Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator–prey system

Kauffman, Matthew J.; Varley, Nathan; Smith, Douglas W.; Stahler, Daniel R.; MacNulty, Daniel R.; Boyce, Mark S.

doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01059.x

Cited by 285 publications

(326 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

309

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, early studies on the BMTCH reported that wolves scared herbivores away from riparian areas, which reduced herbivory on trees and ultimately caused increased tree growth (Ripple and Beschta, 2004;Beschta and Ripple, 2007). Not only did these earlier studies incorrectly identify areas of high predation risk (Creel et al, 2005;Kauffman et al, 2007;Kauffman et al, 2010;Winnie, 2012), but they also failed to consider more parsimonious explanations for increased tree growth in riparian areas, such as the height of the local water table (Bilyeu et al, 2008;Kauffman et al, 2013). MacNulty et al (2016;pg.…”

Section: Alternative Hypotheses Are Seldom Testedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can we save large carnivores without losing large carnivore science?

Allen

Allen²,

Andrén

et al. 2017

Food Webs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c t a r t i c l e i n f oLarge carnivores are depicted to shape entire ecosystems through top-down processes. Studies describing these processes are often used to support interventionist wildlife management practices, including carnivore reintroduction or lethal control programs. Unfortunately, there is an increasing tendency to ignore, disregard or devalue fundamental principles of the scientific method when communicating the reliability of current evidence for the ecological roles that large carnivores may play, eroding public confidence in large carnivore science and scientists. Here, we discuss six interrelated issues that currently undermine the reliability of the available literature on the ecological roles of large carnivores: (1) the overall paucity of available data, (2) reliability of carnivore population sampling techniques, (3) general disregard for alternative hypotheses to top-down forcing, (4) lack of applied science studies, (5) frequent use of logical fallacies, and (6) generalisation of results from relatively pristine systems to those substantially altered by humans. We first describe how widespread these issues are, and given this, show, for example, that evidence for the roles of wolves (Canis lupus) and dingoes (Canis lupus dingo) in initiating trophic cascades is not as strong as is often claimed. Managers and policy makers should exercise caution when relying on this literature to inform wildlife management decisions. We emphasise the value of manipulative experiments and discuss the role of scientific knowledge in the decision-making process. We hope that the issues we raise here prompt deeper consideration of actual evidence, leading towards an improvement in both the rigour and communication of large carnivore science.

show abstract

Section: Alternative Hypotheses Are Seldom Testedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can we save large carnivores without losing large carnivore science?

Allen

Allen²,

Andrén

et al. 2017

Food Webs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2005; Kauffman et al. 2007), and prey species can therefore be expected to alter their response to both mortality and predator encounter risk with environmental variation across landscapes. Concurrently, prey species can make use of the environment to avoid detection and/or escape predators (Creel et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Limited spatial response to direct predation risk by African herbivores following predator reintroduction

Davies

Tambling

Kerley

et al. 2016

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Predators affect ecosystems not only through direct mortality of prey, but also through risk effects on prey behavior, which can exert strong influences on ecosystem function and prey fitness. However, how functionally different prey species respond to predation risk and how prey strategies vary across ecosystems and in response to predator reintroduction are poorly understood. We investigated the spatial distributions of six African herbivores varying in foraging strategy and body size in response to environmental factors and direct predation risk by recently reintroduced lions in the thicket biome of the Addo Elephant National Park, South Africa, using camera trap surveys, GPS telemetry, kill site locations and Light Detection and Ranging. Spatial distributions of all species, apart from buffalo, were driven primarily by environmental factors, with limited responses to direct predation risk. Responses to predation risk were instead indirect, with species distributions driven by environmental factors, and diel patterns being particularly pronounced. Grazers were more responsive to the measured variables than browsers, with more observations in open areas. Terrain ruggedness was a stronger predictor of browser distributions than was vegetation density. Buffalo was the only species to respond to predator encounter risk, avoiding areas with higher lion utilization. Buffalo therefore behaved in similar ways to when lions were absent from the study area. Our results suggest that direct predation risk effects are relatively weak when predator densities are low and the time since reintroduction is short and emphasize the need for robust, long‐term monitoring of predator reintroductions to place such events in the broader context of predation risk effects.

show abstract

“…All those landscape characteristics are known drivers of wolf habitat selection and their relationship with prey (Mao et al 2005, Kauffman et al 2007, Hebblewhite and Merrill 2008, Houle et al 2010, Latham et al 2011, Milakovic et al 2011, Whittington et al 2011 Mao et al (2005). This coverage represents the percentage of openhabitat pixels at a distance smaller than 400 m from each grid cell (25-m cell resolution).…”

Section: Data Sourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, for those three years we had information on the spatial distribution of elk (Cervus elaphus), which are the primary prey for these wolves (Smith et al 2004). The sites where wolves kill prey seem to be influenced, not so much by the presence of elk, but instead by the presense of habitats that increase the probability of a successful kill (Bergman et al 2006, Kauffman et al 2007). Nevertheless, the extent to which wolves' habitat preferences correspond with overall elk distribution remains unclear.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long‐ and short‐term temporal variability in habitat selection of a top predator

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Considerable theory explains the importance of understanding temporal variation in ecological processes. Nevertheless, long-term variability in habitat selection is rarely assessed or even acknowledged. We explored temporal variability in the habitat selection of a top-predator, the wolf (Canis lupus), at two time scales: interannual and seasonal variability. To do this, we developed resource utilization functions to relate wolf habitat selection to environmental variables in different years and seasons. We used radiotelemetry data collected from a wolf population in Yellowstone National Park during a 10-year period (1998)(1999)(2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007) and added a Year variable in the models to account for interannual variation in the studied processes. We also used a three-year data set (nested within the 10-year data set) to incorporate additional variables in the models and test for differences in short-and long-term patterns of habitat selection. Wolves exhibited seasonal variation in habitat selection with respect to distance from roads, elevation, openness, and habitat type. Habitat selection was considerably more complicated during the winter compared to summer, when wolves only selected habitat based on distance from roads. We detected clear patterns of habitat selection in the three-year data set that could not be detected in the 10-year data set, despite the longer data set had more statistical power for pattern detection. This observation is likely the result of the longer data set being comprised of several shorter-term and countervailing patterns. This explanation is also consistent with having detected significant year effects in the 10-year data set. Insomuch as habitat selection is important to conservation and management, this research is significant for demonstrating the different impressions that can be given by short-term and long-term studies. It may be common for short-term data sets to suggest patterns of habitat selection that do not prevail over longer periods of time.

show abstract

Landscape heterogeneity shapes predation in a newly restored predator–prey system

Cited by 285 publications

References 55 publications

Can we save large carnivores without losing large carnivore science?

Can we save large carnivores without losing large carnivore science?

Limited spatial response to direct predation risk by African herbivores following predator reintroduction

Long‐ and short‐term temporal variability in habitat selection of a top predator

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About