The control of risk hypothesis: reactive vs. proactive antipredator responses and stress‐mediated vs. food‐mediated costs of response

Scott Creel

doi:10.1111/ele.12975

journal article May 09, 2018

The control of risk hypothesis: reactive vs. proactive antipredator responses and stress‐mediated vs. food‐mediated costs of response

Scott Creel

Ecology Letters Vol. 21 No. 7 pp. 947-956 · Wiley

View at Publisher Save 10.1111/ele.12975

Abstract

AbstractInducible defences against predators evolve because they reduce the rate of direct predation, but this benefit is offset by the cost (if any) of defence. If antipredator responses carry costs, the effect of predators on their prey is partitioned into two components, direct killing and risk effects. There is considerable uncertainty about the strength of risk effects, the factors that affect their strength, and the mechanisms that underlie them. In some cases, antipredator responses are associated with a glucocorticoid stress response, and in other cases they are associated with trade‐offs between food and safety, but there is no general theory to explain this variation. Here, I develop the control of risk (COR) hypothesis, predicting that proactive responses to predictable and controllable aspects of risk will generally have food‐mediated costs, while reactive responses to unpredictable or uncontrollable aspects of predation risk will generally have stress‐mediated costs. The hypothesis is grounded in laboratory studies of neuroendocrine stressors and field studies of food‐safety trade‐offs. Strong tests of the COR hypothesis will require more studies of responses to natural variation in predation risk and the physiological consequences of these responses, but its explanatory power can be illustrated with existing case studies.

Topics

No keywords indexed for this article. Browse by subject →

References

98

[1]

PLANT DEFENSE SYNDROMES

Anurag A. Agrawal, Mark Fishbein

Ecology 10.1890/0012-9658(2006)87[132:pds]2.0.co;2

[2]

10.1098/rspb.2014.0446

[3]

10.1890/14-1706.1

[4]

10.1111/j.0030-1299.2007.15799.x

[5]

10.1126/science.1114898

[6]

10.1016/j.tree.2009.04.013

[7]

10.1890/0012-9615(1998)068[0371:tiopis]2.0.co;2

[8]

10.1111/1365-2664.12044

[9]

10.1111/1365-2656.12077

[10]

10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00661.x

[11]

Caro T. (2005)

[12]

10.1006/anbe.2003.2217

[13]

10.1093/beheco/arn079

[14]

A nutritionally mediated risk effect of wolves on elk

David Christianson, Scott Creel

Ecology 10.1890/09-0221.1

[15]

10.1371/journal.pone.0102330

[16]

10.1098/rspb.2004.2913

[17]

10.1006/gcen.2001.7749

[18]

10.1242/jeb.076943

[19]

Reactive responses of zebras to lion encounters shape their predator–prey space game at large scale

Nicolas Courbin, Andrew J. Loveridge, David W. Macdonald et al.

Oikos 10.1111/oik.02555

[20]

10.1016/s0169-5347(01)02227-3

[21]

10.1890/11-0327.1

[22]

10.1515/9780691207001

[23]

10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.07.022

[24]

10.1890/05-0032

[25]

Predation Risk Affects Reproductive Physiology and Demography of Elk

Scott Creel, David Christianson, Stewart Liley et al.

Science 10.1126/science.1135918

[26]

10.1073/pnas.0902235106

[27]

10.1890/11-0768.1

[28]

10.1002/ecy.1885

[29]

10.1006/anbe.1993.1231

[30]

10.1006/anbe.1994.1057

[31]

10.1006/anbe.2003.2233

[32]

10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.10.019

[33]

10.1111/j.1469-185x.1951.tb00645.x

[34]

Donk E. (1999) 10.1515/9780691228198-008

[35]

Risky times and risky places interact to affect prey behaviour

Egil Droge, Scott Creel, Matthew S. Becker et al.

Nature Ecology & Evolution 10.1038/s41559-017-0220-9

[36]

10.1201/b11532-36

[37]

10.1086/283985

[38]

Trophic Downgrading of Planet Earth

James A. Estes, John Terborgh, Justin S. Brashares et al.

Science 10.1126/science.1205106

[39]

10.1007/bf00299889

[40]

10.1111/j.0030-1299.2004.12976.x

[41]

WOLVES INFLUENCE ELK MOVEMENTS: BEHAVIOR SHAPES A TROPHIC CASCADE IN YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK

Daniel Fortin, Hawthorne L. Beyer, Mark S. Boyce et al.

Ecology 10.1890/04-0953

[42]

Garrott R. (2009)

[43]

10.1111/j.1365-2656.2011.01856.x

[44]

10.1086/282146

[45]

Geometry for the selfish herd

W.D. Hamilton

Journal of Theoretical Biology 10.1016/0022-5193(71)90189-5

[46]

10.1007/s10641-006-9038-z

[47]

10.1002/ecy.2049

[48]

Harvell C.D. (1999)

[49]

10.1111/j.1365-2656.2008.01512.x

[50]

10.2981/0909-6396(2005)11[215:fitlof]2.0.co;2

Showing 50 of 98 references

Cited By

160

Food‐safety trade‐offs drive dynamic behavioural antipredator responses among snowshoe hares

Shotaro Shiratsuru, Jonathan N. Pauli · 2024

Journal of Animal Ecology

When death comes: linking predator–prey activity patterns to timing of mortality to understand predation risk

Shotaro Shiratsuru, Emily K. Studd · 2023

Proceedings of the Royal Society of...

The context dependence of non‐consumptive predator effects

Aaron J. Wirsing, Michael R. Heithaus · 2020

Ecology Letters

Predator–Prey Interactions in the Anthropocene: Reconciling Multiple Aspects of Novelty

Peter W. Guiden, Savannah L. Bartel · 2019

Trends in Ecology & Evolution

Ecology of fear

Liana Y. Zanette, Michael Clinchy · 2019

Current Biology

Metrics

160

Citations

98

References

Details

Published: May 09, 2018
Vol/Issue: 21(7)
Pages: 947-956
License: View

Authors

S

Scott Creel

Department of Ecology Montana State University 310 Lewis Hall Bozeman MT 59717 USA

Funding

National Science Foundation Award: IOS 1145749

National Geographic Society Award: CRE 9864‐16

Cite This Article

Scott Creel (2018). The control of risk hypothesis: reactive vs. proactive antipredator responses and stress‐mediated vs. food‐mediated costs of response. Ecology Letters, 21(7), 947-956. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12975

The control of risk hypothesis: reactive vs. proactive antipredator responses and stress‐mediated vs. food‐mediated costs of response

You May Also Like