Density and biomass responses of ephemeral plants to experimental exclusions of small mammals and their vertebrate predators in the Chilean semiarid zone

2000 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 173-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julio R Gutiérrez ◽  
Peter L Meserve
Oecologia ◽  
1997 ◽  
Vol 109 (3) ◽  
pp. 398-406 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. R. Gutiérrez ◽  
P. L. Meserve ◽  
S. Herrera ◽  
L. C. Contreras ◽  
F. M. Jaksic

2009 ◽  
Vol 63 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-222 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew S. Wiewel ◽  
Amy A. Yackel Adams ◽  
Gordon H. Rodda

2012 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 92-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. A. Shchipanov ◽  
A. V. Kouptsov ◽  
A. A. Kalinin ◽  
T. B. Demidova ◽  
V. Yu. Oleinichenko ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Dickman ◽  
Loren L. Fardell ◽  
Nicole Hills

Abstract An important but understudied modality for eavesdropping between predators and prey is olfaction, especially between non-mammalian vertebrate predators and their prey. Here we test three olfactory eavesdropping predictions involving an apex reptilian predator, the sand goanna Varanus gouldii, and several species of its small mammalian prey in arid central Australia. Firstly, as expected, we found that small mammals recognised and avoided the faecal odour of sand goannas, feeding less intensively at food patches where the odour of V. gouldii was present than at patches with no odour or a pungency control odour. Secondly, V. gouldii was attracted to the odour of small mammals in artificial burrows, and dug more frequently at burrows containing the odour of species that were energetically profitable than at those of species likely to yield diminished returns. Our third prediction received mixed support. Rates of movement of three species of small mammals were no different where V. gouldii was present or absent, but burrow fidelity in two of these species increased as expected in an area where V. gouldii had been removed. We conclude that olfaction plays a key role in the dynamic interaction between V. gouldii and its mammalian prey, with the interactants using olfaction to balance their respective costs of foraging and reducing predation risk. We speculate that the risk of predation from this apex reptilian predator drives the marked and highly unusual burrow-shifting behaviour that characterises many of Australia's small desert mammals.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Dickman ◽  
Loren L. Fardell ◽  
Nicole Hills

Abstract An important but understudied modality for eavesdropping between predators and prey is olfaction, especially between non-mammalian vertebrate predators and their prey. Here we test three olfactory eavesdropping predictions involving an apex reptilian predator, the sand goanna Varanus gouldii, and several species of its small mammalian prey in arid central Australia: 1) small mammals will recognise and avoid the odour of V. gouldii; 2) V. gouldii will be attracted to the odour of small mammals, especially of species that maximise its energetic returns; and 3) small mammals will be less mobile and will show higher burrow fidelity where V. gouldii is absent compared with where it is present. As expected, we found that small mammals recognised and avoided faecal odour of this goanna, feeding less intensively at food patches where the odour of V. gouldii was present than at patches with no odour or a pungency control odour. Varanus gouldii also was attracted to the odour of small mammals in artificial burrows, and dug more frequently at burrows containing the odour of species that were energetically profitable than at those of species likely to yield diminished returns. Our third prediction received mixed support. Rates of movement of three species of small mammals were no different where V. gouldii was present or absent, but burrow fidelity in two of these species increased as expected where V. gouldii had been removed. We conclude that olfaction plays a key role in the dynamic interaction between V. gouldii and its mammalian prey, with the interactants using olfaction to balance their respective costs of foraging and reducing predation risk. We speculate that the risk of predation from this apex reptilian predator drives the highly unusual burrow-shifting behaviour that characterises many of Australia's small desert mammals.


2020 ◽  
Vol 655 ◽  
pp. 139-155
Author(s):  
DC Yates ◽  
SI Lonhart ◽  
SL Hamilton

Marine reserves are often designed to increase density, biomass, size structure, and biodiversity by prohibiting extractive activities. However, the recovery of predators following the establishment of marine reserves and the consequent cessation of fishing may have indirect negative effects on prey populations by increasing prey mortality. We coupled field surveys with empirical predation assays (i.e. tethering experiments) inside and outside of 3 no-take marine reserves in kelp forests along the central California coast to quantify the strength of interactions between predatory fishes and their crustacean prey. Results indicated elevated densities and biomass of invertebrate predators inside marine reserves compared to nearby fished sites, but no significant differences in prey densities. The increased abundance of predators inside marine reserves translated to a significant increase in mortality of 2 species of decapod crustaceans, the dock shrimp Pandalus danae and the cryptic kelp crab Pugettia richii, in tethering experiments. Shrimp mortality rates were 4.6 times greater, while crab mortality rates were 7 times greater inside reserves. For both prey species, the time to 50% mortality was negatively associated with the density and biomass of invertebrate predators (i.e. higher mortality rates where predators were more abundant). Video analyses indicated that macro-invertivore fishes arrived 2 times faster to tethering arrays at sites inside marine reserves and began attacking tethered prey more rapidly. The results indicate that marine reserves can have direct and indirect effects on predators and their prey, respectively, and highlight the importance of considering species interactions in making management decisions.


Ekologija ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. 110-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paulius Alejūnas ◽  
Vitalijus Stirkė

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document