Separating effects of spatial location and microhabitat density on perceived predation risk in small mammals

IF 1.1 4区 生物学 Q4 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
K. N. Denny, K. N. Bilodeau, C. A. Dumont, Z. H. Olson
{"title":"Separating effects of spatial location and microhabitat density on perceived predation risk in small mammals","authors":"K. N. Denny,&nbsp;K. N. Bilodeau,&nbsp;C. A. Dumont,&nbsp;Z. H. Olson","doi":"10.1007/s10211-021-00365-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Prey animals must balance the benefits of foraging in a particular area with their risk of predation in that area and often prioritize indirect cues to predation risk over direct cues of predators when making decisions about foraging under the risk of predation. Researchers using giving-up density (GUD) as a metric to assess perceived predation risk have found that it is affected by microhabitat, with certain animals willing to spend more time foraging (i.e., lower GUD) in relatively dense microhabitats and less time foraging (i.e., higher GUD) in relatively open microhabitats. This phenomenon has been attributed to those animals perceiving less predation risk when near or under shelter. However, the measurement has often confounded microhabitat density with distance from shelter in species without conspicuous dens. We measured GUD in foraging small mammals while experimentally manipulating microhabitat density and controlling for spatial location of the forager. Small mammals increased foraging (i.e., decreased GUD) as expected when we increased microhabitat density, but they did so despite those manipulations being randomly permuted spatially over the course of four rounds of data collection. Our results indicate that experimentally controlling for the potentially confounding effect of the forager’s distance to a safe location, such as dens, nests, or other shelters, did not remove the effect of microhabitat density on perceived predation risk. Thus, our results suggest that an animal’s perception of risk is likely mediated by both their location in their home range and the microhabitat at that location. We provide suggestions for further work.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":6879,"journal":{"name":"acta ethologica","volume":"24 2","pages":"79 - 85"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s10211-021-00365-y","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"acta ethologica","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10211-021-00365-y","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Prey animals must balance the benefits of foraging in a particular area with their risk of predation in that area and often prioritize indirect cues to predation risk over direct cues of predators when making decisions about foraging under the risk of predation. Researchers using giving-up density (GUD) as a metric to assess perceived predation risk have found that it is affected by microhabitat, with certain animals willing to spend more time foraging (i.e., lower GUD) in relatively dense microhabitats and less time foraging (i.e., higher GUD) in relatively open microhabitats. This phenomenon has been attributed to those animals perceiving less predation risk when near or under shelter. However, the measurement has often confounded microhabitat density with distance from shelter in species without conspicuous dens. We measured GUD in foraging small mammals while experimentally manipulating microhabitat density and controlling for spatial location of the forager. Small mammals increased foraging (i.e., decreased GUD) as expected when we increased microhabitat density, but they did so despite those manipulations being randomly permuted spatially over the course of four rounds of data collection. Our results indicate that experimentally controlling for the potentially confounding effect of the forager’s distance to a safe location, such as dens, nests, or other shelters, did not remove the effect of microhabitat density on perceived predation risk. Thus, our results suggest that an animal’s perception of risk is likely mediated by both their location in their home range and the microhabitat at that location. We provide suggestions for further work.

Abstract Image

空间位置和微栖息地密度对小型哺乳动物感知捕食风险的分离影响
被捕食的动物必须平衡在特定地区觅食的好处和在该地区被捕食的风险,在决定是否在被捕食的风险下觅食时,往往优先考虑捕食风险的间接线索而不是捕食者的直接线索。研究人员使用放弃密度(GUD)作为评估感知捕食风险的指标,发现它受到微生境的影响,某些动物愿意在相对密集的微生境中花费更多的时间觅食(即较低的GUD),而在相对开放的微生境中花费更少的时间觅食(即较高的GUD)。这一现象归因于那些动物在靠近或躲在避难所时感受到的被捕食风险较小。然而,在没有明显洞穴的物种中,测量经常混淆微栖息地密度和距离庇护所的距离。通过实验控制微生境密度和觅食者的空间位置,测量了觅食小型哺乳动物的GUD。当我们增加微生境密度时,小型哺乳动物的觅食量增加(即GUD降低),这与我们预期的一样,但在四轮数据收集过程中,这些操作在空间上是随机排列的。我们的研究结果表明,通过实验控制觅食者到安全地点(如洞穴、巢穴或其他庇护所)的距离的潜在混淆效应,并不能消除微生境密度对感知捕食风险的影响。因此,我们的研究结果表明,动物对风险的感知可能是由它们在其家园范围内的位置和该位置的微栖息地介导的。并对今后的工作提出建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
acta ethologica
acta ethologica 生物-动物学
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: acta ethologica publishes empirical and theoretical research papers, short communications, commentaries, reviews and book reviews as well as methods papers in the field of ethology and related disciplines, with a strong concentration on the behavior biology of humans and other animals. The journal places special emphasis on studies integrating proximate (mechanisms, development) and ultimate (function, evolution) levels in the analysis of behavior. Aspects of particular interest include: adaptive plasticity of behavior, inter-individual and geographic variations in behavior, mechanisms underlying behavior, evolutionary processes and functions of behavior, and many other topics. acta ethologica is an official journal of ISPA, CRL and the Portuguese Ethological Society (SPE)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信