Prey selection and prey preferences of spotted hyenas Crocuta crocuta in the Etosha National Park, Namibia

Abstract

The feeding ecology of the spotted hyena Crocuta crocuta was studied in the central and eastern part of the Etosha National Park, Namibia. Hyenas mainly hunted migratory ungulates such as springbok Antidorcas marsupialis, zebra Equus burchelli, and blue wildebeest Connochaetes taurinus, but also resident species such as the greater kudu Tragelaphus strepsiceros and gemsbok Oryx gazella. There were, however, major differences in the species most frequently killed by hyenas in central and eastern Etosha. The preferred prey species of spotted hyenas in central Etosha was springbok, whereas regarding the abundance of zebra and wildebeest, these two species were rather avoided. In contrast, the prey species preferred by hyenas in eastern Etosha was kudu. Zebra and gemsbok were taken in proportion to their abundance, whereas wildebeest and springbok seemed to be rather avoided. Differences in prey selection and preferences were also reflected in differences in hunting group sizes. In eastern Etosha, where spotted hyenas frequently hunted larger prey, hunting group sizes were significantly larger compared to those in the center of the park.

Tooth root morphology as an indicator for dietary specialization in carnivores (Mammalia: Carnivora)

“…Although four of the specimens investigated were captive, there were no maloccluded teeth or teeth with root anomalies (O'Regan & Kitchener, 2005). Three dietary and relative prey size classifications were assigned based on the existing literature (Gittleman, 1985; Van Valkenburgh, 1989; Van Valkenburgh & Koepfli, 1993; Sillero‐Zubiri & Gottelli, 1995; Larivière & Pasitschniak‐Arts, 1996; Stuart, Stuart & Pereboom, 2003; Derocher, Lunn & Stirling, 2004; Sacco & Van Valkenburgh, 2004; Hayward & Kerley, 2005; Wroe et al ., 2005; Hayward et al ., 2006a, b, c; Christiansen, 2007; Christiansen & Wroe, 2007; Van Valkenburgh, 2009; Sutor, Kauhala & Ansorge, 2010; Trinkel, 2010). For the dietary categories, the most relevant food material properties of a species were taken into account in terms of their toughness and stiffness (Table 1).…”

“…The large roots (both absolute and skull size adjusted) of the buttressed and pointed precarnassials and bladed carnassials of hyaenids are perhaps adaptations to processing the bones of large ungulates (Biknevicius & Van Valkenburgh, 1996;Van Valkenburgh, 1996;Di Silvestre, Novelli & Bogliani, 2000;Trinkel, 2010). Canis lupus has similarly sized carnassial roots (skull-size adjusted only), which reflect its status as the only hard-object feeding representative among the canids (Van Valkenburgh, 2009).…”

Group hunting within the Carnivora: physiological, cognitive and environmental influences on strategy and cooperation

“…The prey species that are easiest to catch will vary depending on the relative locomotor abilities of the predator and prey and may vary with habitat (Balme et al 2007). Furthermore, the size of prey worth cooperating to catch, or that can be caught, may depend on predator group size (Trinkel 2010), whereas the possibility of making multiple kills during one hunt may vary with both herd size and predator group size (Creel and Creel 1995). Thus, cooperation may be beneficial for catching some species only in very specific circumstances.…”

Evidence for prey selection by spotted hyaena in the Eastern Cape, South Africa

“…The small group size of foraging hyaena observed in the main camp section, similar to group sizes in regions where small to medium-size prey are preferred (Trinkel 2010;Cooper 1990), may explain the selection for smaller antelope (common duiker and bushbuck) observed during the study period. Diet estimates from both direct observations and scats confirm the lack of predation on bushpig, ostrich, warthog and zebra in the current study site (Hayward 2006, this study).…”

“…These results are in contrast to the current study where kudu only contributed 10% of the diet and common duiker 22%. These differences could result from (1) prey switching between the two time periods (Owen-Smith and Mills 2008b), (2) differences in the data collection methods (Mills 1992) or (3) changes in the size and composition of the hyaena population between the two study periods (Trinkel 2010;Cooper 1990 (Cooper 1991). Therefore, either prey switching or contrasting data collection methods are more likely to result in diet differences between the two study periods.…”