Author
Abstract
Current optimal escape theory focuses on economic distance-based models that predict that animals will flee at greater distances when risk of capture is greater. Although these models have been tested extensively on vertebrate prey animals using large approaching stimuli (e.g., humans), it has never been tested on an invertebrate generalist predator with a stimulus that is in the size range of potential prey. I presented adult jumping spiders, Phidippus princeps, with a small black model to test flight decisions when physically handicapped, under different levels of threat, and on surfaces that potentially hindered escape. Predator approach speed, running surface texture, and leg autotomy had no effect on flight decisions. I also measured running distance and speed under different levels of hunger and energy state to test how these variables affect the decision to flee or to turn and defend oneself against a predator. When prodded, larger spiders fled shorter distances before switching to a defensive posture, hungry spiders fled longer distances than sated spiders, and rested spiders ran faster than tired spiders. There is likely a trade-off between body size and energy stores when deciding to flee from a threat or turning to defend oneself. These findings 1) reflect differences in how predators and prey assess risk in their environment and the distances at which they treat an approaching object as threatening and 2) suggest that future studies should focus on how animals optimize escape decisions in ways other than traditional distance-based economic models (e.g., relying absolutely on crypsis). Copyright 2009, Oxford University Press.
Suggested Citation
Theodore Stankowich, 2009.
"When predators become prey: flight decisions in jumping spiders,"
Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 20(2), pages 318-327.
Handle:
RePEc:oup:beheco:v:20:y:2009:i:2:p:318-327
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:20:y:2009:i:2:p:318-327. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.