Trading-off risks from predators and from aggressive hosts

Quinn, John L.; Kokorev, Yakov I.

doi:10.1007/s00265-002-0466-2

Cited by 40 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While time constraints and imperfect information on patch quality may render optimal decisions impossible in reality (e.g., Sutherland 1996), it is clear that habitat choice constitutes one of the most fundamental processes in ecology dictating species' spatial distribution (Fretwell and Lucas 1970, Morris 2003, Ydenberg et al 2004. In spite of this consensus and the fact that various environmental characteristics such as availability of food, predation pressure, and the presence of con-or heterospecifics (Brown 1988, Lima and Dill 1990, Quinn and Kokorev 2002, Sergio et al 2004, Forsman et al 2009) are known to affect the distribution and population densities of species, the relative importance of the cues individuals use when performing habitat choice are seldom explored (Brown 1988, Goodale et al 2010). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Competitive exclusion within the predator community influences the distribution of a threatened prey species

Byholm

Burgas

Virtanen

et al. 2012

Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. While much effort has been made to quantify how landscape composition influences the distribution of species, the possibility that geographical differences in species interactions might affect species distributions has received less attention. Investigating a predator-prey setting in a boreal forest ecosystem, we empirically show that large-scale differences in the predator community structure and small-scale competitive exclusion among predators affect the local distribution of a threatened forest specialist more than does landscape composition. Consequently, even though the landscape parameters affecting Siberian flying squirrel (Pteromys volans) distribution (prey) did not differ between nest sites of the predators Northern Goshawks (Accipiter gentilis) and Ural Owls (Strix uralensis), flying squirrels were heterospecifically attracted by goshawks in a region where both predator species were present. No such effect was found in another region where Ural Owls were absent. These results provide evidence that differences in species interactions over large spatial scales may be a major force influencing the distribution and abundance patterns of species. On the basis of these findings, we suspect that subtle species interactions might be a central reason why landscape models constructed to predict species distributions often fail when applied to wider geographical scales.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Competitive exclusion within the predator community influences the distribution of a threatened prey species

Byholm

Burgas

Virtanen

et al. 2012

Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Against many predators, parental birds may be relatively helpless in guarding their young and instead have invested in behaviors that prevent predators from foraging in the proximity of their nests. This includes arctic tundranesting species (e.g., snow goose, red-breasted goose) that nest in close proximity to nesting raptors (e.g., rough-legged hawk, snowy owl Nyctea scandiaca, peregrine falcon), which aggressively defend large areas as much as 0.5-km radii around nests against potential predators, indirectly benefiting the geese (Bety et al 2002;Quinn and Kokorev 2002;Quinn et al 2003). Similarly, the dusky warbler (Phylloscopus fuscatus) avoids its major nest predator, the Siberian chipmunk (Tamias sibiricus) by nesting in isolated shrubs that chipmunks avoid due to their own risk of predation (Forstmeier and Weiss 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial heterogeneity in predator activity, nest survivorship, and nest-site selection in two forest thrushes

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ability of prey to find and use predator-free space has far-reaching consequences for their persistence and interactions with their predators. We tested whether nest survivorship of the ground-nesting veery (Catharus fuscescens) and shrub-nesting wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina) was related to the local absence of a major nest predator, the white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus). Mouse-free space was defined by trap stations that failed to trap a mouse during the avian breeding season (approximately May through July). In addition, mouse activity was quantified at individual trap stations based on the number of captures during the same period (six 2.25-ha trapping grids, each containing 121 trap stations trapped repeatedly throughout the summer between 1998 and 2002.) Annual mouse-free space was correlated with other measures of mouse activity based on trapping data. Both mouse-free space and activity metrics were significantly related to annual rates of nest predation (i.e., nest daily mortality rate) in veery but not wood thrush. Likewise, mouse-free space and mouse activity within the nest neighborhood (approximately 30x30 m2 surrounding each nest) was significantly related to nest survivorship in veery but not wood thrush. More trap stations had consistently greater (hotspots) and lesser (coldspots) mouse activity than expected by chance, and veeries were significantly more likely to nest near stations that had below the grid-average trapping success. Our study thus documented significant spatial variability in predator activity and its relationship to nest predation and nest-site selection in a ground-nesting songbird.

show abstract

“…Similar associations between prey and predator occur when beneWts of protection are higher than costs (Norrdahl et al 1995;Haemig 2001;Quinn and Kokorev 2002;Thomson et al 2006). Small mesopredators, such as red squirrels and mustelids, could occur close to Ural owls, despite being occasional prey.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Moreover, indirect evidence suggests that pygmy owl (Glaucidium passerinum) and Tengmalm's owl (Aegolius funereus) may spatially associate, and thus gain Wtness beneWts, with goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) and eagle owl (Bubo bubo), respectively (Hakkarainen and Korpimäki 1996;Pakkala et al 2006). Protective nesting associations where the protector species might represent a danger for the protected species, due to occasional predation, have been previously demonstrated (Quinn and Kokorev 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Higher nest predation risk in association with a top predator: mesopredator attraction?

Morosinotto

Thomson

Hänninen³

et al. 2012

Oecologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Breeding close to top predators is a widespread reproductive strategy. Breeding animals may gain indirect benefits if proximity to top predators results in a reduction of predation due to suppression of mesopredators. We tested if passerine birds gain protection from mesopredators by nesting within territories of a top predator, the Ural owl (Strix uralensis). We placed nest boxes for pied flycatchers (Ficedula hypoleuca) in Ural owl nest sites and in control sites (currently unoccupied by owls). The nest boxes were designed so that nest predation risk could be altered (experimentally increased) after flycatcher settlement; we considered predation rate as a proxy of mesopredator abundance. Overall, we found higher nest predation rates in treatment than in control sites. Flycatcher laying date did not differ between sites, but smaller clutches were laid in treatment sites compared to controls, suggesting a response to perceived predation risk. Relative nest predation rate varied between years, being higher in owl nest sites in 2 years but similar in another; this variation might be indirectly influenced by vole abundance. Proximity to Ural owl nests might represent a risky habitat for passerines. High predation rates within owl territories could be because small mesopredators that do not directly threaten owl nests are attracted to owl nest sites. This could be explained if some mesopredators use owl territories to gain protection from their own predators, or if top predators and mesopredators independently seek similar habitats.

show abstract

Trading-off risks from predators and from aggressive hosts

Cited by 40 publications

References 11 publications

Competitive exclusion within the predator community influences the distribution of a threatened prey species

Competitive exclusion within the predator community influences the distribution of a threatened prey species

Spatial heterogeneity in predator activity, nest survivorship, and nest-site selection in two forest thrushes

Higher nest predation risk in association with a top predator: mesopredator attraction?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About