Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
The removal or addition of a predator in an ecosystem can trigger a trophic cascade, whereby the predator indirectly influences plants and/or abiotic processes via direct effects on its herbivore prey. A trophic cascade can operate through a density‐mediated indirect effect (DMIE), where the predator reduces herbivore density via predation, and/or through a trait‐mediated indirect effect (TMIE), where the predator induces an herbivore trait response that modifies the herbivore's effect on plants. Manipulative experiments suggest that TMIEs are an equivalent or more important driver of trophic cascades than are DMIEs. Whether this applies generally in nature is uncertain because few studies have directly compared the magnitudes of TMIEs and DMIEs on natural unmanipulated field patterns. A TMIE is often invoked to explain the textbook trophic cascade involving wolves (Canis lupus), elk (Cervus canadensis), and aspen (Populus tremuloides) in northern Yellowstone National Park. This hypothesis posits that wolves indirectly increase recruitment of young aspen into the overstory primarily through reduced elk browsing in response to spatial variation in wolf predation risk rather than through reduced elk population density. To test this hypothesis, we compared the effects of spatiotemporal variation in wolf predation risk and temporal variation in elk population density on unmanipulated patterns of browsing and recruitment of young aspen across 113 aspen stands over a 21‐year period (1999–2019) in northern Yellowstone National Park. Only 2 of 10 indices of wolf predation risk had statistically meaningful effects on browsing and recruitment of young aspen, and these effects were 8–28 times weaker than the effect of elk density. To the extent that temporal variation in elk density was attributable to wolf predation, our results suggest that the wolf–elk–aspen trophic cascade was primarily density‐mediated rather than trait‐mediated. This aligns with the alternative hypothesis that wolves and other actively hunting predators with broad habitat domains cause DMIEs to dominate whenever prey, such as elk, also have a broad habitat domain. For at least this type of predator–prey community, our study suggests that risk‐induced trait responses can be abstracted or ignored while still achieving an accurate understanding of trophic cascades.
The removal or addition of a predator in an ecosystem can trigger a trophic cascade, whereby the predator indirectly influences plants and/or abiotic processes via direct effects on its herbivore prey. A trophic cascade can operate through a density‐mediated indirect effect (DMIE), where the predator reduces herbivore density via predation, and/or through a trait‐mediated indirect effect (TMIE), where the predator induces an herbivore trait response that modifies the herbivore's effect on plants. Manipulative experiments suggest that TMIEs are an equivalent or more important driver of trophic cascades than are DMIEs. Whether this applies generally in nature is uncertain because few studies have directly compared the magnitudes of TMIEs and DMIEs on natural unmanipulated field patterns. A TMIE is often invoked to explain the textbook trophic cascade involving wolves (Canis lupus), elk (Cervus canadensis), and aspen (Populus tremuloides) in northern Yellowstone National Park. This hypothesis posits that wolves indirectly increase recruitment of young aspen into the overstory primarily through reduced elk browsing in response to spatial variation in wolf predation risk rather than through reduced elk population density. To test this hypothesis, we compared the effects of spatiotemporal variation in wolf predation risk and temporal variation in elk population density on unmanipulated patterns of browsing and recruitment of young aspen across 113 aspen stands over a 21‐year period (1999–2019) in northern Yellowstone National Park. Only 2 of 10 indices of wolf predation risk had statistically meaningful effects on browsing and recruitment of young aspen, and these effects were 8–28 times weaker than the effect of elk density. To the extent that temporal variation in elk density was attributable to wolf predation, our results suggest that the wolf–elk–aspen trophic cascade was primarily density‐mediated rather than trait‐mediated. This aligns with the alternative hypothesis that wolves and other actively hunting predators with broad habitat domains cause DMIEs to dominate whenever prey, such as elk, also have a broad habitat domain. For at least this type of predator–prey community, our study suggests that risk‐induced trait responses can be abstracted or ignored while still achieving an accurate understanding of trophic cascades.
To manage predation risk, prey navigate a dynamic landscape of fear, or spatiotemporal variation in risk perception, reflecting predator distributions, traits, and activity cycles. Prey may seek to reduce risk across this landscape using habitat at times and in places when predators are less active. In multipredator landscapes, avoiding one predator could increase vulnerability to another, making the landscape of fear difficult to predict and navigate. Additionally, humans may shape interactions between predators and prey, and induce new sources of risk. Humans can function as a shield, providing a refuge for prey from human‐averse carnivores, and as a predator, causing mortality through hunting and vehicle collisions and eliciting a fear response that can exceed that of carnivores. We used telemetry data collected between 2017 and 2021 from 63 Global Positioning System‐collared elk (Cervus canadensis), 42 cougars (Puma concolor), and 16 wolves (Canis lupus) to examine how elk habitat selection changed in relation to carnivores and humans in northeastern Washington, USA. Using step selection functions, we evaluated elk habitat use in relation to cougars, wolves, and humans, diel period (daytime vs. nighttime), season (summer calving season vs. fall hunting season), and habitat structure (open vs. closed habitat). The diel cycle was critical to understanding elk movement, allowing elk to reduce encounters with predators where and when they would be the largest threat. Elk strongly avoided cougars at night but had a near‐neutral response to cougars during the day, whereas elk avoided wolves at all times of day. Elk generally used more open habitats where cougars and wolves were most active, rather than altering the use of habitat structure depending on the predator species. Elk avoided humans during the day and ~80% of adult female mortality was human caused, suggesting that humans functioned as a “super predator” in this system. Simultaneously, elk leveraged the human shield against wolves but not cougars at night, and no elk were confirmed to have been killed by wolves. Our results add to the mounting evidence that humans profoundly affect predator–prey interactions, highlighting the importance of studying these dynamics in anthropogenic areas.
Predator hunting strategies, such as stalking versus coursing behaviors, are hypothesized to influence antipredator behaviors of prey and can describe the movement behaviors of predators themselves. Predators and prey may alter their movement in relation to predator hunting modes, yet few studies have evaluated how these strategies influence movement behaviors of free‐ranging animals in a multiple‐predator, multiple‐prey system. We fit hidden Markov models (HMM) with movement data derived from >400 GPS‐collared ungulates and large predators in eastern Washington, USA. We used these models to test our hypotheses that stalking (cougars [Puma concolor]) and coursing (gray wolves [Canis lupus]) predators would exhibit different broad‐scale movement behaviors consistent with their respective hunting strategies in areas that increased the likelihood of encountering or capturing ungulate prey (e.g., habitats selected by deer [Odocoileus spp.]). Similarly, we expected that broadscale movement behaviors of prey would change in response to background levels of predation risk associated with each predator's hunting strategy. We found that predators and ungulate prey adjusted their broadscale movements in response to one another's long‐term patterns of habitat selection but not based on differences in predator‐hunting strategies. Predators changed their movement behaviors based on the type of prey, whereas ungulates generally reduced movement in areas associated with large predators, regardless of the predator's hunting strategy. Both predator and prey movements varied in response to landscape features but not necessarily based on habitat that would facilitate specific hunting behaviors. Our results suggest that predators and prey adjust their movements at broad temporal scales in relation to long‐term patterns of risk and resource distributions, potentially influencing their encounter rates with one another at finer spatiotemporal scales. Habitat features further influenced changes in movement, resulting in a complex combination of movement behaviors in multiple‐predator, multiple‐prey systems.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.