As humans, we rarely need to rely on all of our senses to find food, shelter, or mates. Indeed, these necessities are often advertised and/or delivered to us with little effort. With virtually no predators, we aren’t even likely to need our senses to avoid becoming prey.
Unlike wild animals, most people have little trouble finding
food, shelter, or even mates.
(http://www.brennersigns.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/hotel-led.jpg, http://listabuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/match.jpg)
Unless you’re unlucky enough to encounter Hannibal, you
probably aren’t too concerned about becoming a predator’s next meal.
(http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/cleolinda/1427760/456345/456345_600.png)
However, most animals heavily rely on their senses to avoid
predators, and to find food, shelter, and mates. By utilizing multiple senses,
animals increase their likelihood of success in a variety of conditions.
Sharks, for example, are capable of using a wide array of senses to locate
prey.1 This is especially important in the ocean since prey can be
sparse and visibility can be poor. By utilizing multiple senses to find their
prey, sharks maximize their likelihood of foraging success.
Sharks maximize their hunting efficiency by using multiple
senses to track down prey.
(http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v297/n2/images/scientificamerican0807-74-I4.jpg)
The use of multiple senses to gather information about one’s
environment is called multimodality.2
Multimodality is important to the study of animal interactions because multiple
sensory inputs can lead to complex behaviors. In simpler terms, a noise from
Animal 1 might result in a specific behavior from Animal 2. However, the scent
of Animal 1 might lead to a different behavior from Animal 2.
Let’s say a= a snake’s pattern, and b= a snake’s scent. The
shapes that follow the arrows represent all of the possible response behaviors
from a hypothetical squirrel. (Partan & Marler 2005).
Predator-prey
interactions often involve complex behaviors. In order to avoid becoming a
predator’s next meal, prey must be able to identify and detect their
predators. Over millions of years, prey
have fine-tuned many of their senses to the detection of specific predators.
For example, wolf spiders can detect the specific frequency of vibrations from
their bird-predator’s pecking on a tree.3 Spiders that were experimentally exposed to
the pecking frequency stopped all courtship behaviors and movement. Even more,
wolf spiders also respond to the shadow of a bird predator; except, in this
case, they increased locomotion and escape behaviors. This study is not only a
prime example of how prey can detect sneaky predators, but also how multimodal
interactions can lead to complex outcomes.
Wolf spiders can identify and respond to the pecking,
calling, and even shadow of a bird-predator. Of course, there are always prey
that miss the memo(s). This unfortunate wolf-spider probably should have paid
more attention to his senses.
Not only is multimodality important for predator detection,
but it is also key for species discrimination. For example, brown anoles can
detect their bird-predator, the grackle, by sight and by sound.4 Throughout the day, brown anoles see and hear
multiple birds. So how can they know when to hide or when it’s safe to do
important things like forage or look for a mate? Since the anole can identify the grackle’s
specific appearance and call, it can discriminate between the grackle and other
non-threatening birds. By having the ability to cue-in on the grackle using
multiple senses, the anole can maximize its time to forage and search for a
mate, and minimize its likelihood of becoming a grackle’s next meal.
Brown anoles can identify the appearance and call of their
predator, the great tailed grackle. This ability allows anoles to distinguish
the grackle from non-threatening birds so they don’t have to hide all day.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4086/5066322444_44a14302a2_z.jpg, http://www.planetofbirds.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Great-tailed-Grackle.jpg)
Another
predator-prey system that is ideal for the study of multimodal predator
detection and discrimination is that of the California ground squirrel.
California ground squirrels have two snake-predators: the Pacific gopher snake
and the northern Pacific rattlesnake. Gopher snakes are non-venomous and rely
on their stealth to invade squirrel burrows in search of pups. Conversely,
rattlesnakes are venomous and can quickly kill both pup and adult squirrels.
Since each snake poses a different level of immediate risk, it would behoove
ground squirrels to not only identify a snake predator, but also discriminate
between a venomous and non-venomous one.
California ground squirrels have two snake-predators: the
northern Pacific rattlesnake (top) and the Pacific gopher snake (bottom).
Rattlesnakes are more threatening to squirrels because of their ability to
quickly inject squirrels with deadly venom. (Photos: Joseph Chase)
Previous studies show that ground squirrels do indeed
discriminate between gopher snakes and rattlesnakes.5 This is
evidenced by squirrels’ behavior toward each snake species. Ground squirrels
tend to be more aggressive toward gopher snakes and will approach them more
closely. When presented with a rattlesnake, ground squirrels are likely to
monitor it more often, but maintain more distance from it.
Exactly how
California ground squirrels discriminate between each snake-predator remains
unclear. We do know that squirrels can identify each snake by its visual
appearance.5 However, there are a variety of reasons why vision is
not always a reliable mode of detection for ground squirrels. Not only do
squirrels often encounter snakes in their very own, dimly lit burrows, but they
also encounter them often in dense vegetation. Furthermore, both rattlesnakes
and gopher snakes blend into their surroundings very well. All of these factors
suggest that squirrels might use another sense to detect each snake and
discriminate between the two species.
Can you find the snakes in these photos? California ground
squirrels often encounter snakes moving through the grasses that they feed on.
Spoiler: a gopher snake (left) and a rattlesnake (right). (Photos: Joseph
Chase)
My
research focuses on how California ground squirrels use multiple senses to
detect and discriminate between gopher snakes and rattlesnakes. One previous
lab study suggested that California ground squirrels can identify the scent of
each snake-predator.6 My work takes this study to the field, a more
realistic setting. By manipulating the scent of rattlesnake and gopher snake
models, I can tease apart the role of each cue in squirrel response behavior.
My ongoing analysis has led me to many questions: Does the smell of a snake
make squirrels more wary of their environment or does it elicit anti-snake
behavior? What will squirrels do when presented with a rattlesnake model that
smells like a gopher snake? Do squirrels trust visual or olfactory input more when
deciding how to react to a snake predator?
I am still
in the process of analyzing seemingly endless field footage, but I hope to have
some answers soon!
---------------
References:
1. Hueter, R.E., D.A.
Mann, K.P. Maruska, J.A. Sisneros, and L.S. Demski. 2004. Sensory Biology of
Elasmobranchs. Biology of Sharks and Their Relatives 1: 326-358.
2. Partan, S.R. and P. Marler. 2005. Issues in the
classification of multimodal communication signals. The American Naturalist
166:231-245.
3. Lohrey, A.K., D.L.
Clark, S.D. Gordon, and G.W. Uetz. 2009. Antipredator responses of wolf spiders
(Araneae: Lycosidae) to sensory cues representing an avian predator. Animal
Behaviour 77:813-821.
4. Elmasri, O.L.,
M.S. Moreno, C.A. Neumann, and D.T. Blumstein. 2012. Response of brown anoles Anolis sagrei to multimodal signals from
a native and novel predator. Current Zoology 58:791-796.
5. Towers, S.R. and R.G. Coss. 1990. Confronting
snakes in the burrow: snake-species discrimination and antisnake tactics of two
California ground squirrel populations. Ethology. 84:177-192.
6. Hennessy, D.F. and D.H. Owings. 1977. Snake
species discrimination and the role of olfactory cues in the snake-directed
behavior of the California ground squirrel. Behaviour. 65:115-123.
Wow! That's amazing, your research are awesome. I enjoy it a lot & I have to say that you have done a great job. I am so impressed with it. Good going!
ReplyDeleteHey bree, All pics of blog post are helpful to readers. i have read your blog post very carefully.. And realize that we all have to stay very careful by this type of predator's... :)
ReplyDelete