何时,何地,以及如何配对猎物的反捕食者行为对自然和人为死亡的风险。

IF 3.4 1区 生物学 Q2 ECOLOGY
Michael E Egan, Abigail M Weber, Nicole Gorman, Michael W Eichholz, Daniel Skinner, Peter E Schlichting, Guillaume Bastille-Rousseau
{"title":"何时,何地,以及如何配对猎物的反捕食者行为对自然和人为死亡的风险。","authors":"Michael E Egan, Abigail M Weber, Nicole Gorman, Michael W Eichholz, Daniel Skinner, Peter E Schlichting, Guillaume Bastille-Rousseau","doi":"10.1186/s40462-025-00576-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Behavioral responses of prey to predation risk have ecological impacts that can be as great as direct mortality. Risk response involves either behavioral changes or spatial avoidance, but it is not clear how prey decide between these strategies. Theory often suggests that prey pair responses to risks based on the hunting mode of the prey (hunting mode hypothesis), but prey may ignore hunting mode to prioritize responding to the most lethal predators (lethality hypothesis). Furthermore, prey may respond to the spatial distribution of these risks (risky places hypothesis) or respond only during the periods of highest risk (risky times hypothesis).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To test these hypotheses, we evaluated the behavioral responses of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) to risks from two natural mesopredators and human sources of mortality. Specifically, we determined, for each source of risk, whether deer responded with behavioral state changes or spatial avoidance and whether this behavior changed with time (diurnally and annually). We collared and tracked 40 female and 29 male deer. To determine the response of deer to risk, we collected data on the distribution of coyotes (Canis latrans), bobcats (Lynx rufus), human modification, hunters, and roads. We used hidden Markov models to determine whether each covariate impacted the probability of transitioning between behavioral states and selection functions to determine whether deer spatially avoided each covariate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Generally, deer changed behavioral state in response to both mesopredators but avoided human modification. In response to mesopredators, deer consistently shifted to slower movement behavioral states. Spatial responses to human modification varied depending on the time of day. During daylight hours, deer selected for human modification, but during the crepuscular and nighttime period, deer avoided human modification.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Space use was most strongly related to more lethal humans, providing support for the lethality hypothesis. Despite prioritizing humans, mesopredators impacted behavioral state, suggesting that mesopredators still have important impacts on prey behavior. Finally, temporal patterns of avoidance align with other studies that indicate avoidance of predators is time-dependent, but further highlight the complex push-pull relationship of human modified areas on wildlife.</p>","PeriodicalId":54288,"journal":{"name":"Movement Ecology","volume":"13 1","pages":"50"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12255098/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"When, where, and how prey pair antipredator behaviors to natural and anthropogenic mortality risks.\",\"authors\":\"Michael E Egan, Abigail M Weber, Nicole Gorman, Michael W Eichholz, Daniel Skinner, Peter E Schlichting, Guillaume Bastille-Rousseau\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40462-025-00576-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Behavioral responses of prey to predation risk have ecological impacts that can be as great as direct mortality. Risk response involves either behavioral changes or spatial avoidance, but it is not clear how prey decide between these strategies. Theory often suggests that prey pair responses to risks based on the hunting mode of the prey (hunting mode hypothesis), but prey may ignore hunting mode to prioritize responding to the most lethal predators (lethality hypothesis). Furthermore, prey may respond to the spatial distribution of these risks (risky places hypothesis) or respond only during the periods of highest risk (risky times hypothesis).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To test these hypotheses, we evaluated the behavioral responses of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) to risks from two natural mesopredators and human sources of mortality. Specifically, we determined, for each source of risk, whether deer responded with behavioral state changes or spatial avoidance and whether this behavior changed with time (diurnally and annually). We collared and tracked 40 female and 29 male deer. To determine the response of deer to risk, we collected data on the distribution of coyotes (Canis latrans), bobcats (Lynx rufus), human modification, hunters, and roads. We used hidden Markov models to determine whether each covariate impacted the probability of transitioning between behavioral states and selection functions to determine whether deer spatially avoided each covariate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Generally, deer changed behavioral state in response to both mesopredators but avoided human modification. In response to mesopredators, deer consistently shifted to slower movement behavioral states. Spatial responses to human modification varied depending on the time of day. During daylight hours, deer selected for human modification, but during the crepuscular and nighttime period, deer avoided human modification.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Space use was most strongly related to more lethal humans, providing support for the lethality hypothesis. Despite prioritizing humans, mesopredators impacted behavioral state, suggesting that mesopredators still have important impacts on prey behavior. Finally, temporal patterns of avoidance align with other studies that indicate avoidance of predators is time-dependent, but further highlight the complex push-pull relationship of human modified areas on wildlife.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54288,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Movement Ecology\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"50\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12255098/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Movement Ecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40462-025-00576-z\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Movement Ecology","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40462-025-00576-z","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:猎物对捕食风险的行为反应具有与直接死亡率一样大的生态影响。风险反应包括行为改变或空间回避,但猎物如何在这些策略之间做出决定尚不清楚。理论通常认为,猎物对风险的反应基于猎物的狩猎模式(狩猎模式假说),但猎物可能忽略狩猎模式,优先响应最致命的捕食者(致命性假说)。此外,猎物可能会对这些风险的空间分布做出反应(危险地点假说),或者只在风险最高的时期做出反应(危险时间假说)。方法:为了验证这些假设,我们评估了白尾鹿(Odocoileus virginianus)对两种自然中捕食者和人类死亡来源的行为反应。具体来说,我们确定,对于每个风险来源,鹿是否以行为状态变化或空间回避做出反应,以及这种行为是否随时间(每日和每年)而变化。我们给40头母鹿和29头公鹿戴上项圈并追踪了它们。为了确定鹿对风险的反应,我们收集了土狼(Canis latranans)、山猫(Lynx rufus)、人类改造、猎人和道路的分布数据。我们使用隐马尔可夫模型来确定每个协变量是否影响行为状态和选择函数之间转换的概率,以确定鹿是否在空间上回避每个协变量。结果:一般情况下,鹿对这两种中掠食者的行为状态都有改变,但避免了人类的改变。为了应对中掠食者,鹿一直转向缓慢运动的行为状态。对人类活动的空间反应因时间的不同而不同。在白天,鹿选择人类改造,但在黄昏和夜间,鹿避免人类改造。结论:空间使用与更致命的人类关系最为密切,为致命假设提供了支持。尽管优先考虑人类,但中掠食者影响行为状态,这表明中掠食者仍然对猎物行为有重要影响。最后,回避的时间模式与其他研究一致,表明回避捕食者是时间依赖性的,但进一步强调了人类改造区域对野生动物的复杂推拉关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
When, where, and how prey pair antipredator behaviors to natural and anthropogenic mortality risks.

Background: Behavioral responses of prey to predation risk have ecological impacts that can be as great as direct mortality. Risk response involves either behavioral changes or spatial avoidance, but it is not clear how prey decide between these strategies. Theory often suggests that prey pair responses to risks based on the hunting mode of the prey (hunting mode hypothesis), but prey may ignore hunting mode to prioritize responding to the most lethal predators (lethality hypothesis). Furthermore, prey may respond to the spatial distribution of these risks (risky places hypothesis) or respond only during the periods of highest risk (risky times hypothesis).

Methods: To test these hypotheses, we evaluated the behavioral responses of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) to risks from two natural mesopredators and human sources of mortality. Specifically, we determined, for each source of risk, whether deer responded with behavioral state changes or spatial avoidance and whether this behavior changed with time (diurnally and annually). We collared and tracked 40 female and 29 male deer. To determine the response of deer to risk, we collected data on the distribution of coyotes (Canis latrans), bobcats (Lynx rufus), human modification, hunters, and roads. We used hidden Markov models to determine whether each covariate impacted the probability of transitioning between behavioral states and selection functions to determine whether deer spatially avoided each covariate.

Results: Generally, deer changed behavioral state in response to both mesopredators but avoided human modification. In response to mesopredators, deer consistently shifted to slower movement behavioral states. Spatial responses to human modification varied depending on the time of day. During daylight hours, deer selected for human modification, but during the crepuscular and nighttime period, deer avoided human modification.

Conclusions: Space use was most strongly related to more lethal humans, providing support for the lethality hypothesis. Despite prioritizing humans, mesopredators impacted behavioral state, suggesting that mesopredators still have important impacts on prey behavior. Finally, temporal patterns of avoidance align with other studies that indicate avoidance of predators is time-dependent, but further highlight the complex push-pull relationship of human modified areas on wildlife.

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
Movement Ecology
Movement Ecology Agricultural and Biological Sciences-Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
4.90%
发文量
47
审稿时长
23 weeks
期刊介绍: Movement Ecology is an open-access interdisciplinary journal publishing novel insights from empirical and theoretical approaches into the ecology of movement of the whole organism - either animals, plants or microorganisms - as the central theme. We welcome manuscripts on any taxa and any movement phenomena (e.g. foraging, dispersal and seasonal migration) addressing important research questions on the patterns, mechanisms, causes and consequences of organismal movement. Manuscripts will be rigorously peer-reviewed to ensure novelty and high quality.
×
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