4.5 Article

Escape response delays in wintering redshank, Tringa totanus, flocks:: perceptual limits and economic decisions

期刊

ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR
卷 69, 期 -, 页码 1285-1292

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.10.007

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Variation in escape response delays can be explained by at least two, nonmutually exclusive hypotheses: (1) the perceptual limit hypothesis, where delays result because of physical constraints related to predator detection and alarm signal transmission, and (2) the economic hypothesis, where delays are adaptive because they help to avoid superfluous, or to optimize essential, escape responses. We explored the relative importance of these effects in determining first response delays (the time elapsed between the 'detectors' leaving and the start of the rest of the flock's escape) and main response delays (time taken for all nondetectors to escape) among redshank flocks to three stimuli that posed different levels of risk (an attacking hawk, an approaching harmless species and a stimulus that did not involve any obvious external threat). There was strong support for the economic hypothesis because first response delays increased with flock size during responses to low-risk stimuli, when we assume the cost of not escaping immediately was lower because of increasing benefits from the dilution and confusion effects. There was also strong support for the perceptual limit hypothesis because main response delays were explained entirely by spacing and got quicker as flock size increased. This suggests that, once the rest of the flock started to respond to the detectors, benefits gained through the dilution and confusion effects decreased rapidly, so that immediate escape was the optimal response. Escape response delays can therefore be explained by both hypotheses and we discuss the implications of our results for group-living theory. (c) 2005 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 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