Do Yellow‐Bellied Marmots Perceive Enhanced Predation Risk When they are Farther from safety? An experimental study

Abstract

Whereas there are many studies of the time allocated to antipredator vigilance while animals forage, the vast majority of these studies remain correlative. This is potentially problematic because a variety of factors other than variation in perceived risk might influence putative antipredator behaviors such as time allocated to vigilance and foraging. We conducted an experimental study of yellow‐bellied marmot (Marmota flaviventris) antipredator behavior while marmots foraged at a replicated set of feeding stations established 1, 5, 10, and 20 m from their main burrows. Marmots appeared to perceive a reduced risk of predation when they foraged in the presence of other marmots; they allocated more time to foraging and decreased the time allocated to vigilance. When they foraged farther from their burrows, marmots initiated foraging after a substantially greater amount of time, tended to increase the frequency of their bouts of vigilance, and decreased the duration of each bout. Yearling marmots took less time to begin foraging than adults. Marmot flight initiation distance at our feeding trays was independent of the distance they foraged away from the burrow. Taken together, these experimental results demonstrate that marmots' perceptions of risk increased with distance to the burrow and decreased when other individuals were within 10 m of them while they foraged.

Managing human disturbance: factors influencing flight-initiation distance of birds in a West African nature reserve

“…We found a positive linear relationship between FID and distance to cover indicating that focal birds perceived higher levels of threat with increasing distance from refuge (Dear et al 2015;Monclús et al 2015). Refuge could vary depending on species involved; for example, some birds use water as refuge and thus have longer FIDs when further from water (Guay et al 2013;Dear et al 2015).…”

Trade-offs between sight lines and escape habitat determine spatial strategies of risk management by a keystone herbivore

“…To these we can add social benefits of grouping behaviours and cooperation. The allocation of each mechanism will depend on such characteristics as the temporal pattern of risk (Lima and Bednekoff 1999;Higginson et al 2012), the forager's state (McArthur et al 2014;Monclús et al 2015;Bannister and Morris 2016), the density and spatial distribution of competing individuals (China et al 2008;Dupuch et al 2014), trade-offs between resource quality and risk (Lima and Dill 1990;McArthur et al 2014), the functional and numerical responses of predators (Dupuch et al 2014), and the scale of environmental variation (e.g., Druce et al 2006;Heithaus and Dill 2006;…”

Contingent strategies of risk management by snowshoe hares

“…FACETS 4: 407-422. doi:10.1139/ facets-2018-0048 depend on the lethality of predators and the probability of encountering them (Brown 1999;Dupuch et al 2014), the forager's marginal value of energy (Brown 1988;McArthur et al 2014;Monclús et al 2015;Bannister and Morris 2016), the pattern of risk through time (Lima and Bednekoff 1999;Higginson et al 2012), the density and distribution of competing individuals (China et al 2008;Morris 2009;Dupuch et al 2014), and trade-offs between the quality of resources and the risks of harvesting them (Lima and Dill 1990;McArthur et al 2014).…”