Marmots do not consistently use their left eye to respond to an approaching threat but those that did fled sooner

Abstract

In many vertebrates, the brain's right hemisphere which is connected to the left visual field specializes in the processing of information about threats while the left hemisphere which is connected to the right visual field specializes in the processing of information about conspecifics. This is referred to as hemispheric lateralization. But individuals that are too predictable in their response to predators could have reduced survival and we may expect selection for somewhat unpredictable responses. We studied hemispheric lateralization in yellow-bellied marmots <i>Marmota flaviventer</i>, a social rodent that falls prey to a variety of terrestrial and aerial predators. We first asked if they have lateralized responses to a predatory threat. We then asked if the eye that they used to assess risk influenced their perceptions of risk. We recorded the direction marmots were initially looking and then walked toward them until they fled. We recorded the distance that they responded to our experimental approach by looking, the eye with which they looked at us, and the distance at which they fled (i.e., flight initiation distance; FID). We found that marmots had no eye preference with which they looked at an approaching threat. Furthermore, the population was not comprised of individuals that responded in consistent ways. However, we found that marmots that looked at the approaching person with their left eye had larger FIDs suggesting that risk assessment was influenced by the eye used to monitor the threat. These findings are consistent with selection to make prey less predictable for their predators, despite underlying lateralization.

Knowledge graph centered on Marmots do not consistently use their left eye to with 34 nodes and 170 connections. Top connected: Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory, Gothic, Marmota, Yellow-bellied Marmot, Colorado East River Valley.

Related Works

Items connected by shared entities, co-authorship, citations, or semantic similarity.

Cited By (13 times, 2 in Knowledge Commons)

References (32)

5 in Knowledge Commons, 27 external