Prey availability and accessibility drive hunter movement

Wszola, Lyndsie S.; Stuber, Erica F.; Chizinski, Christopher J.; Lusk, Jeffrey J.; Fontaine, Joseph J.

doi:10.2981/wlb.00526

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consistent with the concept of human hunters as central place foragers (Rosenberg and McKelvey 1999, Papworth et al 2012), roads may function as a central place anchoring hunter movements. This concept can be further extended by considering hunter behavior as representing multiple orders of selection (Johnson 1980), with hunters first choosing an access point along an open road (first‐order selection) and then using their knowledge of prey behavior and habitat to guide their movements while actively hunting (second‐order selection; Wszola et al 2019). Collectively, our findings illustrate the importance of roads in hunter distributions across the landscape, as emphasized by Ranglack et al (2017).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Landscape Characteristics on Hunter Space Use and Success

Rowland

Nielson²,

Wisdom

et al. 2021

J Wildl Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sport hunting of ungulates is a predominant recreational pursuit and the primary tool for managing their populations in North America and beyond, given its influence on ungulate distributions, social organization, and population performance. Similarly, land management, such as motorized vehicle access, influences ungulate distributions during and outside hunting seasons. Although research on ungulate responses to hunting and land use is widespread, knowledge gaps persist about space use of hunters and what landscape features discriminate among hunt types and between successful and unsuccessful hunters. We used telemetry location data from hunters (n = 341) to estimate space use from 2008–2013 during 3 types of controlled, 5‐day hunts for antlered mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and elk (Cervus canadensis) in northeastern Oregon, USA: archery elk, rifle deer, and rifle elk. To evaluate space use, we developed utilization distributions for each hunter, created core areas (50% contours) for groups of hunters, and derived several metrics of space‐use overlap between successful and unsuccessful hunters. We also modeled predictors of space use using resource utilization functions with beta regression and stepwise model building. Hunter space use was compressed, with even the largest core area (unsuccessful rifle elk hunters) encompassing <16% (1,178 ha) of the area. We found strong similarities in space use of rifle hunters compared to archers, and core areas of successful hunters were markedly smaller than those of unsuccessful hunters (e.g., truex ̅ = 104 ha vs. 681 ha, respectively, for archers). Percentage cover and distance from open roads were the most consistent covariates in the 6 final models (successful vs. unsuccessful for each of 3 hunts) but with different signs. For example, predicted use of archery and rifle elk hunters increased with cover but decreased for rifle deer hunters. Although the same covariates were in the final models for unsuccessful and successful rifle elk hunters, their negligible spatial overlap suggested they sought those features in different locales, a pattern also documented for rifle deer hunters. Our models performed well (Spearman's rank correlation coefficients = 0.99 for 5 of 6 models), reflecting their utility for managing hunters and landscapes. Our results suggest that strategic management of open roads and forest cover can benefit managers seeking to balance hunter opportunity and satisfaction with harvest objectives, especially for species of special concern such as mule deer, and that differences in space use among hunter groups should be accounted for in hunting season designs. © 2021 The Wildlife Society. This article has been contributed to by US Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Landscape Characteristics on Hunter Space Use and Success

Rowland

Nielson²,

Wisdom

et al. 2021

J Wildl Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Perceived predation risk manifests individually [79,80], and responses are likely a complex process unique to each individual as trade-offs inherent in home range adjustments are likely sensitive to a range of factors including sex, age, experiences, body condition, resource availability, familiarity with the surrounding landscape [81–84], and maybe most importantly, predator encounter rate [21]. Although there were substantial differences in the number of hunters between high- and low-risk sites (Fig 2), hunter movements within sites ultimately determine encounter rates for individual pheasants [85]. Females that did not alter home range formation may have simply occupied safer locations (i.e., lower predator encounter rates) within high-risk sites.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mortality, perception, and scale: Understanding how predation shapes space use in a wild prey population

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Attempts to assess behavioral responses of prey to predation risk are often confounded by depredation of prey. Moreover, the scale at which the response of prey is assessed has important implications for discovering how predation risk alters prey behavior. Herein, we assessed space use of wild Ring-necked Pheasants (Phasianus colchicus) in response to spatial and temporal variation in recreational hunting. We radio-marked pheasants and monitored space use at two spatial scales: short-term seasonal home range, and nightly resting locations. Additionally, we considered temporal variation in predation risk by monitoring space use prior to and during the pheasant hunting season. Although we found no change in nightly resting location, pheasants subjected to predation risk expanded their home range and shifted home range location even when invulnerable to predation. Home range formation was plastic, with home ranges expanding and contracting as risk fluctuated before and during the hunting season. Depredation reduced the measured response within the population, obscuring the potential importance of perceived predation risk in shaping prey communities, particularly when not measured at the appropriate scale. By assessing space use of a wild prey population at multiple scales, considering spatial and temporal variation in predation risk, we show that not only does predation risk affect space use, but that the effects at the population level may be challenging to assess when not measured at the appropriate ecological scale because of the direct effects of differential mortality on the same behaviors.

show abstract