![]() These interactions in turn can have dynamic feedbacks that can change the context of the predator–prey interaction, causing predator and prey to adapt their traits-through phenotypically plastic or rapid evolutionary responses-and the nature of their interaction. Moreover, trait responses can be triggered by non-consumptive predator–prey interactions elicited by responses of prey to risk of predation. Evidence shows that the nature and strength of many interactions are dependent upon the relative magnitude of predator and prey functional traits. Here, I discuss recent advances in this functional trait approach. Such traits include predator and prey body size, predator and prey personality, predator hunting mode, prey mobility, prey anti-predator behavior, and prey physiological stress. Functional traits are defined as any morphological, behavioral, or physiological trait of an organism associated with a biotic interaction. Recent approaches have begun to explore predator–prey relationships in terms of an evolutionary-ecological game in which predator and prey adapt to each other through reciprocal interactions involving context-dependent expression of functional traits that influence their biomechanics. Classic approaches have tried to understand and predict these relationships in terms of consumptive interactions between predator and prey species, but characterizing the interaction this way is insufficient to predict the complexity and context dependency inherent in predator–prey relationships. Their vision was similar to that of modern owls.Predator–prey relationships are a central component of community dynamics. So Jurassic Park got it wrong! Smaller theropods, like Velociraptor and Troodon, had even better depth perception than T-rex. It also means that T-rex would have been able to detect prey even if it stood still against the background. ![]() Their vision was similar to today's falcon. This means that tyrannosaurs would have had excellent depth perception to estimate the distance to prey and the timing of their attack. ![]() This gave them a high degree of binocular field of view. But theropods, including tyranosaurs such as the famous T-rex, had forward-facing eyes. Richard wants to know why predatory dinosaurs appear to have eyes on the sides of their head?įrançois Therrien, the Curator of Dinosaur Palaeoecology at The Royal Tyrrell Museum in Drumheller, Alberta, says that most meat-eating dinosaurs known as theropods, had laterally positioned eyes, but not all of them. Having eyes on the sides of their heads resulted in a limited amount of depth perception, similar to pigeons and crocodiles today. This provides predators with greater depth-perception for pouncing on food, and gives prey a wider view of the landscape to survey the many dangers that may lurk just beyond their view. Eyes of predators like mountain lions and pine martens have forward-facing eyes, whereas herbivores like Sitka deer or chipmunks tend to have eyes that are oriented temporally. This week's question comes to us from Graham Richard from Haida Gwaii, who asks the following:Įye orientation can reveal a lot about the niche terrestrial vertebrates occupy.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |