Patch use and vigilance by sympatric lemmings in predator and competitor-driven landscapes of fear

Dupuch, Angélique; Morris, Douglas W.; Halliday, William D.

doi:10.1007/s00265-013-1645-z

Cited by 25 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Competition for food is considered to be among the most important biotic processes influencing the spatial distribution of species, together with predation (Sih et al 1985;Morin 1999). But Dupuch et al (2014) showed that habitat preference in collared and brown (Lemmus trimucronatus) lemmings was a consequence of interspecific competition rather than predation risk. If the pattern we observed during the peak phase was an effect of increased intraspecific competition, this distribution probably does not reflect the best habitat.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial distribution in Norwegian lemming Lemmus lemmus in relation to the phase of the cycle

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Competition between individuals of the same or different species affects spatial distribution of organisms at any given time. Consequently, a species geographical distribution is related to population dynamics through density-dependent processes. Small Arctic rodents are important prey species in many Arctic ecosystems. They commonly show large cyclic fluctuations in abundance offering a potential to investigate how landscape characteristics relates to density-dependent habitat selection. Based on long-term summer trapping data of the Norwegian lemming (Lemmus lemmus) in the Scandinavian Mountain tundra, we applied species distribution modeling to test if the effect of environmental variables on lemming distribution changed in relation to the lemming cycle. Lemmings were less habitat specific during the peak phase, as their distribution was only related to primary productivity. During the increase phase, however, lemming distribution was, in addition, associated with landscape characteristics such as hilly terrain and slopes that are less likely to get flooded. Lemming habitat use varied during the cycle, suggesting density-dependent changes in habitat selection that could be explained by intraspecific competition. We believe that the distribution patterns observed during the increase phase show a stronger ecological signal for habitat preference and that the less specific habitat use during the peak phase is a result of lemmings grazing themselves out of the best habitat as the population grows. Future research on lemming winter distribution would make it possible to investigate the year around strategies of habitat selection in lemmings and a better understanding of a fundamental actor in many Arctic ecosystems.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial distribution in Norwegian lemming Lemmus lemmus in relation to the phase of the cycle

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…; Dupuch et al. ). Apart from social cues, other indirect cues are essential to understand the perception that an animal might have of its environment (Laundré et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…; Beauchamp ; Dupuch et al. ). When cover constitutes a refuge, animals must balance the use of the refuge with the foraging needs, and as distance to refuge increases, the probability of a successful attack increases (Dill ; Morrison et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do Yellow‐Bellied Marmots Perceive Enhanced Predation Risk When they are Farther from safety? An experimental study

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whereas there are many studies of the time allocated to antipredator vigilance while animals forage, the vast majority of these studies remain correlative. This is potentially problematic because a variety of factors other than variation in perceived risk might influence putative antipredator behaviors such as time allocated to vigilance and foraging. We conducted an experimental study of yellow‐bellied marmot (Marmota flaviventris) antipredator behavior while marmots foraged at a replicated set of feeding stations established 1, 5, 10, and 20 m from their main burrows. Marmots appeared to perceive a reduced risk of predation when they foraged in the presence of other marmots; they allocated more time to foraging and decreased the time allocated to vigilance. When they foraged farther from their burrows, marmots initiated foraging after a substantially greater amount of time, tended to increase the frequency of their bouts of vigilance, and decreased the duration of each bout. Yearling marmots took less time to begin foraging than adults. Marmot flight initiation distance at our feeding trays was independent of the distance they foraged away from the burrow. Taken together, these experimental results demonstrate that marmots' perceptions of risk increased with distance to the burrow and decreased when other individuals were within 10 m of them while they foraged.

show abstract

“…Curves show fit of mixed-model logistic regression of per-capita prey 'mortality' vs. prey density in each spatial unit (dashed curve has a slope that is not significantly different from 0). Points were 'jittered' horizontally for visibility own resources and competitors at multiple spatial scales (Oatway and Morris 2007;Dupuch et al 2014). Also, predators' ability to optimize their spatial foraging effort may face a number of different constraints, such as the cost of movement through a coarse-grained landscape (Bernstein et al 1991), risk from their own predators (Brown and Kotler 2004;Lima 2002), and sensory limitations on their ability to detect and quantify prey (e.g., Ranta et al 1999;Luttbeg et al 2009) at a particular spatial scale.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Density-dependent prey mortality is determined by the spatial scale of predator foraging

McCarthy

White

2015

Oecologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Foraging theory predicts which prey patches predators should target. However, in most habitats, what constitutes a 'patch' and how prey density is calculated are subjective concepts and depend on the spatial scale at which the predator (or scientist) is observing. Moreover, the predator's 'foraging scale' affects prey population dynamics: predators should produce directly density-dependent (DDD) prey mortality at the foraging scale, but inversely density-dependent (IDD) mortality (safety-in-numbers) at smaller scales. We performed the first experimental test of these predictions using behavioral assays with guppies (Poecilia reticulata) feeding on bloodworm 'prey' patches. The guppy's foraging scale had already been estimated in a prior study. Our experimental results confirmed theoretical predictions: predation was IDD when prey were aggregated at a scale smaller than the foraging scale, but not when prey were aggregated at larger scales. These results could be used to predict outcomes of predator-prey interactions in continuous, non-discrete habitats in the field.

show abstract

Patch use and vigilance by sympatric lemmings in predator and competitor-driven landscapes of fear

Cited by 25 publications

References 46 publications

Spatial distribution in Norwegian lemming Lemmus lemmus in relation to the phase of the cycle

Spatial distribution in Norwegian lemming Lemmus lemmus in relation to the phase of the cycle

Do Yellow‐Bellied Marmots Perceive Enhanced Predation Risk When they are Farther from safety? An experimental study

Density-dependent prey mortality is determined by the spatial scale of predator foraging

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About