Predator protection dampens the landscape of fear

Abstract

Apex predators structure ecosystems by hunting mesopredators and herbivores. Their ecological influence is determined not only by the number of animals they kill, but also by how prey alter their behaviours to reduce risk. Predation risk is variable in space and time creating a landscape of fear. In Australia, dingoes hunt red foxes and suppress their populations. As both predators are commonly subjected to eradication programs, the question arises whether humans alter the risk dingoes pose to foxes and in turn alter the foxes' avoidance behaviours. We studied the spatio-temporal activity patterns and wariness behaviours of foxes and dingoes at sites where they were protected (predator friendly), where they were persecuted (predator persecuted), and at sites where foxes were persecuted, and dingoes had been eradicated (dingo eradicated). The landscape of fear hypothesis predicts that foxes will be the most spatiotemporally restricted and most fearful at predator friendly sites, and least restricted and fearful at dingo eradicated sites. We found that fox occupancy was highest at dingo eradicated sites; and that they avoided times of heightened dingo activity at predator friendly sites more than at predator persecuted sites. Contrary to predictions, foxes were the least fearful (lowest frequency of cautious and vigilant behaviour) and most social (highest frequency of social interactions) at predator friendly sites. Our findings suggest that in the absence of persecution, mesopredators living with socially-stable apex predators can anticipate and avoid risk, reducing the need for constant vigilance (i.e. fear). Where predators are protected, predator avoidance may be driven by knowledge rather than fear alone.

Prey responses to foxes are not determined by nativeness

“…These losses are thought to have been evolutionarily‐predetermined, but our work and that of others shows that, insofar as we can tell, prey can develop fully‐fledged antipredator responses (Strauss et al 2006, Banks et al 2018, Wallach et al 2022). While prey may retain a level of naivety that has yet to be empirically detected, it is otherwise plausible that declines attributed to introduced predators may instead stem from ecological context, such as the absence of apex predators (Wallach et al 2010, Wooster et al 2022) or habitat loss (Fisher et al 2003, Smith et al 2019). The ubiquitous recognition of foxes across their native and introduced ranges suggests that prey can adapt to novel predation pressures.…”

Body mass mediates spatio-temporal responses of mammals to human frequentation across Italian protected areas

“…Among the top-down effects of humans on animal behaviour, the spatial and temporal modification of perceived risk caused by human presence in the environment can provoke fear responses that often surpass those caused by natural predators in both magnitude and extent [7]. As perceived super-predators, humans shape a landscape of fear that affects not only herbivore or meso-carnivore behaviour and movement, but also that of apex predators, de facto limiting their ecosystem role as top consumers and disrupting trophic cascades [8][9][10]. Where humans do not exert a direct mortality effect on prey through hunting or poaching, prey species can instead take advantage of the presence of people as shield against predators, altering predator-prey dynamics [11,12].…”

Dynamic shifts in predator diel activity patterns across landscapes and threat levels

“…For example, by fitting separate models for spatial and temporal overlap, or by repeating spatial analyses (e.g. resource selection functions) at different time periods such night and day (Basille et al 2015, Kohl et al 2019, Smith et al 2019, Wooster et al 2022). Such approaches make it difficult to assess the relative importance, as well as dynamic changes in spatial and temporal processes.…”