Augmenting Population Monitoring Programs with Behavioral Indicators During Ecological Restorations

Whelan, Christopher J.; Jedlicka, Dianne M.

doi:10.1560/ijee.53.3.279

Cited by 20 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nowak et al () used these methods with habituated animals and found that when not in proximity to an observer, individuals tended to forage less from the ground, suggesting the presence of a “human shield.” From a conservation standpoint, GUD experiments are likely to be most useful when they can serve as an indicator of habitat selection in anthropogenically altered environments in which human activity might alter food availability, predator density, or habitat structure (Bleicher, ). For example, GUDs have been used in non‐primate taxa to assess which habitats serve as refuges (Carter & Bright, ) and to contrast foraging behavior in fragmented or degraded habitats with more pristine environments (Whelan & Jedlicka, ). However, GUDs have been criticized as a relatively coarse indicator of habitat quality as a high GUD can indicate both resource‐rich environment and an area of high perceived predation risk.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, GUDs have been used in non-primate taxa to assess which habitats serve as refuges (Carter & Bright, 2003) and to contrast foraging behavior in fragmented or degraded habitats with more pristine environments (Whelan & Jedlicka, 2007). However, GUDs have been criticized as a relatively coarse indicator of habitat quality as a high GUD can indicate both resource-rich environment and an area of high perceived predation risk.…”

Section: Giving-up Densitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Anthropogenic influences on primate antipredator behavior and implications for research and conservation

LaBarge

Hill

Berman

et al. 2020

American J Primatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Predation risk affects prey species' behavior, even in the absence of a direct threat, but human‐induced environmental change may disturb ecologically significant predator–prey interactions. Here, we propose various ways in which knowledge of antipredator tactics, behavioral risk effects, and primate–predator interactions could assist in identifying human‐caused disruption to natural systems. Using behavior to evaluate primate responses to the ongoing environmental change should be a potentially effective way to make species conservation more predictive by identifying issues before a more dramatic population declines. A key challenge here is that studies of predation on primates often use data collected via direct observations of habituated animals and human presence can deter carnivores and influence subjects' perception of risk. Hence, we also review various indirect data collection methods to evaluate their effectiveness in identifying where environmental change threatens wild species, while also minimizing observer bias.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Giving-up Densitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anthropogenic influences on primate antipredator behavior and implications for research and conservation

LaBarge

Hill

Berman

et al. 2020

American J Primatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Data from 2010 were generally inconsistent with our predictions suggesting that food may not have been limited and foragers maximized fitness instead of energy intake, including foraging less on deeply buried seeds and avoiding foraging in most experimental patches near visual barriers. When food densities in surrounding wetlands were apparently above a critical food density in 2010, opportunity costs were large and ducks removed fewer resources from our experimental patches resulting in high GUDs that were proportional to initial densities (Whelan and Jedlicka ). In contrast, removal of seeds in 2011 was consistent with our predictions and the assumption of food limitation during spring migration (Greer et al ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies using experimental food patches or captive animals have successfully illustrated the effects of missed opportunity costs (Whelan and Jedlicka ), predation risk (Brown and Kotler ), food accessibility (Nolet et al ), and food characteristics (van Eerden and Munsterman ) on GUDs, but comparisons of model‐predicted parameters (e.g. critical food densities) with those observed using free‐ranging populations of animals are uncommon (but see Gill et al ) and are needed to alleviate misuse in carrying capacity models (van Gils et al , Hagy and Kaminski ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Opportunity costs influence food selection and giving‐up density of dabbling ducks

Hagy

Stafford

Smith

et al. 2017

Journal of Avian Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The interaction of animals with their food can yield insights into habitat characteristics, such as perceived predation risk and relative quality. We deployed experimental foraging patches in wetlands used by migrating dabbling ducks Anas spp. in the central Illinois River Valley to estimate variation in seed removal and giving‐up density (GUD; i.e. density of food remaining in patches following abandonment) with respect to seed density, seed size, seed depth in the substrate, substrate firmness, perceived predation risk, and an energetic profitability threshold (i.e. critical food density). Seed depth and the density of naturally‐occurring seeds outside of experimental plots affected seed removal and GUD in experimental patches more than perceived predation risk, seed density, seed size or substrate firmness. The greatest seed removal and lowest GUDs in experimental patches occurred when food resources in alternative foraging locations outside of plots (i.e. opportunity costs) appeared to be near or below a critical food density (i.e. 119–181 kg ha–1). Giving‐up densities varied substantially from a critical food density across a range of food densities in alternative foraging locations suggesting that fixed GUDs should not be used as surrogates for critical food densities in energetic carrying capacity models. Foraging and resting rates in and near experimental foraging patches did not reflect patterns of seed removal and were poor predictors of GUD and foraging habitat quality. Our results demonstrated the usefulness of GUDs as indicators of habitat quality for subsurface, benthic foragers relative to other available foraging patches and suggested that food may be limited for dabbling ducks during spring migration in some years in the midwestern USA.

show abstract

“…It has always been tempting to see environmental quality tied up in the missed opportunity cost of foraging, MOC. Where Olsson and Molokwu extend patch use to conservation, Whelan and Jedlicka (2007) show how patch use can and should be integrated into monitoring programs. Were GUDs high because of high risk or high environmental quality?…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavioral Indicators and Conservation: Wielding "The Biologist's Tricorder"

Kotler¹,

Morris²,

Brown³

2007

Israel Journal of Ecology & Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Augmenting Population Monitoring Programs with Behavioral Indicators During Ecological Restorations

Cited by 20 publications

References 38 publications

Anthropogenic influences on primate antipredator behavior and implications for research and conservation

Anthropogenic influences on primate antipredator behavior and implications for research and conservation

Opportunity costs influence food selection and giving‐up density of dabbling ducks

Behavioral Indicators and Conservation: Wielding "The Biologist's Tricorder"

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About