Food quality and quantity are more important in explaining foraging of an intermediate‐sized mammalian herbivore than predation risk or competition

Abstract

During times of high activity by predators and competitors, herbivores may be forced to forage in patches of low‐quality food. However, the relative importance in determining where and what herbivores forage still remains unclear, especially for small‐ and intermediate‐sized herbivores. Our objective was to test the relative importance of predator and competitor activity, and forage quality and quantity on the proportion of time spent in a vegetation type and the proportion of time spent foraging by the intermediate‐sized herbivore European hare (Lepus europaeus). We studied red fox (Vulpes vulpes) as a predator species and European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) as a competitor. We investigated the time spent at a location and foraging time of hare using GPS with accelerometers. Forage quality and quantity were analyzed based on hand‐plucked samples of a selection of the locally most important plant species in the diet of hare. Predator activity and competitor activity were investigated using a network of camera traps. Hares spent a higher proportion of time in vegetation types that contained a higher percentage of fibers (i.e., NDF). Besides, hares spent a higher proportion of time in vegetation types that contained relatively low food quantity and quality of forage (i.e., high percentage of fibers) during days that foxes (Vulpes vulpes) were more active. Also during days that rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) were more active, hares spent a higher proportion of time foraging in vegetation types that contained a relatively low quality of forage. Although predation risk affected space use and foraging behavior, and competition affected foraging behavior, our study shows that food quality and quantity more strongly affected space use and foraging behavior than predation risk or competition. It seems that we need to reconsider the relative importance of the landscape of food in a world of fear and competition.

Better safe than sorry: The response to a simulated predator and unfamiliar scent by the European hare

“…Goszczyński and Wasilewski (1992) also suggested that foxes might be more successful in capturing hares in forests compared to open fields, suggesting that higher vegetation increases predation risk. Our findings are in contrast to Weterings et al (2018), who found that hares increasingly used areas of low forage quality (i.e., high vegetation) when predator activity increased. These differences might be caused by differences in the habitat structure, with our study conducted in a highly agricultural landscape compared to a coastal‐dune landscape in Weterings et al (2018), and emphasize that habitat differences can affect anti‐predator behavior, as shown in other species (Abu Baker & Brown, 2014; Cappa, Campos, Giannoni, & Andino, 2017), and should thus be taken into account.…”

“…Camera traps recorded fewer hares with increasing vegetation height, which is in line with previous findings showing that active hares generally select for short vegetation (Mayer et al, 2018), because they are of better forage quality (Weterings et al, 2018). This might also explain why hare and roe deer numbers were correlated, that is, they have similar foraging patterns within agricultural areas.…”

“…(Mayer et al, 2018) during each scent experiment and categorized vegetation into “low” (<50 cm) and “high” (>50 cm). Vegetation height and forage quality (plant fiber concentration) are inversely related, that is, lower vegetation is of higher quality (Bell, 1971; Weterings et al, 2018).…”

“…Tall structure‐rich vegetation provides cover and protection for prey that hides from predators (Verdolin, 2006), and is used as resting place by hares during the day (Neumann, Schai‐Braun, Weber, & Amrhein, 2012). Focardi and Rizzotto (1999) suggested that hares use short vegetation to detect and escape predators, but Weterings, Moonen, Prins, Wieren, and Langevelde (2018) showed that hares increasingly use high vegetation with increasing local red fox activity.…”

Variation in behavioral traits of two frugivorous mammals may lead to differential responses to human disturbance

“…This behavioral flexibility has also been observed in many other primate species, such as Colobus angolensis palliates (Dunham, 2017) and Cercopithecus albogularis labiatus (Nowak, Wimberger, Richards, Hill, & Roux, 2017; Wimberger, Nowak, & Hill, 2017). For these species, the risk of starvation and sensitivity to fruit availability may be more important than the risk of predation induced by human disturbance (McLennan, 2013; Nowak et al, 2017; Weterings, Moonen, Prins, Wieren, & Langevelde, 2018). This implies that the nonavoidance of human settlements by chimpanzees may be a consequence of their pursuit of agricultural foods.…”