4.4 Article

Facing different predators: adaptiveness of behavioral and morphological traits under predation

期刊

CURRENT ZOOLOGY
卷 63, 期 3, 页码 249-257

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/cz/zow056

关键词

behavior; morphological variation; Perca fluviatilis; perch; pike; predator-specific defenses; selective predation

类别

资金

  1. German Research Foundation [BO 1507/6-3]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Predation is thought to be one of the main structuring forces in animal communities. However, selective predation is often measured on isolated traits in response to a single predatory species, but only rarely are selective forces on several traits quantified or even compared between different predators naturally occurring in the same system. In the present study, we therefore measured behavioral and morphological traits in young-of-the-year Eurasian perch Perca fluviatilis and compared their selective values in response to the 2 most common predators, adult perch and pike Esox lucius. Using mixed effects models and model averaging to analyze our data, we quantified and compared the selectivity of the 2 predators on the different morphological and behavioral traits. We found that selection on the behavioral traits was higher than on morphological traits and perch predators preyed overall more selectively than pike predators. Pike tended to positively select shallow bodied and nonvigilant individuals (i.e. individuals not performing predator inspection). In contrast, perch predators selected mainly for bolder juvenile perch (i.e. individuals spending more time in the open, more active), which was most important. Our results are to the best of our knowledge the first that analyzed behavioral and morphological adaptations of juvenile perch facing 2 different predation strategies. We found that relative specific predation intensity for the divergent traits differed between the predators, providing some additional ideas why juvenile perch display such a high degree of phenotypic plasticity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据