The effects of red fox scent on winter activity patterns of suburban wildlife: evaluating predator-prey interactions and the importance of groundhog burrows in promoting biodiversity

Pustilnik, Jeremy D.; Searle, Jeremy B.; Curtis, Paul D.

doi:10.1007/s11252-020-01056-5

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 158 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many prey species do not build specific protective structures such as burrows or dens but instead utilize natural variations in the landscape to hide from predators (Sih, 1987;Persson, 1993;Cressman and Garay, 2009). However, other prey create or use refuges that provide protection from predation and continually return to these refuges (Kobak et al, 2014;Pustilnik et al, 2021). Warthogs Phacohoerus africanus utilize burrows for both predator avoidance and communal nesting, though communal nesting might be a side effect of predator avoidance (White and Cameron, 2009).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Running away or running to? Do prey make decisions solely based on the landscape of fear or do they also include stimuli from a landscape of safety?

MacKay

Wood

Moore

2021

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Predator prey interactions are a key part of ecosystem function, and non-consumptive effects fall under the landscape of fear theory. Under the landscape of fear, the antipredator responses of prey are based on the spatial and temporal distribution of predatory cues in the environment. However, the aversive stimuli (fear) are not the only stimuli prey can utilize when making behavioral decisions. Prey might also be using attractive stimuli that represent safety to guide decision making. Using a novel, orthogonal design, we were able to spatially separate aversive and attractive stimuli to determine if prey are utilizing safety cues to navigate their environment. Crayfish Faxonius rusticus were placed in the center of a behavioral arena. Aversive stimuli of either predatory bass Micropterus salmoides cues or conspecific alarm cues increased along the x-axis of the behavioral arena. Safety cues (shelters) increased along the y-axis by decreasing the number of shelter openings in this direction. Crayfish were allowed two phases to explore the arena: one without the fearful stimuli and one with the stimuli. Linear mixed models were conducted to determine if movement behaviors and habitat utilization were affected by the phase of the trial and the type of aversive stimuli. Crayfish responded more strongly to alarm cues than fear cues, with only alarm cues significantly impacting habitat utilization. When responding to alarm cues, crayfish used safety cues as well as fear cues to relocate themselves within the arena. Based on these results, we argue that crayfish are utilizing a landscape of safety in conjunction with a landscape of fear when navigating their environment.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Running away or running to? Do prey make decisions solely based on the landscape of fear or do they also include stimuli from a landscape of safety?

MacKay

Wood

Moore

2021

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The behavioral responses of prey can be mapped into a landscape of fear, which is defined as the spatiotemporal variation in perceived predation risk by the forager (Gaynor et al, 2019 ; Laundré et al, 2001 , 2014 ), which affect the distribution of multispecies resources in a landscape (Monk & Schmitz, 2021 ). The presence of a predator can be evident and perceived directly via sight or smell (Pustilnik et al, 2020 ; Saavedra & Amo, 2020 ), or just inferred indirectly by the forager through environmental conditions, such as habitat cover (Wagnon et al, 2020 ) or variable visibility conditions (Ranåker et al, 2012 ). Thus, even if no predator is present, foragers perceive predation risk.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The presence of a predator can be evident and perceived directly via sight or smell (Pustilnik et al, 2020;Saavedra & Amo, 2020), or just inferred indirectly by the forager through environmental conditions, such as habitat cover (Wagnon et al, 2020) or variable visibility conditions (Ranåker et al, 2012). Thus, even if no predator is present, foragers perceive predation risk.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forager‐mediated cascading effects on food resource species diversity

Ferreira

Dammhahn

Eccard

2022

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Perceived predation risk varies in space and time. Foraging in this landscape of fear alters forager‐resource interactions via cascading nonconsumptive effects. Estimating these indirect effects is difficult in natural systems. Here, we applied a novel measure to quantify the diversity at giving‐up density that allows to test how spatial variation in perceived predation risk modifies the diversity of multispecies resources at local and regional spatial levels. Furthermore, we evaluated whether the nonconsumptive effects on resource species diversity can be explained by the preferences of foragers for specific functional traits and by the forager species richness. We exposed rodents of a natural community to artificial food patches, each containing an initial multispecies resource community of eight species (10 items each) mixed in sand. We sampled 35 landscapes, each containing seven patches in a spatial array, to disentangle effects at local (patch) and landscape levels. We used vegetation height as a proxy for perceived predation risk. After a period of three nights, we counted how many and which resource species were left in each patch to measure giving‐up density and resource diversity at the local level (alpha diversity) and the regional level (gamma diversity and beta diversity). Furthermore, we used wildlife cameras to identify foragers and assess their species richness. With increasing vegetation height, i.e., decreasing perceived predation risk, giving‐up density, and local alpha and regional gamma diversity decreased, and patches became less similar within a landscape (beta diversity increased). Foragers consumed more of the bigger and most caloric resources. The higher the forager species richness, the lower the giving‐up density, and alpha and gamma diversity. Overall, spatial variation of perceived predation risk of foragers had measurable cascading effects on local and regional resource species biodiversity, independent of the forager species. Thus, nonconsumptive predation effects modify forager‐resource interactions and might act as an equalizing mechanism for species coexistence.

show abstract

The effects of red fox scent on winter activity patterns of suburban wildlife: evaluating predator-prey interactions and the importance of groundhog burrows in promoting biodiversity

Cited by 2 publications

References 158 publications

Running away or running to? Do prey make decisions solely based on the landscape of fear or do they also include stimuli from a landscape of safety?

Running away or running to? Do prey make decisions solely based on the landscape of fear or do they also include stimuli from a landscape of safety?

Forager‐mediated cascading effects on food resource species diversity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About