Ineffective integration of multiple antipredator defences in a rotifer: a low-cost insurance?

dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Helsinki - He, Yuhan
dc.contributor.affiliationInstitute of Hydrobiology - Zhu, Konghao
dc.contributor.affiliationInstitute of Hydrobiology - Zhao, Kangshun
dc.contributor.affiliationNanchang University - He, Liang
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Helsinki - Candolin, Ulrika
dc.contributor.affiliationInstitute of Hydrobiology - Xu, Jun
dc.contributor.affiliationInstitute of Hydrobiology - Zhang, Huan
dc.contributor.authorHe, Yuhan
dc.contributor.authorZhu, Konghao
dc.contributor.authorZhao, Kangshun
dc.contributor.authorHe, Liang
dc.contributor.authorCandolin, Ulrika
dc.contributor.authorXu, Jun
dc.contributor.authorZhang, Huan
dc.date.accessioned2025-03-24T15:17:12Z
dc.date.issued2022-10-10
dc.date.issued2022-10-10
dc.descriptionTo maximize survival, prey often integrates multiple anti-predator defenses. How the defenses interact to reduce predation risk is, however, poorly known. We used the rotifer Brachionus calyciflorus to investigate how morphological (spines) and behavioral (floating) defenses are integrated against a common predatory rotifer, Asplanchna brightwellii, and if their combined use improves survival. To this end, we assessed the cost of the behavioral defense and the efficiency of both defenses, individually and combined, as well as their mutual dependency. The results show that the behavioral defense is costly in reducing foraging activity, and that the two defenses are used simultaneously, with the presence of the morphological defense enhancing the use of the behavioral defense, as does the pre-exposure to predator cues. However, while the morphological defense reduces predation risk, the behavioral defense does not, thus, adding the costly behavioral defense to the morphological defense does not improve survival. It is likely that the cost of the behavioral defense is low given its reversibility – compared to the cost of misidentifying the predator species – and that this has promoted the adoption of both defenses, as general low-cost insurance rather than as a tailored strategy toward specific predators. Thus, the optimal strategy in the rotifer appears to be to express both morphological and behavioral defenses when confronted with the cues of a potential predator.
dc.identifierhttps://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.bvq83bkd2
dc.identifier.urihttps://hydatakatalogi-test-24.it.helsinki.fi/handle/123456789/10015
dc.rightsOpen
dc.rights.licensecc-zero
dc.subjectBehavioral defenses
dc.subjectMorphological defenses
dc.subjectphenotypic plasticity
dc.subjectpredator-prey interactions
dc.subjectPredatory cues
dc.titleIneffective integration of multiple antipredator defences in a rotifer: a low-cost insurance?
dc.typedataset
dc.typedataset
Zenodo


: