Author
Listed:
- Clare T M Doherty
- Mark E Laidre
Abstract
Conspecifics can provide social cues about the presence of key features of the surrounding environment, such as food or predators. Attending to social cues may therefore potentially benefit receivers, or at least be worth following. Yet, bearing social cues could also be costly, particularly if it increases the likelihood of close-range interaction with non-kin. Here, we experimentally seeded social cues in the wild onto focal individuals of the social hermit crab (Coenobita compressus), testing (1) the “potential benefits to receivers” hypothesis, which predicts that receivers will follow social cues to orient toward valuable resources, and (2) the “costs to bearers” hypothesis, which predicts that bearers of social cues will experience direct (physical) costs or indirect (constrained movement) costs due to interaction with receivers. Consistent with hypothesis (1), in natural encounters, conspecifics that crossed paths frequently made antennal contact, potentially gathering social information at close range. In experiments, naive conspecifics followed focal individuals bearing “positive” social cues (about a valuable food resource) significantly more often than they followed individuals bearing less attractive (“neutral” or “ambivalent”) social cues, pointing to a potential benefit. Consistent with hypothesis (2), individuals bearing positive social cues incurred greater direct and indirect costs, being physically flipped more often and achieving shorter displacements compared to individuals bearing other social cues. We conclude that experimentally seeded social cues in the wild can confer costs to bearers and potentially benefit receivers. Broadly, the costs of bearing social cues, revealed here, underscore the importance of not overlooking that social cues may be costly.
Suggested Citation
Clare T M Doherty & Mark E Laidre, 2024.
"Experimentally seeded social cues in the wild: costs to bearers and potential benefits to receivers,"
Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 35(1), pages 543-550.
Handle:
RePEc:oup:beheco:v:35:y:2024:i:1:p:543-550.
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:35:y:2024:i:1:p:543-550.. 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.