4.8 Review

Dangerous liaisons: the predation risks of receiving social signals

Journal

ECOLOGY LETTERS
Volume 15, Issue 11, Pages 1326-1339

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2012.01856.x

Keywords

Communication network; eavesdropping; olfaction; predation risk; receiving; sensory modality; signalling; sociality; spatial perception

Categories

Funding

  1. Fund for Scientific Research - Flanders (FWO)
  2. Universities of New South Wales and Western Australia
  3. Australian Research Council [DP0881455]
  4. Australian Research Council [DP0881455] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Individuals are at risk when communicating because conspicuous signals attract both conspecifics and eavesdropping predators. This predation cost of communicating has typically been attributed to signalling individuals because of their conspicuous role, and is a core concept within sexual selection and communication ecology. But, if predators are attracted to signals, then receivers, both intended or otherwise, may also find themselves at risk of predation. Here, we review the theoretical basis and empirical evidence that receiving also carries a risk of predation. We distinguish between the risks of receiving and responding to signals, and we argue that receivers of signals that are long lived, are highly predictable in time or place and/or cannot be received quickly are likely to be at greater risk of predation compared to receivers of signals without these properties. We review recent empirical evidence from a variety of taxa that supports the hypothesis that receivers (including heterospecific prey) are aware of these risks and that they modify their behaviour to balance the risks against the benefits of receiving under predation threat. We also discuss the wider implications of risky receiving for receiving and signalling behaviour in prey, as well as for the prey's predators.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available