» Articles » PMID: 20927352

Predators Are Attracted to the Olfactory Signals of Prey

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2010 Oct 8
PMID 20927352
Citations 37
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Predator attraction to prey social signals can force prey to trade-off the social imperatives to communicate against the profound effect of predation on their future fitness. These tradeoffs underlie theories on the design and evolution of conspecific signalling systems and have received much attention in visual and acoustic signalling modes. Yet while most territorial mammals communicate using olfactory signals and olfactory hunting is widespread in predators, evidence for the attraction of predators to prey olfactory signals under field conditions is lacking.

Methodology/principal Findings: To redress this fundamental issue, we examined the attraction of free-roaming predators to discrete patches of scents collected from groups of two and six adult, male house mice, Mus domesticus, which primarily communicate through olfaction. Olfactorily-hunting predators were rapidly attracted to mouse scent signals, visiting mouse scented locations sooner, and in greater number, than control locations. There were no effects of signal concentration on predator attraction to their prey's signals.

Conclusions/significance: This implies that communication will be costly if conspecific receivers and eavesdropping predators are simultaneously attracted to a signal. Significantly, our results also suggest that receivers may be at greater risk of predation when communicating than signallers, as receivers must visit risky patches of scent to perform their half of the communication equation, while signallers need not.

Citing Articles

Mesocarnivores vary in their spatiotemporal avoidance strategies at communications hubs of an apex carnivore.

Allen M, Avrin A, Wittmer H, Wang Y, Wilmers C Oecologia. 2024; 204(4):805-813.

PMID: 38564073 DOI: 10.1007/s00442-024-05541-y.


Eat or be eaten: Implications of potential exploitative competition between wolves and humans across predator-savvy and predator-naive deer populations.

Candler E, Chakrabarti S, Severud W, Bump J Ecol Evol. 2023; 13(11):e10694.

PMID: 38034341 PMC: 10682566. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.10694.


Sphingid caterpillars conspicuous patches do not function as distractive marks or warning against predators.

Barrone J, Vidal M, Stevenson R Ecol Evol. 2023; 13(7):e10334.

PMID: 37492454 PMC: 10363802. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.10334.


The Olfactory Bulb in Companion Animals-Anatomy, Physiology, and Clinical Importance.

Alvites R, Caine A, Cherubini G, Prada J, Varejao A, Mauricio A Brain Sci. 2023; 13(5).

PMID: 37239185 PMC: 10216273. DOI: 10.3390/brainsci13050713.


Prey tracking and predator avoidance in a Neotropical moist forest: a camera-trapping approach.

Swinkels C, van der Wal J, Stinn C, Monteza-Moreno C, A Jansen P J Mammal. 2023; 104(1):137-145.

PMID: 37077314 PMC: 10107427. DOI: 10.1093/jmammal/gyac091.


References
1.
Hughes N, Kelley J, Banks P . Receiving behaviour is sensitive to risks from eavesdropping predators. Oecologia. 2009; 160(3):609-17. DOI: 10.1007/s00442-009-1320-2. View

2.
Banks P, Norrdahl K, Korpimaki E . Nonlinearity in the predation risk of prey mobility. Proc Biol Sci. 2001; 267(1453):1621-5. PMC: 1690720. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2000.1187. View

3.
Hughes N, Banks P . Interacting effects of predation risk and signal patchiness on activity and communication in house mice. J Anim Ecol. 2009; 79(1):88-97. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2009.01630.x. View

4.
Wells M . Coyote senses in predation: Environmental influences on their relative use. Behav Processes. 2014; 3(2):149-58. DOI: 10.1016/0376-6357(78)90041-4. View

5.
Dawkins R, Krebs J . Arms races between and within species. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1979; 205(1161):489-511. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.1979.0081. View