Identifying the most effective behavioural assays and predator cues for quantifying anti-predator responses in mammals: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Mammals, globally, are facing population declines. Protecting and breeding threatened populations inside predator-free havens and translocating them back to the wild is commonly viewed as a solution. These approaches can expose predator-naïve animals to predators they have never encountered and as a result, many conservation projects have failed due to the predation of individuals that lacked appropriate anti-predator responses. Hence, robust ways to measure anti-predator responses are urgently needed to help identify naïve populations at risk, to select appropriate animals for translocation, and to monitor managed populations for changes in anti-predator traits. Here, we undertake a systematic review that collates existing behavioural assays of anti-predator responses and identifies assay types and predator cues that provoke the greatest behavioural responses.

METHODS

We retrieved articles from academic bibliographic databases and grey literature sources (such as government and conservation management reports), using a Boolean search string. Each article was screened against eligibility criteria determined using the PICO (Population-Intervention-Comparator-Outcome) framework. Using data extracted from each article, we mapped all known behavioural assays for quantifying anti-predator responses in mammals and examined the context in which each assay has been implemented (e.g., species tested, predator cue characteristics). Finally, with mixed effects modelling, we determined which of these assays and predator cue types elicit the greatest behavioural responses based on standardised difference in response between treatment and control groups.

REVIEW FINDINGS

We reviewed 5168 articles, 211 of which were eligible, constituting 1016 studies on 126 mammal species, a quarter of which are threatened by invasive species. We identified six major types of behavioural assays: behavioural focals, capture probability, feeding station, flight initiation distance, giving-up density, and stimulus presentations. Across studies, there were five primary behaviours measured: activity, escape, exploration, foraging, and vigilance. These behaviours yielded similar effect sizes across studies. With regard to study design, however, studies that used natural olfactory cues tended to report larger effect sizes than those that used artificial cues. Effect sizes were larger in studies that analysed sexes individually, rather than combining males and females. Studies that used 'blank' control treatments (the absence of a stimulus) rather than a treatment with a control stimulus had higher effect sizes. Although many studies involved repeat measures of known individuals, only 15.4% of these used their data to calculate measures of individual repeatability.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review highlights important aspects of experimental design and reporting that should be considered. Where possible, studies of anti-predator behaviour should use appropriate control treatments, analyse males and females separately, and choose organic predator cues. Studies should also look to report the individual repeatability of behavioural traits, and to correctly identify measures of uncertainty (error bars). The review highlights robust methodology, reveals promising techniques on which to focus future assay development, and collates relevant information for conservation managers.

Is vigilance a personality trait? Plasticity is key alongside some contextual consistency

Animals regularly scan their environment for predators and to monitor conspecifics. However, individuals in a group seem to differ in their vigilance linked to age, sex or state with recent links made to personality. The aims of the study were to investigate whether a) individuals differ consistently in their vigilance, b) vigilance is linked to other personality traits and c) other factors affect vigilance in the colour polymorphic Gouldian finch. Birds were tested in same (red-headed or black-headed) or mixed head colour morph same sex pairs in four contexts (novel environment, familiar environment, two changed environments). Vigilance was measured as horizontal head movements. Vigilance showed contextual consistency but no long-term temporal consistency over a year. Head movements were only weakly linked to other personality traits indicative of a risk-reward trade-off with more explorative individuals being less vigilant. Vigilance was highly plastic across situations and affected by group composition. Mixed head colour morph pairs made more head movements, potentially linked to higher social vigilance. Results indicate that vigilance is a highly plastic trait affected by personality rather than a personality trait on its own, which allows adapting vigilance to different situations.

The group size effect and synchronization of vigilance in the Tibetan wild ass

Vigilance behavior is considered as an effective strategy for prey species to detect predators. An individual benefits from living in a group by reducing the time spent being vigilant without affecting the probability of detecting a predator. However, the mechanism producing a decrease in vigilance with increasing group size is unclear. Many models of vigilance assume that group members scan independently of one another. Yet in recent studies, the other 2 patterns of vigilance, coordination and synchronization, were reported in some species. In 2 summers (2018 and 2019), we studied the group-size effect on vigilance and foraging of Tibetan wild ass in Chang Tang Nature Reserve of Tibet. We also tested whether individuals scan the environment independently, tend to coordinate their scans, or tend to synchronize their vigilance. The results showed that individuals decreased the time spent on vigilance with increasing group size, while increased the time spent foraging. Group members scanned the environment at the same time more frequently and there was a positive correlation between group members’ behaviors, indicating that Tibetan wild asses tend to synchronize their vigilance.

The many faces of fear: a synthesis of the methodological variation in characterizing predation risk

Predators affect prey by killing them directly (lethal effects) and by inducing costly antipredator behaviours in living prey (risk effects). Risk effects can strongly influence prey populations and cascade through trophic systems. A prerequisite for assessing risk effects is characterizing the spatiotemporal variation in predation risk. Risk effects research has experienced rapid growth in the last several decades. However, preliminary assessments of the resultant literature suggest that researchers characterize predation risk using a variety of techniques. The implications of this methodological variation for inference and comparability among studies have not been well recognized or formally synthesized. We couple a literature survey with a hierarchical framework, developed from established theory, to quantify the methodological variation in characterizing risk using carnivore-ungulate systems as a case study. Via this process, we documented 244 metrics of risk from 141 studies falling into at least 13 distinct subcategories within three broader categories. Both empirical and theoretical work suggest risk and its effects on prey constitute a complex, multi-dimensional process with expressions varying by spatiotemporal scale. Our survey suggests this multi-scale complexity is reflected in the literature as a whole but often underappreciated in any given study, which complicates comparability among studies and leads to an overemphasis on documenting the presence of risk effects rather than their mechanisms or scale of influence. We suggest risk metrics be placed in a more concrete conceptual framework to clarify inference surrounding risk effects and their cascading effects throughout ecosystems. We recommend studies (i) take a multi-scale approach to characterizing risk; (ii) explicitly consider 'true' predation risk (probability of predation per unit time); and (iii) use risk metrics that facilitate comparison among studies and the evaluation of multiple competing hypotheses. Addressing the pressing questions in risk effects research, including how, to what extent and on what scale they occur, requires leveraging the advantages of the many methods available to characterize risk while minimizing the confusion caused by variability in their application.