Lethal interactions among forest‐grouse predators are numerous, motivated by hunger and carcasses, and their impacts determined by the demographic value of the victims

Abstract

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

The best defence is not being there: avoidance of larger carnivores is not driven by risk intensity

“…However, we are unable to determine whether these mechanisms impart a net benefit to the marten population through a reduction of competition and agonistic encounters or a net impact through reduced access to resources. In addition to the potential demographic impacts of predatory interactions among carnivores (Waggershauser et al, 2021), those of non-lethal interactions (also known as sublethal or non-consumptive effects) have been theorized to exceed the impacts of lethal interactions through stressmediated responses (e.g. Creel & Christianson, 2008;McCauley, Rowe & Fortin, 2011;Clinchy, Sheriff & Zanette, 2013).…”

“…This prediction is supported by the literature. Instances of martens killed by foxes and even of demographic suppression (or release) are well documented, while analogous cases with badger attackers are not (Storch, Lind-str€ om & Dejounge, 1990;Lindstr€ om et al, 1995;Palomares & Caro, 1999;Waggershauser et al, 2021). Hence, we take advantage of this simplified predator community to address the role of trophic overlap and size differences in determining the intensity of small-scale non-lethal interactions among sympatric predators in the absence of interfering interactions with other carnivores.…”

“…mesopredators; sensu, Prugh et al, 2009) can be subject to both, where interference competition can take the form of interspecific killing, or one predator can be prey to another (Sunde, Overskaug & Kvam, 1999;Arim & Marquet, 2004). In mammalian carnivore assemblages, lethal interactions can influence species' demography and cause population suppression of the victim (Lindstr€ om et al, 1995;Prugh et al, 2009;Prugh & Sivy, 2020;Waggershauser et al, 2021). Moreover, whether as a result of (the fear of) lethal interactions, competition or both, subordinate carnivores may change aspects of their use of space, time or resources (Linnell & Strand, 2000;Letnic et al, 2009;Newsome et al, 2017;Ferretti et al, 2020).…”

Seasonal variation in dietary patterns and trophic niche overlap among three sympatric medium-sized carnivores in a cool-temperate zone

“…The competitive exclusion principle (Gause 1934, Hardin 1960) indicates that intensive interspecific competition occurs between species with similar niches. Therefore, interspecific competition affects species survival (Waggershauser et al 2021) and distribution (Krohn et al 1995, Hinton & Chamberlain 2022) and shapes community structure (Schoener 1983). Carnivores provide important ecosystem functions (e.g.…”

Restoring vertebrate predator populations can provide landscape‐scale biological control of established invasive vertebrates: Insights from pine marten recovery in Europe

“…The case study acts as caution against over‐optimism when examining the potential of recovering native predator to limit an established invasive species in the absence of mechanistic evidence on how a native predator could drive declines of an invasive species. Specifically, it appears circumstances when intra‐guild killing of mesopredators by apex predators are sufficiently strong to result in population limitation of the mesopredator are rare (Waggershauser et al, 2021, but see Hudgens & Garcelon, 2011).…”