Author
Listed:
- Jonathan K. Webb
- David A. Pike
- Richard Shine
Abstract
Many prey species are faced with multiple predators that differ in the degree of danger posed. The threat-sensitive predator avoidance hypothesis predicts that prey should assess the degree of threat posed by different predators and match their behavior according to current levels of risk. To test this prediction, we compared the behavioral responses of nocturnal velvet geckos, Oedura lesueurii, to chemicals from 2 snakes that pose different threats: the dangerous broad-headed snake Hoplocephalus bungaroides that eats geckos and the less dangerous small-eyed snake Cryptophis nigrescens that eats skinks (i.e., does not consume geckos). We also tested whether predator avoidance by prey was modulated by thermal costs associated with retreat-site selection. In both the presence and absence of thermal costs, velvet geckos avoided crevices scented by both dangerous and less dangerous snake species. When given the choice between a crevice scented by a broad-headed snake and a crevice scented by a small-eyed snake, most geckos avoided either retreat site. These results suggest that velvet geckos treat both snake predators as equally dangerous. To further explore these results, we quantified patterns of retreat-site selection by free-living velvet geckos on 2 sandstone plateaux. As in the laboratory, velvet geckos avoided thermally suitable rocks previously used by both snake species. Hence, a gecko's choice of retreat site is influenced by the presence of snake chemicals but is independent of thermal costs or the level of danger posed by the predator. To minimize their risk of predation, geckos may use a simple rule of thumb: "all snakes are dangerous." Copyright 2009, Oxford University Press.
Suggested Citation
Jonathan K. Webb & David A. Pike & Richard Shine, 2009.
"Olfactory recognition of predators by nocturnal lizards: safety outweighs thermal benefits,"
Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 21(1), pages 72-77.
Handle:
RePEc:oup:beheco:v:21:y:2009:i:1:p:72-77
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:21:y:2009:i:1:p:72-77. 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.