Asymmetric Response to Heterotypic Distress Calls in the Lizard Liolaemus chiliensis

The weeping lizard, Liolaemus chiliensis, emits distress calls when trapped by a predator. Conspecific lizards respond to such calls with prolonged immobility, which may increase their probability of remaining undetected by a predator. This benefit, however, depends on the ability to react to the alert message of the call, which may be impaired by natural variation in the calls. The distress calls of L. chiliensis show geographic variation, and here we tested the response of two geographically distant populations (>700 km apart) to local (homotypic) and non‐local (heterotypic) distress calls; if populations are finely tuned to their local calls, they may not be able to respond to heterotypic calls. We found that geographic variation in calls affects the lizards’ response, but this effect was population dependent; whereas southern lizards responded to calls of both populations, the northern lizards only reacted to homotypic distress calls. The factors that determine this asymmetric response to heterotypic calls are unclear and we discuss three hypotheses that have a common component in the difference in body size between the tested populations, which seems to play a key role in determining the response to distress calls in this species.     

Behavioural response evoked by conspecific distress calls in two neotropical treefrogs

Anurans emit distress calls when attacked by predators as a defensive mechanism. As distress calls may trigger antipredator behaviour even in individuals that are not under attack, we tested whether this defensive behaviour induced behavioural changes in neighbouring conspecifics. We compared the behavioural responses of two species of Neotropical hylid frogs (genus Boana) to conspecific distress calls and white noise. Individuals of both species interrupted their vocal activity and decreased call rate after hearing the distress call. Natural variation on signal intensity calibrated among the nearest neighbours did not influence the response and we did not observe negative phonotaxis after any acoustic stimulus. Despite the fact that many predators are acoustically oriented, we could not determine if such response (reduced call rate) was induced by risk assessment or by the masking effect on advertisement calls. Boana faber responded similarly to white noise and distress calls, while B. bischoffi responded more intensely to distress calls. Duration of silence after playbacks in B. faber was longer than B. bischoffi. We suggest that, if the signals are interpreted as a risk cue by neighbouring conspecifics, each species may be preyed upon by different predators, as they may have led to distinct defensive strategies and different responses to distress calls. If risk assessment information is included in distress calls, it triggers behavioural responses only in the nearest neighbours, as we did not observe responses on the vocal activity of the interspecific chorus. Our results add relevant data about acoustic communication and interpretations by anurans, highlighting the importance of considering cues within common and widespread signals.     

Wall lizards combine chemical and visual cues of ambush snake predators to avoid overestimating risk inside refuges

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.     

Can Wall Lizards Combine Chemical and Visual Cues to Discriminate Predatory from Non‐Predatory Snakes Inside Refuges?

The ability to use multiple cues in assessing predation risk is especially important to prey animals exposed to multiple predators. Wall lizards, Podarcis muralis, respond to predatory attacks from birds in the open by hiding inside rock crevices, where they may encounter saurophagous ambush smooth snakes. Lizards should avoid refuges with these snakes, but in refuges lizards can also find non‐saurophagous viperine snakes, which lizards do not need to avoid. We investigated in the laboratory whether wall lizards used different predator cues to detect and discriminate between snake species within refuges. We simulated predatory attacks in the open to lizards, and compared their refuge use, and the variation in the responses after a repeated attack, between predator‐free refuges and refuges containing visual, chemical, or visual and chemical cues of saurophagous or non‐saurophagous snakes. Time to enter a refuge was not influenced by potential risk inside the refuge. In contrast, in a successive second attack, lizards sought cover faster and tended to increase time spent hidden in the refuge. This suggests a case of predator facilitation because persistent predators in the open may force lizards to hide faster and for longer in hazardous refuges. However, after hiding, lizards spent less time in refuges with both chemical and visual cues of snakes, or with chemical cues alone, than in predator‐free refuges or in refuges with snake visual cues alone, but there were no differences in response to the two snake species. Therefore, lizards could be overestimating predation risk inside refuges. We discuss which selection pressures might explain this lack of discrimination of predatory from similar non‐predatory snakes.     

Predator‐Naïve Brown Trout (Salmo trutta) Show Antipredator Behaviours to Scent from an Introduced Piscivorous Mammalian Predator Fed Conspecifics

Introduced mammalian predators may pose a high risk for native and naïve prey populations, but little is known about how native fish species may recognize and respond to scents from introduced mammalian predators. We investigated the role of diet‐released chemical cues in facilitating predator recognition, hypothesizing that native brown trout (Salmo trutta) would exhibit antipredator behaviours to faeces scents from the introduced American mink (Neovision vison) fed conspecifics, but not to non‐trout diets. In treatments‐control and replicate stream tank experiments, brown trout showed significant antipredator responses to faeces scent from mink fed conspecifics, but not to faeces scent from mink fed a non‐trout diet (chicken), or the non‐predator food control, Eurasian beaver (Castor fiber). We conclude that native and naïve brown trout show relevant antipredator behaviours to an introduced mammalian predator, presumably based on diet‐released conspecific alarm cues and thereby estimate the predation risk.     

Variability in the Assessment of Snake Predation Risk by Liolaemus Lizards

The ability to assess and respond to predation risk is a strong selective force. Detection of predators is carried out by one or more sensory modalities, but the use of chemoreception has significant advantages. This study examines the chemosensorial assessment of snake predation risk and corresponding behaviours in different species and populations of Liolaemus lizards naturally exposed to different levels of snake predation pressure. The species studied were sympatric (Liolaemus lemniscatus), parapatric (L. nigroviridis) and allopatric (L. fitzgeraldi) to the saurophagous snake, Philodryas chamissonis. Additionally, two populations of L. lemniscatus from areas differing in snake densities were compared. Chemo‐assessment of predation risk was determined by comparing the number of tongue‐flicks (TF) and the behavioural responses of lizards submitted to three treatments (with semiochemicals of snake, conspecifics, and without semiochemicals – control). The results suggest that Liolaemus lizards can chemo‐assess snake predation risk, but this was modulated by the predation pressure experienced by lizards in their natural habitats. When exposed to snake semiochemicals, the sympatric prey showed less chemical exploratory behaviour (i.e. lower number of TF), a higher frequency of antipredator behaviours that would reduce its detection by a predator, and did not show the behaviour triggered by conspecific semiochemicals. The parapatric prey showed similar number of TF across different treatments, suggesting an absence of recognition of snake semiochemicals; however, it did show antipredatory behaviours when confronted with snake semiochemicals. The allopatric prey showed similar behaviour in all treatments. Both populations of the sympatric species, L. lemniscatus, showed a similar ability to detect predation risk when confronted with snake semiochemicals (i.e. similar number of TF), but antipredatory behaviours were diminished, and marking behaviours were present in the population subject to lower predation pressure. Relaxed predation pressure from a predator that releases and detects semiochemicals had similar consequences at species and population levels.     

Chemoreceptive and behavioural responses of the common lizard Lacerta vivipara to snake chemical deposits

Behavioural cues were used to assay the capacity of common lizards to detect chemical deposits of snakes. The lizards were observed in cages that had been previously inhabited either by one of two species of snake that feed on lizards (the viper Vipera berus and the smooth snake Coronella austriaca), or the grass snake (Natrix natrix), which does not feed on lizards. As a control, the lizards were tested both in a clean cage and in one sprayed with a pungent odorant. The lizards responded to the snakes' chemicals by increased tongue-flick rates, with the highest rates being given in response to the deposits of their predators. The chemosensory examination of the snakes' odours induced a shift in general behaviour in response to the predator, but not to the non-predator chemical cues. This behavioural response consisted mainly of a disruption of the locomotor patterns. Our findings strongly suggest that lizards detected and distinguished between the chemicals deposited by three species of snake. Behavioural performances were highly variable among individual lizards in all trials, but the relative scores of individuals tended to be similar in response to different stimuli.     

The use of chemosenses by threadfin shad, Dorosoma petenense to detect conspecifics, predators and food

The abilities of threadfin shad ( Dorosoma petenense ) in using chemosenses to detect the scents of conspecifics, a predator and food were tested in the laboratory. Shad did not respond to the scents of conspecifics or a predator; possibly because both shad and their predators out-swim such cues as chemical scents that are transmitted slowly through the water. Shad showed a strong attraction to the scents of food. In feeding, chemosenses may be used for filter feeding on microscopic food and for locating food beyond the range of vision.     

Traffic noise and responses to a simulated approaching avian predator in mixed-species flocks of chickadees,titmice, and nuthatches

Traffic noise likely reaches a wide range of species and populations throughout the world, but we still know relatively little about how it affects anti-predator behavior of populations. We tested for possible effects of traffic noise on responses to predator acoustic cues in Carolina chickadees (Poecile carolinensis), tufted titmice (Baeolophus bicolor), and white-breasted nuthatches (Sitta carolinensis) near 14 independent feeding stations in eastern Tennessee. We compared anti-predator calling and seed-taking behavior in response to playbacks of predator stimuli (screech owl calls) at sites naturally exposed to traffic noise and at sites that faced relatively little traffic noise. The screech owl call playback was designed to simulate the approach of this dangerous predator to a feeder being used by these small songbirds. We found that chickadees responded consistently to the owl stimuli across different levels of traffic noise. However, titmice, and nuthatches exhibited different behavioral responses to the predator stimulus, suggesting that traffic noise masked these low-frequency predator calls. Overall, chickadees and nuthatches showed the broadest anti-predator behavioral responses in comparison to titmice, corroborating earlier published work with an Indiana population. Finally, populations exposed to traffic noise overall seemed less able to detect predator cues potentially masked by that noise, and future work will need to assess likely seasonal variation in these responses as well as species-level variation in anti-predator responses in mixed-species groups.     

Distress call-induced gene expression in the brain of the Indian short-nosed fruit bat, Cynopterus sphinx

Individuals in distress emit audible vocalizations to either warn or inform conspecifics. The Indian short-nosed fruit bat, Cynopterus sphinx, emits distress calls soon after becoming entangled in mist nets, which appear to attract conspecifics. Phase I of these distress calls is longer and louder, and includes a secondary peak, compared to phase II. Activity-dependent expression of egr-1 was examined in free-ranging C. sphinx following the emissions and responses to a distress call. We found that the level of expression of egr-1 was higher in bats that emitted a distress call, in adults that responded, and in pups than in silent bats. Up-regulated cDNA was amplified to identify the target gene (TOE1) of the protein Egr-1. The observed expression pattern Toe1 was similar to that of egr-1. These findings suggest that the neuronal activity related to recognition of a distress call and an auditory feedback mechanism induces the expression of Egr-1. Co-expression of egr-1 with Toe1 may play a role in initial triggering of the genetic mechanism that could be involved in the consolidation or stabilization of distress call memories.     

Snake-like calls in breeding tits

Hole-nesting tits belonging to the family Paridae produce a hissing display that resembles the exhalatory hiss of a snake. When a predatory animal enters the nest hole of a tit, tits often hiss vigorously, while lunging their head forward and shaking their wings and tail, until the intruder retreats. We assessed the acoustic similarity between such hiss calls from 6 species of tits, snake hisses, and tit syllables used in alarm vocalizations, as well as white noise as a control. Tit hiss calls showed a high degree of similarity with snake hisses from 3 different snake families. Tit hisses had lower similarity to syllable alarm calls, suggesting convergence of tit hisses in their spectral structure. Hiss calls would only be effective in protecting nest boxes if nest predators responded to these calls. In order to test this hypothesis, we trained individual Swinhoe’s striped squirrels, Tamiops swinhoei hainanus, a common predator of egg and nestling tits, to feed at feeders in proximity to nest boxes. We compared the aversive response of squirrels to tit’s hiss calls and white noise, presented in random order. Squirrels showed a higher degree of avoidance of feeders when hiss calls were played back than when white noise was presented. In conclusion, our study suggests that hole-nesting birds have evolved convergent snake-like hiss calls, and that predators avoid to prey on the contents of nest boxes from which snake-like hisses emerge.     

Are fleeing ”noisy” lizards signalling to predators?

Many prey signal to predators with the intention of deterring further pursuits. In the lizard Psammodromus algirus, individuals sometimes escape with noisy long runs on dry leaves, whereas on many other occasions they escape quietly and with short flights. We hypothesised that the duration of this noisy display might be considered as an auditory signal of their alertness and ability to escape directed to predators. We examined in the field the escape behaviour of the lizard P. algirus in response to a human observer acting as a predator and tested a series of predictions to analyse this hypothesis. During a noisy escape response, lizards escaped sooner and ran further and for a longer time, while passing potential refuges before hiding. Production of noise was not entirely dependent on environmental factors, such as temperature or microhabitat, and was not directed to warn conspecifics because most individuals were solitary. Lizards still made noise when concealed and in response to successive approaches, which might be interpreted as a signal of alertness to the predator approach. In addition, condition of individuals with noisy responses could be assessed from their ability to run further and for a longer time, and because, in contrast to quiet responses, speed and distance were not positively correlated with environmental temperature. Thus, they might be in a better condition or internal state because they were able to run at high speed under unfavourable conditions. We suggest that lizards with noisy escape responses might be honestly signalling their alertness and ability to escape to avoid being chased. Received: 7 February 2000 / Received in revised form: 25 May 2000 / Accepted: 30 May 2000     

Differential Avoidance of Snake Odours by a Lizard: Evidence for Prioritized Avoidance Based on Risk

Most studies of predator avoidance behaviours have focussed on single‐predator systems, despite the fact that prey often are confronted with predator rich environments. In the presence of more than one predator, prey may have to choose between avoiding one predator over another. How prey cope with exposure to several enemies simultaneously remains largely untested. In this study I set out to investigate if skinks showed preferential avoidance of snake odours based on the relative predation risk posed by different snake species. This relative predation risk was estimated using information on density, diet specificity and foraging habit of each snake species. I tested retreat‐site selection in two‐choice tests, where lizards chose between different combinations of control and snake treated retreat‐sites as well as two retreat‐sites treated with different snake species odours. Lizards preferred control–treated retreat‐sites to those treated with snake odours and showed a differential avoidance response to refuges treated with odours from different snake species. There was strong evidence to suggest that lizards preferentially avoided refuges with the odours of the snake that posed the greatest predation risk, the white‐lipped snake (Drysdalia coronoides). Naïve juvenile lizards were also tested and their response was similar to the adults demonstrating that the behaviour is innate and not the result of higher encounter rates of more common snake odours. To my knowledge this is one of the first studies to demonstrate that prey can prioritize avoidance to a single most dangerous predator in the face of several predators and conflicting avoidance responses.     

The Asian grass lizard (Takydromus sexlineatus) does not respond to the scent of a native mammalian predator

Lacertid lizards use chemical cues emitted by saurophagous snakes to evade predation. Whether these lizards can detect and respond to the chemical cues of predatory mammals has not been studied. As many mammals carry distinct body odours and/or use chemical cues for intraspecific communication, lizards can be expected to use these chemicals as early warning cues. To test this idea, we observed the behaviour of Asian grass lizards (Takydromus sexlineatus) that had been transferred to an unfamiliar test arena containing one of four scent treatments. No particular scent was applied to the arena in the control situation. Diluted aftershave served as a pungency control. In the snake treatment, scent of the Oriental whip snake (Ahaetulla prasina) was applied. We included this treatment to learn how Asian grass lizards react to predator chemical cues. Finally, in the mongoose treatment, the lizards were confronted with scent cues of several small Indian mongooses (Herpestes auropunctatus). Snake scent elicited foot shakes, startles and tail vibrations. These are behaviours that in lacertid lizards are associated with stressful situations such as predatory encounters. Surprisingly, lizards confronted with mongoose scent exhibited none of these stress-indicating behaviours. In fact, their behaviour did not differ from that of lizards subjected to an odourless control treatment. These results raise concern. Mongooses are rapidly invading ecosystems worldwide. If lizards that have co-evolved with mongooses are unable to detect these predators’ presence through chemical cues, it seems highly unlikely that evolutionary naïve lizards will develop this ability rapidly.     

Birds adjust acoustic directionality to beam their antipredator calls to predators and conspecifics

Animals in many vertebrate species vocalize in response to predators, but it is often unclear whether these antipredator calls function to communicate with predators, conspecifics or both. We evaluated the function of antipredator calls in 10 species of passerines by measuring the acoustic directionality of these calls in response to experimental presentations of a model predator. Acoustic directionality quantifies the radiation pattern of vocalizations and may provide evidence about the receiver of these calls. We predicted that antipredator calls would have a lower directionality if they function to communicate with surrounding conspecifics, and a higher directionality and aimed at the receiver if they function to communicate with the predator. Our results support both of these functions. Overall, the birds produce antipredator calls that have a relatively low directionality, suggesting that the calls radiate in many directions to alert conspecifics. However, birds in some species increase the directionality of their calls when facing the predator. They can even direct their calls towards the predator when facing lateral to it—effectively vocalizing sideways towards the predator. These results suggest that antipredator calls in some species are used to communicate both to conspecifics and to predators, and that birds adjust the directionality of their calls with remarkable sophistication according to the context in which they are used.     

Damage released prey alarm substances or predator odours? Risk assessment by an aquatic oligochaete

Although the abilities of prey to detect and respond to chemical substances associated with a predator have been widely reported, the factors promoting the evolution of responses to prey alarm cues vs. predator odours are still vague. In this article, we combined field research with laboratory experiments to explore which chemical substance associated with predator activity (predator odour, conspecific or heterospecific alarm substances) induces defence responses in the aquatic oligochaete Stylaria lacustris, which is vulnerable to common littoral predators. The field results indicated that predators injure the oligochaetes and a great proportion, up to 45% of individuals in the population, were found to be damaged. The results of the laboratory experiments revealed that chemical odours from damselfly larvae feeding on S. lacustris did not induce the defence response in the oligochaetes. On the contrary, oligochaetes detected and responded to alarm substances from damaged conspecifics alone and substances from damaged cladoceran Daphnia magna. We discussed conditions favouring the responses to damage released prey alarm cues instead of predator odours in Stylaria lacustris. Our data suggest that the selection of responses to alarm cues from damaged prey vs. predator odours may be dependent on three factors: (1) non-species-specific predation, (2) divergence of food niche of the different stages of the predator and (3) complex food web with multiple predators. Handling editor: S. Declerk     

Behavioral responses to conspecific mobbing calls are predator‐specific in great tits (Parus major)

When facing a predator, animals need to perform an appropriate antipredator behavior such as escaping or mobbing to prevent predation. Many bird species exhibit distinct mobbing behaviors and vocalizations once a predator has been detected. In some species, mobbing calls transmit information about predator type, size, and threat, which can be assessed by conspecifics. We recently found that great tits (Parus major) produce longer D calls with more elements and longer intervals between elements when confronted with a sparrowhawk, a high‐threat predator, in comparison to calls produced in front of a less‐threatening tawny owl. In the present study, we conducted a playback experiment to investigate if these differences in mobbing calls elicit different behavioral responses in adult great tits. We found tits to have a longer latency time and to keep a greater distance to the speaker when sparrowhawk mobbing calls were broadcast. This suggests that tits are capable of decoding information about predator threat in conspecific mobbing calls. We further found a tendency for males to approach faster and closer than females, which indicates that males are willing to take higher risks in a mobbing context than females.     

Defensive behaviour of the western banded gecko, coleonyx variegatus

Western banded geckos, Coleonyx variegatus, responded to the presence of a potential snake predator by raising or undulating the tail or by doing both. The lizards responded to large snakes more often than to small snakes, and individuals with original tails responded with a defensive posture more often than those with regenerated tails.     

Chemosensory Response of Desert Iguanas (Dipsosaurus dorsalis) to Skin Lipids from A Lizard-Eating Snake (Lampropeltis getula californiae)

Several species of lizards respond to chemicals from sympatric lizard‐eating snakes with increased tongue‐extrusion rates. These substances also elicit antipredator behavior indicating that they have important ecological functions and the resulting behavior can have serious implications for individual fitness of lizards. However, the source and type of snake chemical cues that elicit these behavioral changes in lizards have yet to be determined. We tested the ability of adult desert iguanas (Dipsosaurus dorsalis) to detect and identify a potential predator by exposing them to lipids extracted from shed snakeskins. Lipids were extracted from cast skins of a known lizard‐eating snake, the California kingsnake (Lampropeltis getula californiae), using chloroform and methanol. Test subjects were presented with skin lipids as well as clean, pungent, and chloroform controls on cotton‐tipped applicators in random order. Desert iguanas directed significantly more tongue extrusions toward applicators bearing snakeskin lipids when compared with controls. In addition, overall tongue‐extrusion frequency increased following exposure to lipids during the 5‐min trials. Desert iguanas clearly detected snakeskin lipids, but this stimulus failed to elicit changes in body posture and movement patterns previously observed in experiments using chemical cues from live snakes. Increased tongue flicking by lizards in response to snakeskin lipids may represent a generalized response to this class of chemicals. Additional potential sources of chemicals used in the detection of lizard‐eating snakes are discussed.     

Anti‐Predator Behaviour in a Nocturnal Primate,the Grey Mouse Lemur (Microcebus murinus)

Although one‐third of all primates are nocturnal, their anti‐predator behaviour has rarely been studied. Because of their small body size, in combination with their solitary and nocturnal life style, it has been suggested that they mainly rely on crypsis to evade predators. However, recent studies revealed that nocturnal primates are not generally cryptic and that they exhibit predator‐specific escape strategies as well as alarm calls. In order to add to this new body of research, we studied anti‐predator strategies of nocturnal grey mouse lemurs experimentally. In order to elicit anti‐predator behaviour and alarm calls, we conducted experiments with a carnivore‐, snake‐ and raptor model. We also conducted playback experiments with mouse lemur alarm calls to characterize their function. In response to predator models, they exhibited a combination of anti‐predator strategies: in response to carnivore and snake models, mouse lemurs monitored the predator, probably to assess the potential risk that emanates from the predator. In response to raptor models they behaved cryptically and exhibited freezing behaviour. All mouse lemurs, except one individual, did not alarm call in response to predator models. In addition, during playback experiments with alarm calls, recorded during real predator encounters, mouse lemurs did not emit alarm calls nor did they show any escape behaviour. Thus, as in other nocturnal primates/mammals, mouse lemurs do not seem to rely on routinely warning of conspecifics against nearby predators.