Abstract
Despite a wealth of studies documenting prey responses to perceived predation risk, researchers have only recently begun to consider how prey integrate information from multiple cues in their assessment of risk. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that experimentally manipulated perceived predation risk in birds and evaluate support for three alternative models of cue integration: redundancy/equivalence, enhancement, and antagonism. One key insight from our analysis is that the current theory, generally applied to study cue integration in animals, is incomplete. These theories specify the effects of increasing information level on mean, but not variance, in responses. In contrast, we show that providing multiple complementary cues of predation risk simultaneously does not affect mean response. Instead, as information richness increases, populations appear to assess risk more accurately, resulting in lower among-population variance in response to manipulations of perceived predation risk. We show that this may arise via a statistical process called maximum-likelihood estimation (MLE) integration. Our meta-analysis illustrates how explicit consideration of variance in responses can yield important biological insights.