A framework and standardized terminology to facilitate the study of predation‐risk effects
A framework and standardized terminology to facilitate the study of predation‐risk effects
复制标题
促进捕食风险影响研究的框架和标准化术语
DOI：
10.1002/ecy.3152
复制
发表时间：
2020
期刊：
影响因子：
4.8
通讯作者：
Sheriff, Michael J
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Peacor, Scott D.;Barton, Brandon T.;Kimbro, David L.;Sih, Andrew;Sheriff, Michael J
捕食者的存在可以强烈影响灵活的猎物特征，如行为，形态，生活史和生理。在代表不同生态系统的文献中，这些特征（或“恐惧”）反应已被证明会影响猎物的适应度和密度，并对其他物种产生间接影响。然而，这一广泛而令人兴奋的文献充满了不一致的术语，这可能会阻碍包容性框架的发展和生态学的普遍进步。我们研究了文献中使用的各种术语，并讨论了使用的许多术语的优点和缺点。常见的问题包括相同的术语用于不同的过程，以及许多不同的术语用于同一过程。为了减轻术语上的障碍，我们开发了一个概念框架，明确区分了所研究的多种捕食风险效应。这些多重效应，沿着建议的标准化术语，是风险诱导的特质反应（即，对猎物特征的影响）、相互作用修饰（即，对猎物-其他物种相互作用的影响），非消耗性影响（即，对猎物的适合度和密度的影响），以及性状介导的间接影响（即，对其他物种的适合度和密度的影响）。我们将该框架应用于三个研究良好的系统，以突出它如何能够阐明学习系统之间的共性和差异。通过澄清和阐明概念上相似的过程，框架和标准化术语可以促进跨系统的见解和方法的交流，并促进跨学科的观点。
The very presence of predators can strongly influence flexible prey traits such as behavior, morphology, life history, and physiology. In a rapidly growing body of literature representing diverse ecological systems, these trait (or “fear”) responses have been shown to influence prey fitness components and density, and to have indirect effects on other species. However, this broad and exciting literature is burdened with inconsistent terminology that is likely hindering the development of inclusive frameworks and general advances in ecology. We examine the diverse terminology used in the literature, and discuss pros and cons of the many terms used. Common problems include the same term being used for different processes, and many different terms being used for the same process. To mitigate terminological barriers, we developed a conceptual framework that explicitly distinguishes the multiple predation‐risk effects studied. These multiple effects, along with suggested standardized terminology, are risk‐induced trait responses (i.e., effects on prey traits), interaction modifications (i.e., effects on prey–other‐species interactions), nonconsumptive effects (i.e., effects on the fitness and density of the prey), and trait‐mediated indirect effects (i.e., the effects on the fitness and density of other species). We apply the framework to three well studied systems to highlight how it can illuminate commonalities and differences among study systems. By clarifying and elucidating conceptually similar processes, the framework and standardized terminology can facilitate communication of insights and methodologies across systems and foster cross‐disciplinary perspectives.