hunger dependency of hiding behaviour after a predator attack in dominant and subordinate willow tits. Ardea, 83, 397–404.Google Scholar
Koops, M. A. & Abrahams, M. V. (1998). Life history and the fitness consequences of imperfect information. Evolutionary Ecology, 12, 601–613.Google Scholar
Krause, J., Loader, S. P., McDermott, J. & Ruxton, G. D. (1998). Refuge use by fish as a function of body length-related metabolic expenditure and predation risks. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 265, 2373–2379.Google Scholar
Krause, J., Cheng, D. J.-S., Kirkman, E. & Ruxton, G. D. (2000a). Species-specific patterns of refuge use in fish: The role of metabolic expenditure and body length. Behaviour, 137, 1113–1127.Google Scholar
Krause, J., Longworth, P. & Ruxton, G. D. (2000b). Refuge use in sticklebacks as a function of body length and group size. Journal of Fish Biology, 56, 1023–1027.Google Scholar
Lewkiewicz, D. A. & Zuk, M. (2004). Latency to resume calling after disturbance in the field cricket, Teleogryllus ocanicus, corresponds to population-level differences in parasitism risk. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 55, 569–573.Google Scholar
Lima, S. L. & Bednekoff, P. A. (1999). Temporal variation in danger drives antipredator behavior: The predation risk allocation hypothesis. American Naturalist, 153, 649–659.Google Scholar
Lima, S. L. & Dill, L. M. (1990). Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: A review and prospectus. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 68, 619–640.Google Scholar
López, P., Hawlena, D., Polo, V., Amo, L. & Martín, J. (2005). Sources of interindividual shy–bold variations in antipredatory behaviour of male Iberian rock-lizards. Animal Behaviour, 69, 1–9.Google Scholar
Losos, J. B., Mouton, P. le F. N., Bickel, R., Cornelius, I. & Ruddock, L. (2002). The effect of body armature on escape behaviour in cordylid lizards. Animal Behaviour, 64, 313–321.Google Scholar
Martín, J. & López, P. (1999a). When to come out from a refuge: risk-sensitive and state-dependent decisions in an alpine lizard. Behavioral Ecology, 10, 487–492.Google Scholar
Martín, J. & López, P. (1999b). An experimental test of the costs of antipredatory refuge use in the wall lizard, Podarcis muralis. Oikos, 84, 499–505.Google Scholar
Martín, J. & López, P. (2001). Repeated predatory attacks and multiple decisions to come out from a refuge in an alpine lizard. Behavioral Ecology, 12, 386–389.Google Scholar
Martín, J. & López, P. (2003a). Changes in the escape responses of the lizard Acanthodactylus erythrurus under persistent predatory attacks. Copeia, 2003, 408–413.Google Scholar
Martín, J. & López, P. (2003b). Ontogenetic variation in antipredatory behavior of Iberian-rock lizards (Lacerta monticola): Effects of body-size-dependent thermal-exchange rates and costs of refuge use. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 81, 1131–1137.Google Scholar
Martín, J. & López, P. (2004a). Iberian rock lizards (Lacerta monticola) assess short-term changes in predation risk level when deciding refuge use. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 118, 280–286.Google Scholar
Martín, J. & López, P. (2004b). Balancing predation risk, social interference and foraging opportunities in backswimmers, Notonecta maculata. Acta Ethologica, 6, 59–63.Google Scholar
Martín, J. & López, P. (2005). Wall lizards modulate refuge use through continuous assessment of predation risk level. Ethology, 111, 207–219.Google Scholar
Martín, J. & López, P. (2010). Thermal constraints of refuge use by Schreiber’s green lizards, Lacerta schreiberi. Behaviour, 147, 275–284.Google Scholar
Martín, J., López, P. & Cooper, W. E. Jr. (2003a). When to come out from a refuge: Balancing predation risk and foraging opportunities in an alpine lizard. Ethology, 109, 77–87.Google Scholar
Martín, J., López, P. & Cooper, W. E. Jr. (2003b). Loss of mating opportunities influences refuge use in the Iberian rock lizard, Lacerta monticola. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 54, 505–510.Google Scholar
Martín, J., Marcos, I. & López, P. (2005). When to come out from your own shell: Risk sensitive hiding decisions in terrapins. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 57, 405–411.Google Scholar
Martín, J., López, P. & Polo, V. (2009). Temporal patterns of predation risk affect antipredatory behaviour allocation by Iberian rock-lizards. Animal Behaviour, 77, 1261–1266.Google Scholar
McIntosh, A. R. & Peckarsky, B. L. (1999). Criteria determining behavioural responses to multiple predators by a stream mayfly. Oikos, 85, 554–564.Google Scholar
McLean, E. B. & Godin, J. G. J. (1989). Distance to cover and fleeing from predators in fish with different amounts of defensive armour. Oikos, 55, 281–290.Google Scholar
Metcalfe, N. B. & Steele, G. I. (2001). Changing nutritional status causes a shift in the balance of nocturnal to diurnal activity in European minnows. Functional Ecology, 15, 304–309.Google Scholar
Mima, A., Wada, S. & Goshima, S. (2003). Antipredador defence of the hermit crab Pagurus filholi introduced by predator crabs. Oikos, 102, 104–110.Google Scholar
Polo, V., López, P. & Martín, J. (2005). Balancing the thermal costs and benefits of refuge use to cope with persistent attacks from predators: A model and an experiment with an alpine lizard. Evolutionary Ecology Research, 7, 23–35.Google Scholar
Polo, V., López, P. & Martín, J. (2011). Uncertainty about future predation risk modulates monitoring behaviour from refuges in lizards. Behavioral Ecology, 22, 218–223.Google Scholar
Polo-Cavia, N., López, P. & Martín, J. (2008). Interspecific differences in responses to predation risk may confer competitive advantages to invasive freshwater turtle species. Ethology, 114, 115–123.Google Scholar
Reaney, L. T. (2007). Foraging and mating opportunities influence refuge use in the fiddler crab, Uca mjoebergi. Animal Behaviour, 73, 711–716.Google Scholar
Rhoades, E. & Blumstein, D. T. (2007). Predicted fitness consequences of threat-sensitive hiding behavior. Behavioral Ecology, 18, 937–943.Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Prieto, I., Fernández-Juricic, E. & Martín, J. (2006). Anti-predator behavioral responses of mosquito pupae to aerial predation risk. Journal of Insect Behavior, 19, 373–381.Google Scholar
Saloom, M. E. & Duncan, R. S. (2005). Low dissolved oxygen levels reduce anti-predation behaviours of the freshwater clam Corbicula fluminea. Freshwater Biology, 50, 1233–1238.Google Scholar
Scarratt, A. M. & Godin, J.-G. J. (1992). Foraging and antipredator decisions in the hermit crab Pagurus acadianus (Benedict). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 156, 225–238.Google Scholar
Sih, A. (1992). Prey uncertainty and the balancing of antipredator and feeding needs. American Naturalist, 139, 1052–1069.Google Scholar
Sih, A. (1997). To hide or not to hide? Refuge use in a fluctuating environment. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 12, 375–376.Google Scholar
Sih, A., Krupa, J. & Travers, S. (1990). An experimental study on the effects of predation risk and feeding regime on the mating behavior of the water strider, Gerris remigis. American Naturalist, 135, 84–290.Google Scholar
Sih, A., Kats, L. B. & Moore, R. D. (1992). Effects of predatory sunfish on the density, drift and refuge use of stream salamander larvae. Ecology, 73, 1418–1430.Google Scholar
Sih, A., Englund, G. & Wooster, D. (1998). Emergent impacts of multiple predators on prey. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 13, 350–355.Google Scholar
Sih, A., Ziemba, R. & Harding, K. C. (2000). New insights on how temporal variation in predation risk shapes prey behavior. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 15, 3–4.Google Scholar
Smith, M. E. & Belk, M. C. (2001). Risk assessment in western mosquito fish (Gambusia affinis): Do multiple cues have additive effects. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 51, 101–107.Google Scholar
Soluk, D. A. (1993). Multiple predator effects: Predicting combined functional response of stream fish and invertebrate predators. Ecology, 74, 219–225.Google Scholar
Stankowich, T. & Blumstein, D. T (2005). Fear in animals: A review and metaanalysis of risk assessment. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 272, 2627–2634.Google Scholar
Stapley, J. (2004). Do log skinks (Pseudemoia entrecasteauxii) modify their behaviour in the presence of two predators? Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 56, 185–189.Google Scholar
Stapley, J. & Keogh, J. S. (2004). Exploratory and antipredator behaviours differ between territorial and nonterritorial male lizards. Animal Behaviour, 68, 841–846.Google Scholar
Werner, E. E., Gilliam, J. F., Hall, D. J. & Mittelbach, G. G. (1983). An experimental test of the effects of predation risk on habitat use. Ecology, 64, 1540–1548.Google Scholar
Wilson, C. D., Arnott, G. & Elwood, R. W. (2012). Freshwater pearl mussels show plasticity of responses to different predation risks but also show consistent individual differences in responsiveness. Behavioural Processes, 89, 299–303.Google Scholar
Wolf, N. G. & Kramer, D. L. (1987). Use of cover and the need to breathe: The effects of hypoxia on vulnerability of dwarf gouramis to predatory snakeheads. Oecologia, 73:127–132.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×