Assessing blue wildebeests’ vigilance, grouping and foraging responses to perceived predation risk using playback experiments

Dannock, R.J.; Pays, Olivier; Renaud, Pierre‐Cyril; Maron, Martine; Goldizen, Anne W.

doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2019.05.021

Cited by 10 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, juvenile roach (Rutilus rutilus) that are beyond the gape limits of their predators invest less in defence (time spent near the surface and jumping out of the water when at risk) than smaller (ingestible) conspecifics (Christensen 1996). Similarly, blue wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus) eschew chewing while being vigilant following lion (Panthera leo) playbacks, presumably because mastication hampers predator detection (Dannock et al 2019). Thus, the overall pattern of anti-predator behaviour characterising a prey population during phase two, and the degree to which it transmits indirect NCEs during phase three, could hinge on the distribution of states manifested by its constituents.…”

Section: Shallowmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similarly, blue wildebeest ( Connochaetes taurinus ) eschew chewing while being vigilant following lion ( Panthera leo ) playbacks, presumably because mastication hampers predator detection (Dannock et al . 2019). Thus, the overall pattern of anti‐predator behaviour characterising a prey population during phase two, and the degree to which it transmits indirect NCEs during phase three, could hinge on the distribution of states manifested by its constituents.…”

Section: Potential Drivers Of Context Dependence In Ncesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The context dependence of non‐consumptive predator effects

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Non-consumptive predator effects (NCEs) are now widely recognised for their capacity to shape ecosystem structure and function. Yet, forecasting the propagation of these predator-induced trait changes through particular communities remains a challenge. Accordingly, focusing on plasticity in prey anti-predator behaviours, we conceptualise the multi-stage process by which predators trigger direct and indirect NCEs, review and distil potential drivers of contingencies into three key categories (properties of the prey, predator and setting), and then provide a general framework for predicting both the nature and strength of direct NCEs. Our review underscores the myriad factors that can generate NCE contingencies while guiding how research might better anticipate and account for them. Moreover, our synthesis highlights the value of mapping both habitat domains and prey-specific patterns of evasion success ('evasion landscapes') as the basis for predicting how direct NCEs are likely to manifest in any particular community. Looking ahead, we highlight two key knowledge gaps that continue to impede a comprehensive understanding of non-consumptive predator-prey interactions and their ecosystem consequences; namely, insufficient empirical exploration of (1) context-dependent indirect NCEs and (2) the ways in which direct and indirect NCEs are shaped interactively by multiple drivers of context dependence.

show abstract

Section: Shallowmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Potential Drivers Of Context Dependence In Ncesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The context dependence of non‐consumptive predator effects

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The interaction between vigilance and proactive space use is complex and might make applying predictions to other systems difficult (Patin et al, 2019). In addition, other studies have shown that prey can reactively adjust their space use (Courbin et al, 2016;Middleton et al, 2013) or increase their time allocated to vigilance in response to cues of predation risk (Pays et al, 2013;Dannock et al, 2019), as was the case when impalas were stimulated by lion roars (Favreau et al, 2013) or faeces of wild dogs (van der Meer et al, 2015). We show here that impalas increased their vigilance by increasing their high-cost vigilance when two predators (i.e.…”

Section: Effects Of the Presence Of Predators And Perceived Predation Riskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disentangling the roles of bottom‐up and top‐down drivers in the trade‐off between food acquisition and safety in prey with multiple predators

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Disentangling the roles of bottom-up and top-down drivers in the trade-off between food acquisition and safety in prey with multiple predators Abstract 1. Prey face a trade-off between acquiring food and avoiding predation, but food availability, and therefore its effect, is rarely measured in field studies investigating non-lethal effects of predation. The main aim of this study is to investigate the role of the presence of predators in the functional adjustments of feeding parameters with patch quality in a medium-size herbivore. 2. In Hwange National Park (Zimbabwe), we set up an experiment by manipulating, over two years, patch quality for impala (Aepyceros melampus), a medium-sized herbivore. We assess predation risk by monitoring the presence of three GPS-equipped predators: African lions (Panthera leo), spotted hyaenas (Crocuta crocuta) and African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus). 3. In enriched, fertilised plots the impalas reduced step rates (i.e. the rates of change in feeding stations), and increased their number of bites per feeding station while bite rates were not affected. Thus, the main adjustment of their feeding was the step rate. The total time the impalas spent vigilant appeared to be a good predictor of the variation of their bite rate. Although vigilance caused a reduction in bite rate when at a feeding station, the impalas reduced the relative costs of vigilance by continuing chewing and processing their food when scanning for predators. 2 4. When predators were in the vicinity, the impalas increased their exclusive vigilance (high-cost vigilance) but not their vigilance while chewing (low-cost vigilance) and decreased their bite rate while their step rate and the number of bites per feeding station did not change significantly. The impalas were thus visually disconnected from their patch, and reduced their bite rate when actually foraging. Exclusive vigilance increased when both lions and hyaenas were in the vicinity, and when wild dogs were nearby. 5. Patterns of vigilance that altered bite rate were linked to the presence of predators during the previous 24h. Over the long term patch quality was the main determinant of the feeding parameters (step rate and bite rate). This study shows how predators, by affecting the time prey devote to predator detection, shape the functional adjustments of food acquisition by prey to local patch quality.

show abstract

“…The idea of "spare capacity" or "spare time" speculates that herbivores might be capable of maintaining their rate of food intake despite being highly vigilant because of their ability to scan the environment while simultaneously chewing forage (Illius & Fitzgibbon, 1994;Fortin et al, 2004a). Food processing by chewing and swallowing constitutes a substantial proportion of foraging time, particularly when animals take big bites (Blanchard & Fritz, 2007;Dannock et al, 2019). Consequently, the ability to combine the time needed for chewing and processing forage with a vigilant period can increase forage efficiency.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Even so, the practical applications of spare capacity may be limited when we consider that spare capacity may not be needed in environments where available forage is easily masticated and requires little chewing time before being swallowed (Weckerly, 2017). Furthermore, when an ungulate detects threatening stimuli, they tend to focus solely on the stimulus without chewing at all (Dannock et al, 2019), perhaps because chewing is loud and can jostle an animal's field of vision, conceivably interfering with predator detection (Blanchard & Fritz, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

When can cropping rate compensate for increased vigilance?

Kurpiers

Weckerly

2022

Behav.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Herbivores use vigilance to reduce predation risk and interact socially, yet it imposes a foraging efficiency cost. As individuals spend more time with their head up being vigilant, time available to search for and ingest food decreases. We explored whether ungulates can strategically modify behaviours to compensate for vigilance costs via increased cropping rate when food searching time was near-zero and bite sizes were small. We compared the proportion of time individuals had their head up to their cropping rate (bites/observation length) in 271 observations of Roosevelt elk (Cervus elaphus roosevelti). Using a linear mixed-effect model, we estimated the head up–cropping rate relationship and found that elk cropping rate was constant across varying lengths of time spent with their head up, indicating no vigilance compensation occurred via increased cropping rate. We discuss settings when cropping rate compensation is expected and other behaviours that might mitigate vigilance costs.

show abstract

Assessing blue wildebeests’ vigilance, grouping and foraging responses to perceived predation risk using playback experiments

Cited by 10 publications

References 55 publications

The context dependence of non‐consumptive predator effects

The context dependence of non‐consumptive predator effects

Disentangling the roles of bottom‐up and top‐down drivers in the trade‐off between food acquisition and safety in prey with multiple predators

When can cropping rate compensate for increased vigilance?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About