Fight or flight? Antipredator behavior and the escalation of coyote encounters with deer

Abstract

It is well known that prey of different size and morphology often use different antipredator strategies. The prevailing notion is that this occurs because size, morphology and weaponry determine the relative effectiveness of alternative strategies, and nowhere is this assumption more entrenched than in our view of the basic decision to stay, fight or flee. Here, we use observations of coyote (Canis latrans) packs hunting deer in winter to show that two ungulates of similar size and morphology, white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and mule deer (O. hemionus), use different antipredator strategies when encountered or attacked. Mule deer typically responded by holding their ground and aggressively defending conspecifics, and were at high risk of being attacked and killed if they fled or were undefended. White-tails always fled when pursued or attacked by coyotes. Coyotes pursued fewer white-tails than mule deer they encountered regardless of prey response. Once pursued or attacked, white-tails faced a risk of attack and capture, respectively, that was intermediate between the high and low risk mule deer groups. The overall risk of capture per encounter for white-tails was similar to that facing mule deer that confronted coyotes, which was much lower than risk facing mule deer that fled and were undefended. Contextual variables such as the opportunity to improve one's position by joining another group, moving to rugged terrain, or the presence of companions that are willing to provide defense may explain why a mixed strategy is maintained in mule deer, despite the apparently detrimental effects of flight. These examples illustrate the value of including prey behavior in models of hunting success in so far as prey defenses may not be coupled with differences in size and morphology.

Protean behavior under barn-owl attack: voles alternate between freezing and fleeing and spiny mice flee in alternating patterns

“…A similar dependence of defensive response on motor capacities and habitat structure was previously described in deer species [30]. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), which inhabit forests and are fast runners, tend to flee when encountering coyotes (Canis latrans), whereas mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), which live in relatively open spaces and are moderate runners, tend to freeze or flee.…”

“…Defensive fighting occurs only when the prey cannot avoid the predator [30]. Freezing and fleeing were previously described in a variety of prey species, from hermit crabs [36] to deer [40].…”

Primary and secondary defences of squid to cruising and ambush fish predators: variable tactics and their survival value

“…When attack is imminent, secondary defences are deployed to delay, inhibit or escape from an approaching predator. The most common secondary defence is to flee (Humphries & Driver 1970;Eibl-Eibesfeldt 1975); however, direct interactions with predators are often unavoidable (Lingle & Pellis 2002;Edut & Eilam 2004). As a result, prey may attempt to startle, threaten or confuse a predator with defensive postures and erratic, unpredictable escape sequences known as protean behaviour (Humphries & Driver 1970;Edmunds 1974;Driver & Humphries 1988).…”

“…the predator is not hungry) (Stankowitch & Coss 2006), deimatic and protean behaviours may also be effective in assessing risk and testing predator motivation (Edmunds 1974). The decision of which defence tactic to use presumably depends on the type of predator, the severity of the threat and the environmental factors surrounding the encounter (Lima 1992; Lingle & Pellis 2002;Hoverman & Relyea 2007).…”

Prey Behavior, Age‐Dependent Vulnerability, and Predation Rates

“…They are highly susceptible to being captured when encountered by coyotes (Canis latrans) early in life (Lingle et al 2005); during this period, they spend the majority of their time in hiding. When a white-tailed deer fawn reaches approximately 4-5 months of age, it can gallop fast enough to outdistance coyotes in most situations and its susceptibility to being captured declines steeply (Lingle and Pellis 2002).…”