Do prey densities determine preferences of mammalian predators for habitat edges in an agricultural landscape?

Šálek, Martin; Kreisinger, Jakub; Sedláček, František; Albrecht, Tomáš

doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.07.013

Cited by 84 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We hypothesize that this might be caused by a rich community of predators, which clearly complicates straightforward predictions of the impact of the edge effect on bird populations and hence conservation strategies for endangered species. Increased predation along habitat edges in our study site might be a priori caused by carnivore preferences for these landscape structures, as demonstrated by our previous research Šálek et al 2010).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 56%

“…Nevertheless, our study indicates that predation risk between habitat edges and interiors may exhibit temporal variation. Thus, grassland-forest edges appear to be important landscape elements that contribute to trophic interactions and other ecological processes in the Central European landscape (see also Storch et al 2005;Svobodová et al 2011;Šálek et al 2010). The question thus arises, what underlies this large temporal variation in predation risk along the ecotonal interface in our study?…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Temporal variation in nest predation risk along habitat edges between grassland and secondary forest in Central Europe

et al. 2011

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Habitat fragmentation alters many ecological processes, including trophic cascades. For example, increased predation pressure along habitat edges has often been observed in fragmented landscapes. Here, we studied how nest predation risk varies along the transition zone between grassland and mixed forest in Central Europe.Using artificial nests, we tested the two mechanisms that are expected to underlie higher predation rates along edges: (1) the matrix effect model that supposes predator penetration from a habitat type with higher predator density to one with lower predator density and (2) the ecotonal effect model that assumes specific predator preferences for habitat edges. Although our results do not fully support either of these scenarios, our data show high temporal instability in nest predation along forest-grassland edges. Predation was higher in habitat interiors compared to edges during the first year, whereas the opposite pattern was observed during the subsequent year. In addition, dramatic between-year differences in the species composition of nest predators were observed. Therefore, we hypothesise that the effect of edges on nest predation is difficult to predict in landscapes with high predator diversity. In addition, our data indicate that a high abundance of wild boar considerably increases the risk of predation for ground-nesting birds.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 56%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Temporal variation in nest predation risk along habitat edges between grassland and secondary forest in Central Europe

et al. 2011

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, inside forest habitat (where all cameras were placed), one important fine-scale factor that drives deer distribution, and hence camera trapping rates, is variation in canopy openness, with deer strongly concentrating inside canopy gaps [5]. In addition, fox abundance (the mesopredator in this study) is driven by variation in prey availability that is linked to microhabitat variation [6]. Therefore, the Corine Land Cover data alone provide no basis for testing the importance of bottom-up effects in driving encounter rates of mesopredators and herbivores.…”

Section: Comments To Dorresteijn Et Al (2015)mentioning

confidence: 93%

Multi-trophic interactions in anthropogenic landscapes: the devil is in the detail

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comments to Dorresteijn et al. (2015)Dorresteijn et al. [1] recently addressed the question what influence humans have on predator-prey interactions in human-modified landscapes. Their study follows increasing evidence from relatively natural landscapes that large carnivores are central drivers of ecosystem structure and functioning through density-mediated and behaviourally mediated effects on their prey [2]. A key question is whether large carnivores will have similar ecological effects in human-dominated landscapes [3]. This is particularly relevant in the light of the carnivore recolonization of European landscapes [4]. We applaud Dorresteijn et al. [1] for highlighting that ecological effects of large carnivores may be quite different in human-modified landscapes. Unfortunately, we feel that there are crucial flaws with their study design, analyses and interpretation. These flaws seriously undermine the strong conclusions that they draw about the role of topdown and bottom-up processes in anthropogenic landscapes. Our main concerns include (i) lack of relevant bottom-up data, (ii) a camera trap design unsuitable for testing their hypotheses regarding community structure, and (iii) top-down and bottom-up processes that are studied at an inappropriate spatial scale.(1) Their main aim was 'to quantify the relative effects of top-down versus bottom-up processes in shaping predator and prey distributions'. It is surprising that the authors articulate this main objective without including actual bottom-up drivers in their analyses. Bottom-up processes were captured by variation in two land cover types, forest versus pasture cover, using the Corine Land Cover data. However, these very coarse categories do not reflect the variation in food resources (i.e. bottom-up processes) that drive the distributions of prey and predator. This variation occurs at finer spatial resolution, nested within the main land cover types that the authors used. For example, inside forest habitat (where all cameras were placed), one important fine-scale factor that drives deer distribution, and hence camera trapping rates, is variation in canopy openness, with deer strongly concentrating inside canopy gaps [5]. In addition, fox abundance (the mesopredator in this study) is driven by variation in prey availability that is linked to microhabitat variation [6]. Therefore, the Corine Land Cover data alone provide no basis for testing the importance of bottom-up effects in driving encounter rates of mesopredators and herbivores. In fact, we would argue that such land cover data may be a better proxy for top-down forces. Ungulate prey species avoid open or closed habitat depending on whether they respond to a large carnivore or human hunter [7]. Although the authors draw conclusions about bottomup effects, we argue that these are unfounded owing to an absence of relevant bottom-up variables in their models. (2) The main results and conclusions of this paper are based on the use of camera traps to estimate the relative occurrence of prey and pred...

show abstract

“…The edge effect (i.e., higher predation pressure in habitat edges) is one of the causes of above mentioned population sinks of many species (Andrén 1994;Oehler and Litvaitis 1996;Crooks 2002;Larivière 2003;Ewers and Didham 2007;Vergara and Hahn 2009). First, predators usually exhibit enhanced activity along habitat edges compared to core habitats (Andrén and Angelstam 1988;Paton 1994;Söderström et al 1998;Batáry and Báldi 2004;Š álek et al 2010), resulting in an adverse effect on the viability of populations due to general increase of habitat edges in fragmented landscapes (Saunders et al 1991;Murcia 1995;Vergara and Hahn 2009). Second, fragmented landscapes often maintain higher densities of generalist predators, including corvids and/or mammalian mesopredators (Andrén 1992(Andrén , 1995Crooks and Soulé 1999;Crooks 2002), suggesting that predation risk might be affected by the size of habitat patches and/or the overall degree of habitat fragmentation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In particular, most studies contrasted just two sampling sites (i.e., habitat edge vs. interior) to evaluate predator responses to habitat edges (Chalfoun et al 2002;Flashpohler et al 2001;Š álek et al 2010). However, the relationship between biotic and abiotic factors and the distance to habitat edges might be more complicated than just the simple monotonic decline or increase implied by this rather simplistic study design (see Murcia 1995 for further discussion).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The fine-scale utilization of forest edges by mammalian mesopredators related to patch size and conservation issues in Central European farmland

et al. 2011

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The marked negative impact of habitat fragmentation and the edge effect on many populations of bird species is a recent major concern in conservation biology. Here, we focus on the edge effect in different sized forest patches in Central European farmland. In particular, we tested whether the distribution of mammalian mesopredators is related to fragment size and distance to habitat edge, and whether the contribution of these factors is additive or interactive. To assess fine-scale utilization of forest edges, we established transects of four scent stations at different distances from forest edges into the interior (0, 25, 50, 100 m) in 146 forest fragments of variable patch size (3.2-5099.6 ha) from May to June, 2008June, -2009. This large sample size allowed us to perform detailed analyses separately for all detected species. Our findings confirm that mammalian mesopredators strongly prefer habitat edges and small forest fragments. The probability of occurrence tended to decrease with increasing distance from the edge for all seven carnivore species detected. The carnivores' occurrence was also negatively correlated with forest fragment area. All detected species tended to prefer small fragments, with the exception of the Eurasian badger (showing the reverse but non-significant pattern) and the red fox (no effect of fragment size). In addition, the non-significant interaction between fragment size and distance to edge suggests that both of these factors contribute independently and additively to mesopredator-mediated effects on biota in a fragmented landscape.

show abstract

Do prey densities determine preferences of mammalian predators for habitat edges in an agricultural landscape?

Cited by 84 publications

References 58 publications

Temporal variation in nest predation risk along habitat edges between grassland and secondary forest in Central Europe

Temporal variation in nest predation risk along habitat edges between grassland and secondary forest in Central Europe

Multi-trophic interactions in anthropogenic landscapes: the devil is in the detail

The fine-scale utilization of forest edges by mammalian mesopredators related to patch size and conservation issues in Central European farmland

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About