Predator and heterospecific stimuli alter behaviour in cattle

Kluever, Bryan M.; Howery, Larry D.; Breck, Stewart W.; Bergman, David L.

doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2009.02.004

Cited by 47 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It was also obvious that cow position and movement was the result of managerial objectives, ranch/ USFS grazing management plans, prior logging activity, topography, phenology of vegetation (seasonal development and maturation of vegetation), water distribution, and a host of other natural and anthropogenic factors. Many authors have addressed factors controlling livestock distribution (Cook 1966;Bryant et al 1982;Ganskopp and Vavra 1987;Coughenour 1991;Bailey et al 1996;Harris 2002;Kluever et al 2009;Wilson 2010). Perimeter and internal fencing was obviously important because these allotments have been subdivided to implement rotational grazing strategies, although fencing is neither complete nor entirely effective between pastures.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cattle use of perennial streams and associated riparian areas on a northeastern Oregon landscape

Johnson¹,

Larson²,

Wilson³

et al. 2016

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stream and riparian health is a major concern for state and federal land management agencies that are charged with oversight of extensive land holdings in the mountain west of the United States. Several federal agencies in the 1980s and 1990s determined that livestock grazing had adversely impacted a majority of federal lands in this region. In response, management was changed on grazing allotments to focus on stream system health. Recent advanced global positioning system (GPS) logging capabilities, both accuracy and frequency/ duration of logging, coupled with rapidly developing geographic information system (GIS) analytical capabilities allowed evaluation of livestock use of streams and riparian zones on mountain rangelands. This study was undertaken to clarify spatiotemporal characteristics of cattle use of perennial streams and associated riparian areas under current US Forest Service (USFS) management and to suggest managerial strategies with the potential to maintain or improve riverine environments. We initiated a five year study in 2008 to evaluate the use by cattle of 30 m (98.4 ft) and 60 m (196.9 ft) buffers on permanent streams on three extensive study sites in northeastern Oregon. The three study sites cover 43,972 ha (108,700 ac) within a broader region 120 km (74.5 mi) north-south by 50 km (31 mi) east-west. Ten randomly selected cows from herds grazing each site were fitted with GPS collars that recorded position, date, and time at approximately five minute intervals throughout the grazing season. Nearly 3,750,000 cow positions were collected on the allotments during the study. The relative occupancy of cattle in buffers along both sides of perennial streams were determined on an annual and monthly basis by site. Each position was tagged with the date and time of occurrence. Relative use within 30 m of the stream varied substantially from site to site (0.74% to 2.54%), month to month (0.00% to 5.21%), and year to year (0.86% to 2.13%). In some months, GPS data indicated that watering was nearly exclusive from streams. In other months, stream use was low or nil, and watering was from water developments, small springs, seeps, puddles, or other source. Cattle preferred to access streams at specific locations where streambank slope, the lack of physical obstructions, and solid footing facilitated water access.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cattle use of perennial streams and associated riparian areas on a northeastern Oregon landscape

Johnson¹,

Larson²,

Wilson³

et al. 2016

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In other species, when mature males are present in a group, there is often disruption leading to individuals leaving groups and changing associations (Darden & Croft 2008;Jacoby et al 2010); it is likely that these disruptions also result in individuals being more vigilant at the cost of foraging. When heterospecifics (mule deer, Odocoileus hemionus) are present, the foraging rate and propensity of cattle (Bos taurus) to forage in high-quality patches increases (Kluever et al 2009). In that study, the presence of mule deer was simulated using visual and olfactory cues.…”

Section: Foraging Behaviourmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In foraging groups, the presence of heterospecific herds (Scheel 1993;Kluever et al 2009) and an individual's position in the group (Burger & Gochfeld 1994;Dias 2006;Blanchard et al 2008;Klose et al 2009) can often reduce an individual's vigilance. It is likely that the presence of conspecifics and heterospecifics reduces the predation risk of drinking animals too, making prey feel safer while accessing water.…”

Section: Drinking Behaviourmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Along with the widely reported group-size effect, where vigilance decreases as group size increases Burger & Gochfeld 1994;Dalmau et al 2010), social factors including the presence of heterospecific prey animals and an individual's position within its group can also influence vigilance behaviour. The presence of heterospecific herds sometimes reduces the time prey animals spend vigilant while foraging (Scheel 1993;Kluever et al 2009) and individuals on the periphery of a foraging group are often more vigilant than central individuals (Burger & Gochfeld 1994;Dias 2006;Blanchard et al 2008;Klose et al 2009). It is likely that these relationships between social factors and vigilance are similar for animals accessing water.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The trade-off shifts towards foraging when group size and density increase reviewed by Beauchamp 2013), heterospecific prey animals are present (Scheel 1993;Kluever et al 2009) and in high quality foraging patches (Pays et al 2012 . Despite the large amount of literature that focuses on vigilance as an antipredator strategy, vigilance can also be used to gather social information.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Understanding the behavioural trade-offs made by blue wildebeest(Connochaetes taurinus): the importance of resources, predation and the landscape

Dannock¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prey individuals must constantly make decisions regarding safety and resource acquisition to ensure that they acquire enough resources without being predated upon.These decisions result in a trade-off between resource acquisition behaviours (such as foraging and drinking) and safety behaviours (such as grouping and vigilance). This tradeoff is likely to be affected by the social and environmental factors that an individual experiences, including the individual's location in the landscape. The overall objective of my PhD was to understand the decisions a migratory ungulate makes in order to acquire enough resources, while not becoming prey, and to understand how these decisions are influenced by social and environmental factors. In order to do this, I studied the behaviour of blue wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus) in Etosha National Park, Namibia, between 2013 and 2015. I studied wildebeests' behaviour while they acquired food and water and moved within the landscape. Along with observational studies, I also used lion (Panthera leo) roar playbacks to experimentally manipulate perceived predator presence to test wildebeests' responses to immediate predation risk.For Chapter 2 I studied the foraging-vigilance trade-off of wildebeest to determine how social and environmental factors, including the location within the landscape, were correlated with wildebeests' time spent foraging and vigilant as well as their bite rate. I found that environmental variables were more important than social variables in predicting the foraging-vigilance trade-off of adult wildebeest. Food availability was the most important factor, with wildebeest increasing time spent foraging, at a cost to vigilance time, when food was more readily available. This result suggests that wildebeests' behavioural decisions were more affected by forage availability than predation risk.The objective of Chapter 3 was to study the effects of individual characteristics, social variables and environmental variables on wildebeests' behaviour during their approach to, time at, and retreat from, waterholes, to understand the water acquisition-safety tradeoff. I looked at time spent vigilant, moving and drinking as well as step rate. and forage competition factors. Wildebeests' within-group density was associated with forage competition more than the landscape of fear. These findings suggest that wildebeests' landscape-use and within-group density were altered in response to predator avoidance and resource acquisition.My thesis provides insights into how prey species trade-off between resource acquisition and safety. By assessing the social, environmental and landscape variables that affect the trade-off, this study showed that prey adapt their behaviour according to group dynamics, forage availability and predation risk and suggests that individuals may consider different aspects of their environmental and social surroundings when accessing different resources. Therefore, future studies should examine social, environmental and landscape variables togeth...

show abstract