Do wild carnivores forage for prey or for nutrients?

Kohl, Kevin D.; Coogan, Sean C. P.; Raubenheimer, David

doi:10.1002/bies.201400171

Cited by 100 publications

(97 citation statements)

References 105 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The observation that tangle‐web spiders have higher C content than their prey provides support to the hypothesis that predators may suffer from C (i.e., energy) limitation (Wilder et al., 2013). Recent empirical research suggests that energy limitation may be common for some predatory species such as ants, beetles, and spiders (Grover, Kay, Monson, Marsh, & Holway, 2007; Kohl, Coogan, & Raubenheimer, 2015; Noreika, Madsen, Jensen, & Toft, 2016; Wilder et al., 2013; Wiggins & Wilder, 2018). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Caught in the web: Spider web architecture affects prey specialization and spider–prey stoichiometric relationships

Ludwig

Barbour

Guevara

et al. 2018

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Quantitative approaches to predator–prey interactions are central to understanding the structure of food webs and their dynamics. Different predatory strategies may influence the occurrence and strength of trophic interactions likely affecting the rates and magnitudes of energy and nutrient transfer between trophic levels and stoichiometry of predator–prey interactions. Here, we used spider–prey interactions as a model system to investigate whether different spider web architectures—orb, tangle, and sheet‐tangle—affect the composition and diet breadth of spiders and whether these, in turn, influence stoichiometric relationships between spiders and their prey. Our results showed that web architecture partially affects the richness and composition of the prey captured by spiders. Tangle‐web spiders were specialists, capturing a restricted subset of the prey community (primarily Diptera), whereas orb and sheet‐tangle web spiders were generalists, capturing a broader range of prey types. We also observed elemental imbalances between spiders and their prey. In general, spiders had higher requirements for both nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) than those provided by their prey even after accounting for prey biomass. Larger P imbalances for tangle‐web spiders than for orb and sheet‐tangle web spiders suggest that trophic specialization may impose strong elemental constraints for these predators unless they display behavioral or physiological mechanisms to cope with nutrient limitation. Our findings suggest that integrating quantitative analysis of species interactions with elemental stoichiometry can help to better understand the occurrence of stoichiometric imbalances in predator–prey interactions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Caught in the web: Spider web architecture affects prey specialization and spider–prey stoichiometric relationships

Ludwig

Barbour

Guevara

et al. 2018

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This diet preference of dogs contrasts that of domestic cats, which selected diets highest in protein energy (Hewson-Hughes et al 2013, Kohl et al 2015. If wolves and cougars are selecting diets that optimize their macronutrient intake, then these differences in nutrient selection between species might explain the higher proportion of livestock killed by wolves as compared to cougars, both in our study and around the world (Newsome et al 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 55%

“…Macronutrient requirements might also play a role in carnivore predation on livestock; in a laboratory setting domestic dogs selected a diet lower in protein but higher in lipids (Kohl et al 2015), and meat from domestic livestock is typically higher in lipid content than meat from wild prey (Eaton and Konner 1985, Davidson et al 2011, Coogan and Raubenheimer 2016. This diet preference of dogs contrasts that of domestic cats, which selected diets highest in protein energy (Hewson-Hughes et al 2013, Kohl et al 2015.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Troublemaking carnivores: conflicts with humans in a diverse assemblage of large carnivores

Morehouse¹,

Boyce²

2017

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Human-wildlife conflicts are a global conservation and management challenge. Multipredator systems present added complexity to the resolution of human-wildlife conflicts because mitigation strategies often are species-specific. Documenting the type and distribution of such conflicts is an important first step toward ensuring that subsequent management and mitigation efforts are appropriately targeted. We reviewed 16 years of records of complaints about two species of strict carnivores, wolves (Canis lupus) and cougars (Puma concolor), and two species of omnivores, grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) and black bears (Ursus americanus) in southwestern Alberta and evaluated the temporal and spatial distribution of these complaints. Conflicts were most frequently associated with bears (68.7% of complaint records), reflecting a diversity of conflict types attributable to their omnivorous diets. Although grizzly bears killed and injured livestock, the majority of conflicts with bears were attributable to attractants (grain and dead livestock for grizzly bears, garbage for black bears). In contrast, wolf and cougar incidents were almost exclusively related to killing or injury of livestock. Complaints for both bear species have increased over the past 16 years while cougar and wolf complaints have remained relatively constant. Grizzly bear and cougar conflicts have been expanding into private lands used for agriculture. Although community driven, targeted mitigation measures have helped reduce conflicts with grizzly bears at the site level, conflicts at the broader scale have continued to increase and continued work is necessary. Long-term human-carnivore coexistence clearly is possible, facilitated by continued monitoring and local efforts to mitigate conflicts.

show abstract

“…There is a growing interest in the role that nutrients play in prey selection by predators (Mayntz et al 2005;Kohl et al 2015), catalysed by the development of the nutritional geometry framework (Raubenheimer & Simpson 1997;Raubenheimer 2011). This framework considers how mixtures of nutrients might affect food choice and consumption.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies using this approach have shown that many species of herbivores and omnivores, both in the lab and the field, choose foods and regulate the amounts eaten based on macronutrient (protein, lipid and carbohydrate) balance rather than energy content per se (Simpson & Raubenheimer 2012). Recent evidence suggests that some predators, including insects, spiders, fish, mink and bears, likewise select prey (or selectively eat certain body parts of prey) based on a requirement for a specific balance of macronutrients (reviewed in Kohl et al 2015). However, few studies have applied this framework to examine prey choice of predators in the field (Machovsky-Capuska et al 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

New Zealand falcon prey selection may not be driven by preference based on prey nutritional content

Kross¹,

Tait²,

Raubenheimer³

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Little is known about how diurnal raptors, as apex predators, select their prey. It has been hypothesised that they are opportunistic, taking prey according to availability, and that they select prey based on prey size. The threatened New Zealand falcon or kārearea (Falco novaeseelandiae) is New Zealand's only remaining endemic bird of prey. A previous study on prey caught by kārearea during the breeding season suggested that introduced avian prey were taken more often than expected, and endemic avian prey taken less often than expected, based on their abundance. There is a growing interest in the role that nutrients play in prey selection by predators. We used the nutritional geometry framework in a field study to determine the role that nutritional composition plays in prey choice. We built on an existing dataset to assess whether prey selection by kārearea can be explained based on prey body-mass, abundance, or nutritional characteristics. We determined the protein-to-lipid ratio and ash content of individuals across 16 species of prey and potential prey, including both endemic and introduced species, and modelled these against known prey consumption based on our earlier work. We found limited evidence for selective predation based on nutrient balancing. Instead, the relative abundance of each species in the surrounding habitat and the endemicity of each species were the most important predictors, with species body-mass playing only a minor role in prey choice. To investigate the apparent selection for introduced over endemic prey, future research could compare the behavioural adaptations of endemic birds against their natural predator with behaviours of introduced birds.

show abstract

Do wild carnivores forage for prey or for nutrients?

Cited by 100 publications

References 105 publications

Caught in the web: Spider web architecture affects prey specialization and spider–prey stoichiometric relationships

Caught in the web: Spider web architecture affects prey specialization and spider–prey stoichiometric relationships

Troublemaking carnivores: conflicts with humans in a diverse assemblage of large carnivores

New Zealand falcon prey selection may not be driven by preference based on prey nutritional content

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About