Variation of prey responses to cues from a mesopredator and an apex predator

Cremona, Teigan; Crowther, Mathew S.; Webb, Jonathan K.

doi:10.1111/aec.12138

Cited by 18 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Understanding how behaviour changes where they do exist in those landscapes is important to gain a fuller picture of the effects of predation risk on individual level fitness and population dynamics. In this study we tested the effects of visual and olfactory cues on ungulate vigilance and feeding behaviour tradeoffs, and show no significant changes in either vigilance or feeding behaviour according to predator-cue treatment, contrary to our hypotheses and previous work showing increased vigilance at the expense of feeding in a number of prey species (Creel et al, 2014;Cremona et al, 2014;Beauchamp, 2015;Olson et al, 2015;Eccard et al, 2017). The familiarity of the predator also had no effect on ungulate behavior.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 73%

The Effect of Novel and Familiar Predator Cues on Prey Vigilance and Foraging Behaviors in the Greater Khingan Mountains, Inner Mongolia, China

Mpemba

Fan

MacLeod

et al. 2019

Appl. Ecol. Env. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During periods of predation risk, prey adopt antipredator behaviours to maximise chances of survival, such as increased vigilance, reduced foraging time, shifting to safe habitat, and group formation. To effectively balance resource acquisition and antipredator behavior, prey animals make use of cues within their environment that provide them accurate information about the realistic threat of predation. Using camera traps, we tested vigilance and feeding behavioural responses of two naturally occurring ungulate species roe deer and moose to cues from naturally occurring brown bear and novel Amur tiger predators. We found that roe deer and moose vigilance and feeding behaviours were not affected by either visual or olfactory cues from predators, suggesting that ungulates in this system do not respond differently to novel predator cues. There are a number of potential explanations for this surprising lack of response to any predator cues: a) habituation to uninformative cues is important; b) ungulates might have relied more heavily on other cue types, such as auditory cues, or cues in combination; and, c) constraints on dispersal and/or resources may result in prey being forced to remain in high risk food patches, and continued prioritization of feeding over vigilance. We therefore, recommend that in the future studies regarding cues should involve a combination of cues at a similar location to increase predation risk to the animals to maximise prey response. To our knowledge, this is the first study to lay out the foundation of the ecological influences of captive Amur tiger on prey behaviors in the wild environment.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 73%

The Effect of Novel and Familiar Predator Cues on Prey Vigilance and Foraging Behaviors in the Greater Khingan Mountains, Inner Mongolia, China

Mpemba

Fan

MacLeod

et al. 2019

Appl. Ecol. Env. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such odours have been observed experimentally to induce fear-like responses of freezing (Wallace & Rosen, 2000), vigilance (Nersesian, Banks & McArthur, 2012), fleeing (Anson & Dickman, 2013) and avoidance (Hayes, Nahrung & Wilson, 2006), across a wide range of species in both field and laboratory experiments (Apfelbach et al, 2005(Apfelbach et al, , 2015. Consequently, landscape of fear topography, where predators indirectly influence prey behaviour across a range of microhabitats, can arise from the influence of predator olfactory cues on mammalian prey foraging behaviours as much as it can from the direct threat of predation (Brown & Kotler, 2004;Parsons & Blumstein, 2010;Cremona, Crowther & Webb, 2014;Mella, Banks & McArthur, 2014;Hoffman, Sitvarin & Rypstra, 2016). It is worth noting, however, that whilst predator olfactory cues can elicit a fear or stress response, they do not always do so (Apfelbach et al, 2005).…”

Section: Mammalian Behavioural Responses To Fear and Stress: The Landmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fear and stressing in predator–prey ecology: considering the twin stressors of predators and people on mammals

Fardell

Pavey

Dickman

2020

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Predators induce stress in prey and can have beneficial effects in ecosystems, but can also have negative effects on biodiversity if they are overabundant or have been introduced. The growth of human populations is, at the same time, causing degradation of natural habitats and increasing interaction rates of humans with wildlife, such that conservation management routinely considers the effects of human disturbance as tantamount to or surpassing those of predators. The need to simultaneously manage both of these threats is particularly acute in urban areas that are, increasingly, being recognized as global hotspots of wildlife activity. Pressures from altered predator–prey interactions and human activity may each initiate fear responses in prey species above those that are triggered by natural stressors in ecosystems. If fear responses are experienced by prey at elevated levels, on top of responses to multiple environmental stressors, chronic stress impacts may occur. Despite common knowledge of the negative effects of stress, however, it is rare that stress management is considered in conservation, except in intensive ex situ situations such as in captive breeding facilities or zoos. We propose that mitigation of stress impacts on wildlife is crucial for preserving biodiversity, especially as the value of habitats within urban areas increases. As such, we highlight the need for future studies to consider fear and stress in predator–prey ecology to preserve both biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, especially in areas where human disturbance occurs. We suggest, in particular, that non-invasive in situ investigations of endocrinology and ethology be partnered in conservation planning with surveys of habitat resources to incorporate and reduce the effects of fear and stress on wildlife.

show abstract

“…Consequently, landscape of fear topography, where predators indirectly influence prey behaviour across a range of microhabitats, can arise from the influence of predator olfactory cues on mammalian prey foraging behaviours as much as it can from the direct threat of predation (e.g. Brown & Kotler, 2004;Parsons & Blumstein, 2010;Cremona, Crowther & Webb, 2014;Mella, Banks & McArthur, 2014;Hoffman, Sitvarin & Rypstra, 2016). It is worth noting, however, that whilst predator olfactory cues can elicit a fear or stress response, they do not always do so (Apfelbach et al, 2005).…”

Section: Mammalian Behavioural Responses To Fear and Stress: The Landmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer Review #3 of "Fear and stressing in predator–prey ecology: considering the twin stressors of predators and people on mammals (v0.1)"

Schell¹

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Predators induce stress in prey and can have beneficial effects in ecosystems, but can also have negative effects on biodiversity if they are overabundant or have been introduced. The growth of human populations is, at the same time, causing degradation of natural habitats and increasing interaction rates of humans with wildlife, such that conservation management routinely considers the effects of human disturbance as tantamount to or surpassing those of predators. The need to simultaneously manage both of these threats is particularly acute in urban areas that are, increasingly, being recognized as global hotspots of wildlife activity. Pressures from altered predator-prey interactions and human activity may each initiate fear responses in prey species above those that are triggered by natural stressors in ecosystems. If fear responses are experienced by prey at elevated levels, on top of responses to multiple environmental stressors, chronic stress impacts may occur. Despite common knowledge of the negative effects of stress, however, it is rare that stress management is considered in conservation, except in intensive ex situ situations such as in captive breeding facilities or zoos. We propose that mitigation of stress impacts on wildlife is crucial for preserving biodiversity, especially as the value of habitats within urban areas increases. As such, we highlight the need for future studies to consider fear and stress in predator-prey ecology to preserve both biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, especially in areas where human disturbance occurs. We suggest, in particular, that non-invasive in situ investigations of endocrinology and ethology be partnered in conservation planning with surveys of habitat resources to incorporate and reduce the effects of fear and stress on wildlife.

show abstract

Variation of prey responses to cues from a mesopredator and an apex predator

Cited by 18 publications

References 55 publications

The Effect of Novel and Familiar Predator Cues on Prey Vigilance and Foraging Behaviors in the Greater Khingan Mountains, Inner Mongolia, China

The Effect of Novel and Familiar Predator Cues on Prey Vigilance and Foraging Behaviors in the Greater Khingan Mountains, Inner Mongolia, China

Fear and stressing in predator–prey ecology: considering the twin stressors of predators and people on mammals

Peer Review #3 of "Fear and stressing in predator–prey ecology: considering the twin stressors of predators and people on mammals (v0.1)"

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About