Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 13, 2025

A Real-Time Interactive System for Studying Confrontational Pursuit Behavior in Rodents
Published on: May 16, 2025
Finding food: how generalist predators use contact-chemosensory information to guide prey preferences
Richard K Zimmer1,2,3, Graham A Ferrier1, Cheryl A Zimmer1,3
1Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA.
Abstract:
Understanding the processes that guide carnivores in finding and selecting prey is a fundamental, unresolved challenge in sensory biology. To our knowledge, no published work has yet revealed the complete structural identities of compounds that cue preferences by generalist predators for different prey species. With this research imperative in mind, we determined the chemistry driving consumer preferences for live intact prey using two generalist predatory species (sea stars, Pisaster ochraceus; whelks, Acanthinucella spirata), along with two foundation prey species (mussels, Mytilus californianus; barnacles, Balanus glandula), inhabiting rocky, wave-swept shores. Each prey species is known to secrete either a 29.6 kDa (named 'KEYSTONEin') or a 199.6 kDa (named 'MULTIFUNCin') glycoprotein as a contact-chemical cue. Here, experimental manipulations utilized faux prey consisting of cleaned barnacle or mussel shells infused with KEYSTONEin, MULTIFUNCin or seawater (control) gels. Whelks exhibited a strong penchant for MULTIFUNCin over KEYSTONEin, irrespective of shell type. In contrast, sea stars generally preferred KEYSTONEin over MULTIFUNCin, but this preference shifted depending on the experimental context in which they encountered physical (shell) and chemical (glycoprotein) stimuli. This study ultimately demonstrates clear and contrasting chemical preferences between sea stars and whelks. It highlights the importance of experimental setting in determining chemical preferences. Finally, it shows that prey preferences by these predators hinge only on one or two contact-protein cues, without the need for quality coding via fluid-borne compounds, low-molecular-weight substances or mixture blends.
More Related Videos
16:03A Fish-feeding Laboratory Bioassay to Assess the Antipredatory Activity of Secondary Metabolites from the Tissues of Marine Organisms
Published on: January 11, 2015
10:17Laboratory Protocol for Genetic Gut Content Analyses of Aquatic Macroinvertebrates Using Group-specific rDNA Primers
Published on: October 5, 2017
Related Concept Videos
Predator-Prey Interactions
Chemotaxis and Direction of Cell Migration
Introduction to Special Senses
Natural Selection and Mating Preferences
Females, due to their biological roles in conception, pregnancy, and nursing,...
Frequency-dependent Selection
Types of Selection