Spatial responses to predators vary with prey escape mode

Wirsing, Aaron J.; Cameron, Kathryn; Heithaus, Michael R.

doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.12.014

Cited by 110 publications

(137 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

134

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Apparent or temporary escape from predation risk can also be achieved by temporary use of habitats or areas that are predator free. If predators are at low density and suitable habitat abundant then prey species can play a successful game of hide-and-seek with predators (Wirsing et al 2010). This may be an important component of the strategies of migrant bird species that use high latitude areas.…”

Section: When Predation Is Genuinely Absentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predation in bird populations

Cresswell

2010

J Ornithol

252

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the classic ecological questions is how predators affect population size. This is often assessed by measuring how many individuals are killed by a predator, yet such direct effects may only be a relatively minor part of population dynamics. Predators frequently affect prey populations indirectly, with the fear of predation resulting in costly behavioural compensation leading to potentially large population and community effects. Large observable lethal effects may then just represent the most easily observed "special" cases of the effects of predation on populations, with the costs of non-lethal effects being ubiquitous and usually dominant. This review explores these two ideas: that cases where there are no population effects due to predation, and cases where lethal effects dominate, are unusual and involve special circumstances. First, systems where predation effects appear not to arise include complete avoidance of predators by prey; when other environmental factors limit populations so that predation is not additive to mortality; when there are other more vulnerable prey for a predator; when predators interact; because the relationship of perceived predation risk with predator abundance is usually a non-linear function, and simply because non-lethal effects have not been considered. Second, lethal effects tend to dominate over non-lethal effects when there is a high cost of compensating for predation risk associated with either resource constraint or a particularly vulnerable niche or life history stage (e.g. the nest stage generally for birds); when prey are the most popular prey of a predator or linear trophic chains operate; when there is evolutionary lag such as introduced predators and naïve prey populations; and when there are several predator species hunting the same prey in diverse ways. The presence of predators may or may not affect the size of a bird population at any particular life history stage, although in most cases it will through non-lethal effects and occasionally through lethal effects.But the presence of predators will always affect intra-and interspecific competition and so will always affect population dynamics. Studies that wish to fully demonstrate that predation has no effect on bird populations must show that lethal effects and the costs of non-lethal compensation by the prey do not significantly change its density and so the level of competition.3

show abstract

Section: When Predation Is Genuinely Absentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predation in bird populations

Cresswell

2010

J Ornithol

252

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, it reflects the level of their species-typical desire for the close proximity of herd-mates when grazing in familiar and unfamiliar environments Dumont and Boissy 2000;Shrader et al 2007). Moreover, the behaviour of herbivores as prey animals reflects the perceived threat of nearby predators judged against the species-typical escape and anti-predator strategies they can deploy in their home range (Caro et al 2004;Wirsing et al 2010).…”

Section: Behaviour In Wild or Natural Environmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Positive animal welfare states and encouraging environment-focused and animal-to-animal interactive behaviours

2014

New Zealand Veterinary Journal

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Affective neuroscience, incorporating neurophysiology and neuropsychology, is providing increasing evidence that certain behaviours of animals may be interpreted in terms of what they are intending to achieve, i.e. their goals. It is also providing evidence that allows inferences to be made about the affective contents of some goal-directed behaviours. These neuroscience-supported inferences are aligned with recommendations based on prior behaviour-based investigations of animals' preferences, aversions and priorities, and these observations together support the cautious use of particular behaviours to infer what the accompanying affects may be. In this review, therefore, some attention is given to negative affects and their relationships to poor animal welfare, but the primary focus is the positive affects animals may experience when they successfully engage in rewarding goal-directed behaviours, encapsulated in the concept of positive affective engagement. The review draws together reports of environment-focused and animal-to-animal interactive behaviours observed in a range of species and under diverse circumstances in order to illustrate the likely widespread occurrence of the positive affects that may accompany them. Particular consideration is given to affects that are potentially associated with some aspects of exploration and food acquisition in stimulus rich or impoverished environments, and to those that may be associated with aspects of the affiliative interactions of bonding or bond affirmation, maternal care, play and sexual activity. It is concluded that animals given the opportunity to engage in such activities may experience some positive affects. However, the intensity of an animal's experience of particular positive affects is likely to range from zero to very high because the associated behaviours occur intermittently, variation may occur during different phases of a goal-directed behaviour, and other positive or negative affects experienced at the same time may have greater impact. As good welfare is achieved both by minimising negative affects and promoting positive ones and as conscious sentient animals may be expected to have an interest in experiencing as little pain and as much pleasure as possible, it is argued that there is an ethical obligation to take practical steps to help them to achieve these outcomes. Such steps would include providing them with opportunities to express more behaviours that are associated with rewarding or satisfying experiences understood in terms of positive affective engagement.

show abstract

“…Our proxy for μ does not account for possible inter-specific differences in the probability of escape given an encounter with predators, which could result from differences in grouping or escape tactics (e.g. Martin et al 2005, Wirsing et al 2010see below). Also, we could not assess the total time spent being exposed to predators, which may vary with excursion distance and, therefore, could result in higher total exposure to predators than our proxy of μ would suggest.…”

Section: (B) Food Length (Cm) and Vegetation Volume Vs Distancementioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of predation risk and food supply on nocturnal fish foraging distributions along a mangrove–seagrass ecotone

Hammerschlag¹,

Heithaus²,

Serafy³

2010

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Diverse taxa from many systems must make tradeoffs between food and safety. However, few studies have examined the response of multiple fish species to food and predation risk at night across their foraging landscape. In Biscayne Bay, Florida (USA), we investigated the influences of food and predation risk on nocturnal habitat use of gray snapper, bluestriped grunt and seabream along a distance gradient spanning from the mangrove-seagrass ecotone to 120 m offshore. Seine and submerged vegetation sampling were used to determine the distribution of fishes and their food resources. Tethering experiments were used to explore gradients in predator encounter rates. We used these data to test the following a priori predictions of fish distributions relative to food and risk as generated from foraging theory: (1) fishes will be distributed in proportion to their food supply (i.e. ideal free distribution, IFD); or (2) fishes will avoid high-risk areas such that their abundances will be lower than predicted by food resources in high-risk habitats (i.e. food -risk tradeoff). Results indicated that none of the fishes were distributed according to IFD. Seabream and gray snapper avoided foraging close to shore, where their food was abundant, but risk was highest. Bluestriped grunt responses to spatial variation in food supply and risk were less clear; they appeared to forage randomly across the distance gradient. Our results suggest that fish generally avoid the risky mangrove-seagrass ecotone, but responses to variation in food and risk are species-specific and may be dependent on specific anti-predator tactics or influenced by factors we did not measure.

show abstract

Spatial responses to predators vary with prey escape mode

Cited by 110 publications

References 41 publications

Predation in bird populations

Predation in bird populations

Positive animal welfare states and encouraging environment-focused and animal-to-animal interactive behaviours

Influence of predation risk and food supply on nocturnal fish foraging distributions along a mangrove–seagrass ecotone

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About