Interspecific variation in antipredator behaviour leads to differential vulnerability of mule deer and white‐tailed deer fawns early in life

Lingle, Susan; Pellis, Sergio M.; Wilson, W. Finbarr

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2656.2005.01014.x

Cited by 55 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 31 publications

(61 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Errington 1943;Selas 1993;Tornberg 1997;Lingle et al 2005) and so will have lower costs to reducing risk to the same level compared to the more vulnerable species or sub-population. In other words, if a species (and individual can be substituted for species throughout here), all things being equal, is less preferred prey, then any anti-predation behaviour will have more effect relative to more preferred prey.…”

Section: When Less Preferred Prey Have Lower Costs To Reduce Vulnerabmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predation in bird populations

Cresswell

2010

J Ornithol

222

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the classic ecological questions is how predators affect population size. This is often assessed by measuring how many individuals are killed by a predator, yet such direct effects may only be a relatively minor part of population dynamics. Predators frequently affect prey populations indirectly, with the fear of predation resulting in costly behavioural compensation leading to potentially large population and community effects. Large observable lethal effects may then just represent the most easily observed "special" cases of the effects of predation on populations, with the costs of non-lethal effects being ubiquitous and usually dominant. This review explores these two ideas: that cases where there are no population effects due to predation, and cases where lethal effects dominate, are unusual and involve special circumstances. First, systems where predation effects appear not to arise include complete avoidance of predators by prey; when other environmental factors limit populations so that predation is not additive to mortality; when there are other more vulnerable prey for a predator; when predators interact; because the relationship of perceived predation risk with predator abundance is usually a non-linear function, and simply because non-lethal effects have not been considered. Second, lethal effects tend to dominate over non-lethal effects when there is a high cost of compensating for predation risk associated with either resource constraint or a particularly vulnerable niche or life history stage (e.g. the nest stage generally for birds); when prey are the most popular prey of a predator or linear trophic chains operate; when there is evolutionary lag such as introduced predators and naïve prey populations; and when there are several predator species hunting the same prey in diverse ways. The presence of predators may or may not affect the size of a bird population at any particular life history stage, although in most cases it will through non-lethal effects and occasionally through lethal effects.But the presence of predators will always affect intra-and interspecific competition and so will always affect population dynamics. Studies that wish to fully demonstrate that predation has no effect on bird populations must show that lethal effects and the costs of non-lethal compensation by the prey do not significantly change its density and so the level of competition.3

show abstract

Section: When Less Preferred Prey Have Lower Costs To Reduce Vulnerabmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predation in bird populations

Cresswell

2010

J Ornithol

222

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Attempts to flee may be futile for immature animals, but they will become more effective when the young animal attains the physical attributes needed to outdistance a predator (FitzGibbon 1990). However, not all species are equally capable of employing the tactics of aggressive defense or flight (Dyrcz et al 1981;Burger 1984;Lingle et al 2005). Variation in their abilities to employ certain defenses may give rise to characteristic patterns of age-dependent vulnerability, in this case involving the probability of capture per encounter ( fig.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1b). 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).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) fawns are also hiders, active defense by females greatly reduces the probability that a mule deer fawn will be captured when encountered by predators during the initial months of life, compared with a white-tailed deer fawn (Lingle et al 2005; fig. 1b).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Aggressive defense by adults can be invaluable in reducing a young animal's susceptibility to being captured (Montgomerie and Weatherhead 1988;Cocroft 2002;Lingle et al 2005). Attempts to flee may be futile for immature animals, but they will become more effective when the young animal attains the physical attributes needed to outdistance a predator (FitzGibbon 1990).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Prey Behavior, Age‐Dependent Vulnerability, and Predation Rates

Lingle¹,

Feldman²,

Boyce³

et al. 2008

The American Naturalist

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Isolation calls in house mouse pups: Individual consistency across time and situations

Verjat

Rödel

Féron

2019

Developmental Psychobiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Isolation calls are emitted by the offspring of many mammalian species when separated from caregivers and siblings. Some studies indicate that isolation call rates constitute a consistent individual trait; others show that the young adjust their vocalization rate to the current situation. We studied this in the house mouse (Mus musculus domesticus) by exploring individual consistencies in pup isolation call rates and their potential modulation in different social situations. We carried out experiments including three treatments (repeated measurements) during consecutive days, all starting with an initial isolation of the pup, followed by (a) a reunion with mother and littermates and a second isolation hereafter, (b) the confrontation of isolated pup with cues of its own nest or (c) with cues of an unfamiliar adult male. The first treatment induced a significant increase, while the others induced significant decreases in pup isolation call rates. Pups showed consistent individual differences in initial call rates across the three days of testing (postnatal days 9–11), which were significantly associated with individual differences in call rates during the different treatments. We conclude that pup isolation calls represent a consistent, trait‐like behaviour in the house mouse, which can also express flexibility in response to social cues.

show abstract

Interspecific variation in antipredator behaviour leads to differential vulnerability of mule deer and white‐tailed deer fawns early in life

Cited by 55 publications

References 31 publications

Predation in bird populations

Predation in bird populations

Prey Behavior, Age‐Dependent Vulnerability, and Predation Rates

Isolation calls in house mouse pups: Individual consistency across time and situations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About