title: Getting ready for invasions: can background level of risk predict the ability of naïve prey to survive novel predators?
abstract: Factors predicting the outcome of predator invasions on native prey communities are critical to our understanding of invasion ecology. Here, we tested whether background level of risk affected the survival of prey to novel predators, both native and invasive, predicting that high-risk environments would better prepare prey for invasions. We used naïve woodfrog as our prey and exposed them to a high or low risk regime either as embryos (prenatal exposure) or as larvae (recent exposure). Tadpoles were then tested for their survival in the presence of 4 novel predators: two dytiscid beetles, crayfish and trout. Survival was affected by both risk level and predator type. High risk was beneficial to prey exposed to the dytiscids larvae (ambush predators), but detrimental to prey exposed to crayfish or trout (pursuit predators). No effect of ontogeny of risk was found. We further documented that high-risk tadpoles were overall more active than their low-risk counterparts, explaining the patterns found with survival. Our results provide insights into the relationship between risk and resilience to predator invasions.
authors: Department of Biomedical Science, WCVM, University of Saskatchewan, SK, Canada.
authors: Maud C O
authors: MC
authors: Ferrari
authors: Department of Biology, University of Saskatchewan, SK, Canada.
authors: Adam L
authors: AL
authors: Crane
authors: Department of Biology, Concordia University, QC, Canada.
authors: Grant E
authors: GE
authors: Brown
authors: Department of Biology, University of Saskatchewan, SK, Canada.
authors: Douglas P
authors: DP
authors: Chivers
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D001522:Behavior, Animal; D001517:Coleoptera; D020387:Food Chain; D058865:Introduced Species; D007814:Larva; D011235:Predatory Behavior; D011898:Ranidae; D014337:Trout
references: Anim Behav. 1999 Aug;58(2):397-407
references: 10458891
references: Trends Ecol Evol. 2001 Apr 1;16(4):199-204
references: 11245943
references: Nature. 2001 Nov 8;414(6860):195-7
references: 11700555
references: Learn Behav. 2004 Feb;32(1):131-40
references: 15161148
references: J Evol Biol. 2005 Jan;18(1):180-90
references: 15669975
references: Ecology. 2006 Feb;87(2):340-6
references: 16637360
references: Trends Ecol Evol. 2005 Mar;20(3):110
references: 16701353
references: Proc Biol Sci. 2006 Jun 22;273(1593):1545-50
references: 16777750
references: Science. 2006 Aug 11;313(5788):831-3
references: 16902136
references: Proc Biol Sci. 2007 May 22;274(1615):1237-43
references: 17360286
references: Proc Biol Sci. 2007 Aug 7;274(1620):1853-9
references: 17519190
references: Trends Ecol Evol. 2007 Sep;22(9):489-96
references: 17673330
references: Mol Ecol. 2008 Jan;17(1):20-9
references: 18173498
references: Mol Ecol. 2008 Feb;17(3):867-84
references: 18179428
references: J Evol Biol. 2008 May;21(3):705-15
references: 18355186
references: Proc Biol Sci. 2008 Nov 22;275(1651):2603-7
references: 18682368
references: Am Nat. 1993 Dec;142(6):947-60
references: 19425943
references: Trends Ecol Evol. 2009 Sep;24(9):487-96
references: 19500875
references: Biol Lett. 2010 Jun 23;6(3):308-10
references: 20007164
references: Proc Biol Sci. 2010 Jul 22;277(1691):2205-10
references: 20236976
references: Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2011 Jun;35(7):1562-92
references: 21145350
references: J Evol Biol. 2011 May;24(5):1007-19
references: 21332859
references: Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2011 Mar;1223:108-19
references: 21449968
references: Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2011 Jun;35(7):1452-65
references: 21510975
references: Proc Biol Sci. 2013 Feb 06;280(1756):20122712
references: 23390103
references: Evol Appl. 2011 Mar;4(2):367-87
references: 25567979
references: Am Nat. 1999 Jun;153(6):649-659
references: 29585647