CORE
CO
nnecting
RE
positories
Services
Services overview
Explore all CORE services
Access to raw data
API
Dataset
FastSync
Content discovery
Recommender
Discovery
OAI identifiers
OAI Resolver
Managing content
Dashboard
Bespoke contracts
Consultancy services
Support us
Support us
Membership
Sponsorship
Research partnership
About
About
About us
Our mission
Team
Blog
FAQs
Contact us
Community governance
Governance
Advisory Board
Board of supporters
Research network
Innovations
Our research
Labs
unknown
Primary and secondary defences of squid to cruising and ambush fish predators : variable tactics and their survival value
Authors
Adamo
Barbosa
+58 more
Bryan
Bush
Caldwell
Clarke
Cott
Croxall
Derby
Derby
De’ath
Domenici
Driver
Edmunds
Edut
Eibl-Eibesfeldt
Endler
Francis Juanes
Hanlon
Hanlon
Hanlon
Hanlon
Hoverman
Huffard
Humphries
Humphries
Keenleyside
Langridge
Lenzi-Mattos
Lima
Lingle
Macy
Martins
Mathger
McGarigal
Michel
Michelle D. Staudinger
Moltschaniwskyj
Moynihan
Neill
Olla
Packard
Roger T. Hanlon
Scharf
Sherbrooke
Smale
Speed
Stankowich
Staudinger
Staudinger
Stevens
Stevens
Stevens
Stevenson
Vallin
Vallin
Wood
Wood
Young
Zar
Publication date
19 November 2010
Publisher
'Elsevier BV'
Doi
Cite
Abstract
Author Posting. © The Author(s), 2010. This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here by permission of Elsevier B.V. for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Animal Behaviour 81 (2011): 585-594, doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.12.002.Longfin squid (Loligo pealeii) were exposed to two predators, bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) and summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus), representing cruising and ambush foraging tactics, respectively. During 35 trials, 86 predator–prey interactions were evaluated between bluefish and squid, and in 29 trials, 92 interactions were assessed between flounder and squid. With bluefish, squid predominantly used stay tactics (68.6%, 59/86) as initial responses. The most common stay response was to drop to the bottom, while showing a disruptive body pattern, and remain motionless. In 37.0% (34/92) of interactions with flounder, squid did not detect predators camouflaging on the bottom and showed no reaction prior to being attacked. Squid that did react, used flee tactics more often as initial responses (43.5%, 40/92), including flight with or without inking. When all defence behaviours were considered concurrently, flight was identified as the strongest predictor of squid survival during interactions with each predator. Squid that used flight at any time during an attack sequence had high probabilities of survival with bluefish (65%, 20/31) and flounder (51%, 18/35). The most important deimatic/protean behaviour used by squid was inking. Inking caused bluefish to startle (deimatic) and abandon attacks (probability of survival = 61%, 11/18) and caused flounder to misdirect (protean) attacks towards ink plumes rather than towards squid (probability of survival = 56%, 14/25). These are the first published laboratory experiments to evaluate the survival value of antipredator behaviours in a cephalopod. Results demonstrate that squid vary their defence tactics in response to different predators and that the effectiveness of antipredator behaviours is contingent upon the behavioural characteristics of the predator encountered.This study was funded by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Sea Grant Program, the Massachusetts Marine Fisheries Institute, the University of Massachusetts and the Five College Coastal and Marine Sciences Program. R. T. Hanlon acknowledges partial support from ONR grant N000140610202 and the Sholley Foundation
Similar works
Full text
Open in the Core reader
Download PDF
Available Versions
Woods Hole Open Access Server
See this paper in CORE
Go to the repository landing page
Download from data provider
oai:darchive.mblwhoilibrary.or...
Last time updated on 08/06/2012
Crossref
See this paper in CORE
Go to the repository landing page
Download from data provider
info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.anbehav.2...
Last time updated on 11/12/2019