theory and predator
prey behaviour II
1 secondary defence behaviour:
reduce success of attack
1.1.1 Thomsons Gazelle:-Likely to show in safer
situations with less likelihood of predator catching
them, in slow fights. Stating behaviour had been
found to indicate to the predator it had been
detected, but didn't deter or invite attack, So more
likely a warning to others behaviour than a signal
of strength, however found less likely to be killed if
it stops on average than if not (Caro, 1986)
1.1.2 Impala:- prancing by flinging
themselves into the air as high
as they can to deter predators
from eating them , as they
look like they may be too
much work and create too
much energy loss for the
predator = impedes calorific
calculation for the predator.
1.1.3 Springbok:- leaps into the air to show how unprofitable it
may be for predators to try to attack it. Although it makes
them easier to spot, may have many adaptive functions:-
warning others thus improving the survival rates of kin and
offspring, and the stutters fitness, may enable group
formation making single capture harder, creates confusion
fr the predator when many shot, and deterrence.
1.1.4 "showing off behaviours"
184.108.40.206 Also an honest signal
1.2.1 Makes it far more difficult for predator to
catch group of prey, and may get
hurt/disorientated while it occurs.
(expending more searching effort)
1.2.2 Gulls:- position of eggs in the
colony dictates whether mobbing
behaviour will occur, if dominant
will be central and mobbing will
occur, if subordinate on outer
edge, mobbing far less likely to
occur, attempting to preserve the
strongest genes for the colony. (KruuK)
220.127.116.11 Increases fitness of the individuals as
they are more likely to increase the life
of kin and offspring, improving fitness.
18.104.22.168 Mobbing, like many behaviours will often occur as an
adaptive genetic mutation in a population, that will
spread to others if it is successful enough. However,
coevolution of the predator species means that
mobbing behaviour will never be perfect due to the
developmental arms race that keeps adapting.
22.214.171.124 California ground squirrels:- gather
and mob rattlesnakes by their
burrows, one kicks sand and may
even attack it. Heat up their tails to
warn the snake (infrared view) that
they will attack. May also actively
seek snake skins or carcass and rub
the scent onto their tails to increase
perceived danger to other snakes.
1.3.1 Can increase reproductive fitness of the animal through
increasing chances of survival of offspring, however
decreases chances of its own survival.
1.3.2 Ringed Plover :- When predator in the vicinity, it will
pretend that it has a broken wing and limp away from the
nest, leading the predator away from the nest to save their
offspring, but then quickly fly off when they are farther
enough away from the nest to avoid being killed.
1.3.3 Threadfin butterflyfish:- has a fake eye spot on it's tail
that predators are more likely to attack than it's real
eye which is camouflaged by it's black head. The fin will
grow back very quickly and have little damage impact
on the fish, allowing it to get away from the predator.
2 Primary defence mechanisms:
reduce probability of attack
2.1.1 Batesian and Mullerian mimicry:-
B = dishonest signals, M = Honest
2.1.2 Monarch and Viceroy butterfly:-
Monarch = poisonous and honest,
Viceroy = non-toxic and dishonest,
works to deter predators from
both due to risk of being ill from
2.1.3 Texan coral snake and milk snake:
coral snake = poisonous and honest,
milk = non-toxic and dishonest.
2.1.4 Monarch butterflt: how being colourful,
then eaten then vomited is adaptive?
Indirect selection - dead individuals
educate their predators to avoid their
relatives and species, improving fitness
of their possible offspring or kin.
2.1.5 Also steal from completely different
species e.g.. Tephritid fly: has the
pattern of jumping spiders on its
wings which it bats as if for attention,
in fact look like the spiders
movements, which wave their legs,
deterring predators and other spiders.
2.2 Selfish herding and dilution affect
2.2.1 Redshank:- takeoff and land in a group to reduce the
chance of single birds being picked off, harder for
predators to choose which to attack.(Crewel, 1994)
Flocking reduced the probability of of being killed.
126.96.36.199 An optimal group size for
maximising foraging vs vigilance
time was also found
2.2.2 Zebras:- more dilution effect, black and
white stripes create a confusing background
when in large groups to predators,
especially wild cats that see in greyscale.
More difficult for them to pick out one
individual bra out of a large number.
188.8.131.52 Burger and Gochfeld, Brazilian butterflies:- gather together 'mud
puddling' at river banks. Large groups particularly attract
predators, however in a group of 1000 with 5 predators, there 1%
chance of dying per day, compared with 10x higher in group of
100. Provides survival benefits in excess of foraging costs.
3 Group kin selection/altruism.
3.1 Musk Ox wil forom a protective circle
around the young in the pack to
protect them when predators
threaten attack, (Buchanan, 2014) in
the arctic, these ox when confronted
by snow wolves will form this circle,
and actively charge towards the
wolves to fend them off and maim
them, increasing their chances of
death but also increasing their
chances of reproductive success with
the survival of their offspring if they
kill the predators, also in prospect
increasing their general lifespan.
3.2 Baffalo wil not only defend their
territory when confronted, but will
actively seek out lion packs in order to
kill the lion cubs, improving their long
term reproductive success if successful
at killing the next generation of lions,
albeit at their own peril at the time.