Dynamic Models of Mass-Dependent Predation, Risk-Sensitive Foraging, and Premigratory Fattening in Birds

Ecology ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 75 (4) ◽  
pp. 1131-1140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter A. Bednekoff ◽  
Alasdair I. Houston
2020 ◽  
Vol 98 (8) ◽  
pp. 541-550
Author(s):  
F. Bjornson ◽  
M. Earhart ◽  
W.G. Anderson

Balancing foraging opportunities with predation risk can promote complex behavioural strategies in juvenile fishes, particularly in northern temperate environments with short growing seasons. To test how predation experience may influence foraging effort and risk assessment of juvenile lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens Rafinesque, 1817), flight response and substrate preference behavioural measurements were taken during critical life periods of early exogenous feeding (∼60 days post fertilization (dpf)) and pre-winter (∼160 dpf). Lake sturgeon were placed in arenas with partial cover and exposed white plastic bottom. Chemical alarm cue (AC) was introduced to predator naïve individuals in the presence or absence of food over the exposed portion of the arena to simulate risk sensitive foraging over diurnal and seasonal periods. The same protocol was run on predator-experienced individuals, which were classically conditioned to predator cue (PC) prior to the trials. Whole-body cortisol measures were also taken to determine the physiological response to predation experience. Results suggest a propensity to forage in spite of predation risk during the naïve ∼60 dpf trials and highlight context-specific anti-predator responses of naïve and experienced lake sturgeon. Elevated basal whole-body cortisol levels and reduced body condition (p < 0.05) were observed with increased predator experience.


2017 ◽  
Vol 284 (1858) ◽  
pp. 20170757 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip D. DeWitt ◽  
Matthew S. Schuler ◽  
Darcy R. Visscher ◽  
Richard P. Thiel

Animal populations are regulated by the combined effects of top-down, bottom-up and abiotic processes. Ecologists have struggled to isolate these mechanisms because their effects on prey behaviour, nutrition, security and fitness are often interrelated. We monitored how forage, non-consumptive effects (NCEs), consumptive predation and climatic conditions influenced the demography and nutritional state of a wild prey population during predator recolonization. Combined measures of nutrition, survival and population growth reveal that predators imposed strong effects on the prey population through interacting non-consumptive and consumptive effects, and forage mechanisms. Predation was directly responsible for adult survival, while declining recruitment was attributed to predation risk-sensitive foraging, manifested in poor female nutrition and juvenile recruitment. Substituting nutritional state into the recruitment model through a shared term reveals that predation risk-sensitive foraging was nearly twice as influential as summer forage conditions. Our findings provide a novel, mechanistic insight into the complex means by which predators and forage conditions affect prey populations, and point to a need for more ecological studies that integrate behaviour, nutrition and demography. This line of inquiry can provide further insight into how NCEs interactively contribute to the dynamics of terrestrial prey populations; particularly, how predation risk-sensitive foraging has the potential to stabilize predator–prey coexistence.


2005 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 231 ◽  
Author(s):  
LN Evans ◽  
MA Elgar ◽  
KA Handasyde

DETECTION and avoidance of predators are the principle strategies employed by prey to evade attack; by scanning their environment, prey individuals can reduce the likelihood of a predator approaching to within striking distance (Elgar 1989; Lima and Dill 1990). However, vigilance is often incompatible with foraging behaviours, and thus animals may be forced to trade-off the risk of predation against acquiring food. Consequently, the quality of a particular resource patch and its associated predation risk may influence the foraging decisions of animals (Werner et al. 1983; Newman and Caraco 1987; Heithaus and Dill 2002). Cover is an important feature of a foraging site because it can provide a hiding place to escape potential predators (Lazarus and Symonds 1992). Thus, animals may prefer foraging sites that are close to cover, or adjust their level of vigilance at different distances from cover in order to compensate for changes in the chance of early detection and escape (Elgar 1989; Lima and Dill 1990; Lima et al. 1985; Kramer and Bonenfant 1997).


1991 ◽  
Vol 41 (5) ◽  
pp. 787-792 ◽  
Author(s):  
John M. McNamara ◽  
Salah Merad ◽  
Alasdair I. Houston

2014 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 1341-1352 ◽  
Author(s):  
Todd M. Freeberg ◽  
Tatjana Krama ◽  
Jolanta Vrublevska ◽  
Indriķis Krams ◽  
Cecilia Kullberg

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document