4.5 Article

Refuge use:: A conflict between avoiding predation and losing mass in lizards

期刊

PHYSIOLOGY & BEHAVIOR
卷 90, 期 2-3, 页码 334-343

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2006.09.035

关键词

antipredatory behavior; health state; immunocompetence; parasites; refuge use

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Prey often respond to predation risk by increasing refuge use, but this strategy may entail a loss of body condition. Factors responsible for this loss of body condition remain unclear. Also how prey deal with refuge use to cope with predation risk without incurring costs of body condition, and how initial body condition affects refuge use remain barely known. We analyzed in the field whether adult Iberolacerta cyreni lizards modify their escape strategies and refuge use in areas with different levels of habitat deterioration and ecotourism pressure, which represent different levels of predation risk, and the consequences of changes in antipredator behavior to body condition. Lizards inhabiting deteriorated areas, where risk is higher, remained closer to refuges, but decreased time spent hidden in refuges after attacks, probably to maintain similar body condition than lizards inhabiting natural areas. We performed two laboratory experiments to isolate potential costs of refuge use that might affect the body condition of male lizards: a) a decrease of the efficiency of digestion due to low temperatures inside refuges and/or b) a reduction in food intake. Results suggest that refuge use is costly in terms of body condition due to reduced food intake, but the loss of efficiency of digestion seems unimportant. Lizards modified refuge use in relation to their body condition, with lizards with worse condition decreasing time hidden after predatory attacks. We concluded that lizards compensated for increased predation risk with flexible antipredatory strategies, coping with risk without incurring costs for body condition. (c) 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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