在多掠食者、人类影响的景观中寻找食腐动物的风险和回报

IF 4.3 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ECOLOGY
Ecology Pub Date : 2025-05-08 DOI:10.1002/ecy.70090
Calum X. Cunningham, Rebecca Windell, Lauren C. Satterfield, Aaron J. Wirsing, Thomas M. Newsome, Taylor R. Ganz, Laura R. Prugh
{"title":"在多掠食者、人类影响的景观中寻找食腐动物的风险和回报","authors":"Calum X. Cunningham,&nbsp;Rebecca Windell,&nbsp;Lauren C. Satterfield,&nbsp;Aaron J. Wirsing,&nbsp;Thomas M. Newsome,&nbsp;Taylor R. Ganz,&nbsp;Laura R. Prugh","doi":"10.1002/ecy.70090","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Large carnivores can influence smaller scavengers through both positive and negative interactions (e.g., carrion provisioning and intraguild killing) and ultimately shape scavenging efficiency. However, we know little about this trade-off in anthropogenic landscapes where humans kill carnivores and provide carrion subsidies. In the context of wolf (<i>Canis lupus</i>) recolonization of human-impacted landscapes in Washington, USA, we investigated how sources of ungulate mortality (wolves, cougars [<i>Puma concolor</i>], and vehicles) shape scavenging efficiency, community-wide carcass visitations, and the strategies used by scavengers to navigate risk–reward trade-offs. Cougar and wolf kills mostly occurred in areas with low-to-moderate human influence, whereas roadkill typically occurred in areas with high human impact. Wolves consumed their kills most rapidly (median &lt;4.7 days), providing fewer scavenging opportunities than cougar- and vehicle-killed ungulates, which persisted longer (median = 8.9 and 12 days, respectively). Roadkill primarily attracted avian scavengers, whereas mammalian scavengers used roadkill to a lesser degree and did so by shifting to more nocturnal foraging. The absence in winter of turkey vultures (<i>Cathartes aura</i>) and black bears (<i>Ursus americanus</i>), which are obligate and apex scavengers, respectively, coincided with a seasonal increase in scavenging by most other species. The two mammalian mesocarnivores exhibited divergent strategies: Coyotes (<i>Canis latrans</i>) frequently scavenged but usually for short durations and with heightened vigilance at predator kills, whereas bobcats (<i>Lynx rufus</i>) visited carcasses less frequently but fed for longer durations and displayed low vigilance while scavenging. These results suggest a hierarchical decision-making process whereby scavengers first choose whether to forage at a carcass before fine-tuning foraging duration, using temporal refugia, or increasing vigilance. Predator recovery in human-dominated landscapes therefore adds complexity to the spatiotemporal landscape of risks and rewards, and outcomes for scavengers will likely depend on their propensity to scavenge and vulnerability to humans and large predators.</p>","PeriodicalId":11484,"journal":{"name":"Ecology","volume":"106 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ecy.70090","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Navigating the risks and rewards of scavenging in multipredator, human-impacted landscapes\",\"authors\":\"Calum X. Cunningham,&nbsp;Rebecca Windell,&nbsp;Lauren C. Satterfield,&nbsp;Aaron J. Wirsing,&nbsp;Thomas M. Newsome,&nbsp;Taylor R. Ganz,&nbsp;Laura R. Prugh\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ecy.70090\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Large carnivores can influence smaller scavengers through both positive and negative interactions (e.g., carrion provisioning and intraguild killing) and ultimately shape scavenging efficiency. However, we know little about this trade-off in anthropogenic landscapes where humans kill carnivores and provide carrion subsidies. In the context of wolf (<i>Canis lupus</i>) recolonization of human-impacted landscapes in Washington, USA, we investigated how sources of ungulate mortality (wolves, cougars [<i>Puma concolor</i>], and vehicles) shape scavenging efficiency, community-wide carcass visitations, and the strategies used by scavengers to navigate risk–reward trade-offs. Cougar and wolf kills mostly occurred in areas with low-to-moderate human influence, whereas roadkill typically occurred in areas with high human impact. Wolves consumed their kills most rapidly (median &lt;4.7 days), providing fewer scavenging opportunities than cougar- and vehicle-killed ungulates, which persisted longer (median = 8.9 and 12 days, respectively). Roadkill primarily attracted avian scavengers, whereas mammalian scavengers used roadkill to a lesser degree and did so by shifting to more nocturnal foraging. The absence in winter of turkey vultures (<i>Cathartes aura</i>) and black bears (<i>Ursus americanus</i>), which are obligate and apex scavengers, respectively, coincided with a seasonal increase in scavenging by most other species. The two mammalian mesocarnivores exhibited divergent strategies: Coyotes (<i>Canis latrans</i>) frequently scavenged but usually for short durations and with heightened vigilance at predator kills, whereas bobcats (<i>Lynx rufus</i>) visited carcasses less frequently but fed for longer durations and displayed low vigilance while scavenging. These results suggest a hierarchical decision-making process whereby scavengers first choose whether to forage at a carcass before fine-tuning foraging duration, using temporal refugia, or increasing vigilance. Predator recovery in human-dominated landscapes therefore adds complexity to the spatiotemporal landscape of risks and rewards, and outcomes for scavengers will likely depend on their propensity to scavenge and vulnerability to humans and large predators.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11484,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ecology\",\"volume\":\"106 5\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ecy.70090\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ecy.70090\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecology","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ecy.70090","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

大型食肉动物可以通过积极和消极的相互作用影响较小的食腐动物(例如,腐肉供应和野生动物内部杀戮),并最终影响食腐效率。然而,在人类捕杀食肉动物并提供腐肉补贴的人为景观中,我们对这种权衡知之甚少。在美国华盛顿人类影响景观中狼(Canis lupus)重新定居的背景下,我们调查了有蹄类动物(狼、美洲狮和交通工具)的死亡来源如何影响食腐动物的清理效率、社区范围内的屠体访问,以及食腐动物在风险-回报权衡中使用的策略。美洲狮和狼的死亡大多发生在人类影响低至中等程度的地区,而道路死亡通常发生在人类影响高的地区。狼消耗猎物的速度最快(平均4.7天),提供的食腐机会比被美洲狮和车辆杀死的有蹄类动物要少,后者持续时间更长(平均8.9天和12天)。道路上的猎物主要吸引鸟类食腐动物,而哺乳动物食腐动物对道路上的猎物的利用程度较低,并且转向更多的夜间觅食。火鸡秃鹫(Cathartes aura)和黑熊(Ursus americanus)分别是专性食腐动物和顶端食腐动物,它们在冬季的消失与大多数其他物种的季节性食腐增加相吻合。这两种中食性哺乳动物表现出不同的策略:土狼(Canis latrans)经常食腐,但通常持续时间短,对捕食者的猎物高度警惕,而山猫(Lynx rufus)访问尸体的频率较低,但进食时间较长,在食腐时表现出较低的警惕。这些结果表明了一个分层决策过程,即食腐动物首先选择是否在胴体上觅食,然后再微调觅食时间,使用时间避难或提高警惕。因此,在人类主导的景观中,捕食者的恢复增加了风险和回报的时空景观的复杂性,食腐动物的结果可能取决于它们的食腐倾向和对人类和大型捕食者的脆弱性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Navigating the risks and rewards of scavenging in multipredator, human-impacted landscapes

Navigating the risks and rewards of scavenging in multipredator, human-impacted landscapes

Large carnivores can influence smaller scavengers through both positive and negative interactions (e.g., carrion provisioning and intraguild killing) and ultimately shape scavenging efficiency. However, we know little about this trade-off in anthropogenic landscapes where humans kill carnivores and provide carrion subsidies. In the context of wolf (Canis lupus) recolonization of human-impacted landscapes in Washington, USA, we investigated how sources of ungulate mortality (wolves, cougars [Puma concolor], and vehicles) shape scavenging efficiency, community-wide carcass visitations, and the strategies used by scavengers to navigate risk–reward trade-offs. Cougar and wolf kills mostly occurred in areas with low-to-moderate human influence, whereas roadkill typically occurred in areas with high human impact. Wolves consumed their kills most rapidly (median <4.7 days), providing fewer scavenging opportunities than cougar- and vehicle-killed ungulates, which persisted longer (median = 8.9 and 12 days, respectively). Roadkill primarily attracted avian scavengers, whereas mammalian scavengers used roadkill to a lesser degree and did so by shifting to more nocturnal foraging. The absence in winter of turkey vultures (Cathartes aura) and black bears (Ursus americanus), which are obligate and apex scavengers, respectively, coincided with a seasonal increase in scavenging by most other species. The two mammalian mesocarnivores exhibited divergent strategies: Coyotes (Canis latrans) frequently scavenged but usually for short durations and with heightened vigilance at predator kills, whereas bobcats (Lynx rufus) visited carcasses less frequently but fed for longer durations and displayed low vigilance while scavenging. These results suggest a hierarchical decision-making process whereby scavengers first choose whether to forage at a carcass before fine-tuning foraging duration, using temporal refugia, or increasing vigilance. Predator recovery in human-dominated landscapes therefore adds complexity to the spatiotemporal landscape of risks and rewards, and outcomes for scavengers will likely depend on their propensity to scavenge and vulnerability to humans and large predators.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ecology
Ecology 环境科学-生态学
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
2.10%
发文量
332
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Ecology publishes articles that report on the basic elements of ecological research. Emphasis is placed on concise, clear articles documenting important ecological phenomena. The journal publishes a broad array of research that includes a rapidly expanding envelope of subject matter, techniques, approaches, and concepts: paleoecology through present-day phenomena; evolutionary, population, physiological, community, and ecosystem ecology, as well as biogeochemistry; inclusive of descriptive, comparative, experimental, mathematical, statistical, and interdisciplinary approaches.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信