White-Tailed Deer Vigilance: The Influence of Social and Environmental Factors

Lashley, Marcus A.; Chitwood, M. Colter; Biggerstaff, Michael T.; Morina, Daniel L.; Moorman, Christopher E.; DePerno, Christopher S.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0090652

Cited by 76 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies in Białowieża Primeval Forest (BPF), Poland, similar to the one we present here, did not detect an interaction between habitat openness and predator scent for red deer (Kuijper et al. 2014) and roe deer (Wikenros et al. 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Generally, wild boars are relatively unresponsive to predation risk, likely because they are not a primary prey species of European large carnivores (Kuijper et al. 2014; Wikenros et al. 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2005; Beschta and Ripple 2008; Halofsky and Ripple 2008; Lashley et al. 2014) and African ecosystems (Underwood 1982; Valeix et al. 2009; Thaker et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, other studies have failed to detect an effect of habitat openness on antipredator response in closed forest systems with little human impact (Kuijper et al. 2014). Instead they concluded that escape impediments increased perceived predation risk (Kuijper et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Phantoms of the forest: legacy risk effects of a regionally extinct large carnivore

Sahlén

Noell

DePerno

et al. 2016

Ecology and Evolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The increased abundance of large carnivores in Europe is a conservation success, but the impact on the behavior and population dynamics of prey species is generally unknown. In Europe, the recolonization of large carnivores often occurs in areas where humans have greatly modified the landscape through forestry or agriculture. Currently, we poorly understand the effects of recolonizing large carnivores on extant prey species in anthropogenic landscapes. Here, we investigated if ungulate prey species showed innate responses to the scent of a regionally exterminated but native large carnivore, and whether the responses were affected by human‐induced habitat openness. We experimentally introduced brown bear Ursus arctos scent to artificial feeding sites and used camera traps to document the responses of three sympatric ungulate species. In addition to controls without scent, reindeer scent Rangifer tarandus was used as a noncarnivore, novel control scent. Fallow deer Dama dama strongly avoided areas with bear scent. In the presence of bear scent, all ungulate species generally used open sites more than closed sites, whereas the opposite was observed at sites with reindeer scent or without scent. The opening of forest habitat by human practices, such as forestry and agriculture, creates a larger gradient in habitat openness than available in relatively unaffected closed forest systems, which may create opportunities for prey to alter their habitat selection and reduce predation risk in human‐modified systems that do not exist in more natural forest systems. Increased knowledge about antipredator responses in areas subjected to anthropogenic change is important because these responses may affect prey population dynamics, lower trophic levels, and attitudes toward large carnivores. These aspects may be of particular relevance in the light of the increasing wildlife populations across much of Europe.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2005; Beschta and Ripple 2008; Halofsky and Ripple 2008; Lashley et al. 2014) and African ecosystems (Underwood 1982; Valeix et al. 2009; Thaker et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Phantoms of the forest: legacy risk effects of a regionally extinct large carnivore

Sahlén

Noell

DePerno

et al. 2016

Ecology and Evolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The validation study also suggested that deer could not see the IR flash, or at least were not distracted by it (Supplementary Information, see Lashley et al. () for a recent use of camera traps to study vigilance using scan sampling).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Seeing a Ghost? Vigilance and Its Drivers in a Predator‐free World

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vigilance is a key to the early detection of predators, but may be costly if it impairs foraging efficiency. Hence, we would expect vigilance to be suppressed and/or counter-selected in predator-free environments, although this might depend on the environmental drivers influencing perceived predation risk. We studied vigilance in two populations of Sitka blacktailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus sitkensis) on Haida Gwaii (Canada) which have not been exposed to predators since they colonized the study islands approx. 60 yr ago. In this context, anti-predator behavior should not have any obvious current benefit. Moreover, its maintenance should be particularly costly in our study populations because these deer have depleted their food resources and, thus, anti-predator behaviors should interfere with time spent searching for scarce resources. We used bait stations equipped with camera traps to assess vigilance under standardized feeding conditions. We expected to observe lower vigilance levels than those observed elsewhere in locations with predators. We investigated how vigilance varied in relation to the amount of bait, the level of visibility, and between day and night. During the day, deer spent, on average, 14% of their time in overt vigilance during foraging bouts, a level similar to, although in the lower range of, values reported at sites where predators are present. Levels of vigilance were lower at night, and decreased with increasing visibility, but not during the day. Deer were less vigilant when bait availability was high, but only when visibility was also high. We discuss why the maintenance of vigilance is here best explained by the ghosts of predators past, and how, at the temporal scale of a few generations, the ecological factors driving vigilance levels might override the absence of significant risk from large predators.

show abstract

Eat or be eaten: Implications of potential exploitative competition between wolves and humans across predator‐savvy and predator‐naive deer populations

Candler,

Chakrabarti,

Severud

et al. 2023

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recolonization of predators to their former ranges is becoming increasingly prevalent. Such recolonization places predators among their prey once again; the latter having lived without predation (from such predators) for a considerable time. This renewed coexistence creates opportunities to explore predation ecology at both fundamental and applied levels. We used a paired experimental design to investigate white‐tailed deer risk allocation in the Upper and Lower Peninsulas (UP and LP) in Michigan, USA. Wolves are functionally absent in the LP, while deer in the UP coexist with a re‐established wolf population. We treated 15 sites each in UP and LP with wolf olfactory cues and observed deer vigilance, activity, and visitation rates at the interface of habitat covariates using remote cameras. Such a paired design across wolf versus no‐wolf areas allowed us to examine indirect predation effects while accounting for confounding parameters such as the presence of other predators and human activity. While wolf urine had no effect across most metrics in both UP and LP, we observed differences in deer activity in areas with versus without wolves. Sites treated with wolf urine in the UP showed a reduction in crepuscular deer activity, compared to control/novel‐scent treated sites. Furthermore, we observed a strong positive effect of vegetation cover on deer vigilance in these sites. This indicates that simulated predator cues likely affect deer vigilance more acutely in denser habitats, which presumably facilitates predation success. Such responses were however absent among deer in the LP that are presumably naïve toward wolf predation. Where human and non‐human predators hunt shared prey, such as in Michigan, predators may constrain human hunting success by increasing deer vigilance. Hunters may avoid such exploitative competition by choosing hunting/bait sites located in open areas. Our results pertaining to fundamental predation ecology have strong applied implications that can promote human–predator coexistence.

show abstract

White-Tailed Deer Vigilance: The Influence of Social and Environmental Factors

Cited by 76 publications

References 50 publications

Phantoms of the forest: legacy risk effects of a regionally extinct large carnivore

Phantoms of the forest: legacy risk effects of a regionally extinct large carnivore

Seeing a Ghost? Vigilance and Its Drivers in a Predator‐free World

Eat or be eaten: Implications of potential exploitative competition between wolves and humans across predator‐savvy and predator‐naive deer populations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About