Habitat complexity dampens selection on prey activity level

Conspecific prey individuals often exhibit persistent differences in behavior (i.e., animal personality) and consequently vary in their susceptibility to predation. How this form of selection varies across environmental contexts is essential to predicting ecological and evolutionary dynamics, yet remains currently unresolved. Here, we use three separate predator–prey systems (sea star–snail, wolf spider–cricket, and jumping spider–cricket) to independently examine how habitat structural complexity influences the selection that predators impose on prey behavioral types. Prior to conducting staged predator–prey interaction encounters, we ran prey individuals through multiple behavioral assays to determine their average activity level. We then allowed individual predators to interact with groups of prey in either open or structurally complex habitats and recorded the number and individual identity of prey that were eaten. Habitat complexity had no effect on overall predation rates in any of the three predator–prey systems. Despite this, we detected a pervasive interaction between habitat structure and individual prey activity level in determining individual prey survival. In open habitats, all predators imposed strong selection on prey behavioral types: sea stars preferentially consumed sedentary snails, while spiders preferentially consumed active crickets. Habitat complexity dampened selection within all three systems, equalizing the predation risk that active and sedentary prey faced. These findings suggest a general effect of habitat complexity that reduces the importance of prey activity level in determining individual predation risk. We reason this occurs because activity level (i.e., movement) is paramount in determining risk within open environments, whereas in complex habitats, other behavioral traits (e.g., escape ability to a refuge) may take precedence.     

Spatial refuge from intraguild predation: implications for prey suppression and trophic cascades

The ability of predators to elicit a trophic cascade with positive impacts on primary productivity may depend on the complexity of the habitat where the players interact. In structurally-simple habitats, trophic interactions among predators, such as intraguild predation, can diminish the cascading effects of a predator community on herbivore suppression and plant biomass. However, complex habitats may provide a spatial refuge for predators from intraguild predation, enhance the collective ability of multiple predator species to limit herbivore populations, and thus increase the overall strength of a trophic cascade on plant productivity. Using the community of terrestrial arthropods inhabiting Atlantic coastal salt marshes, this study examined the impact of predation by an assemblage of predators containing Pardosa wolf spiders, Grammonota web-building spiders, and Tytthus mirid bugs on herbivore populations (Prokelisia planthoppers) and on the biomass of Spartina cordgrass in simple (thatch-free) and complex (thatch-rich) vegetation. We found that complex-structured habitats enhanced planthopper suppression by the predator assemblage because habitats with thatch provided a refuge for predators from intraguild predation including cannibalism. The ultimate result of reduced antagonistic interactions among predator species and increased prey suppression was enhanced conductance of predator effects through the food web to positively impact primary producers. Behavioral observations in the laboratory confirmed that intraguild predation occurred in the simple, thatch-free habitat, and that the encounter and capture rates of intraguild prey by intraguild predators was diminished in the presence of thatch. On the other hand, there was no effect of thatch on the encounter and capture rates of herbivores by predators. The differential impact of thatch on the susceptibility of intraguild and herbivorous prey resulted in enhanced top-down effects in the thatch-rich habitat. Therefore, changes in habitat complexity can enhance trophic cascades by predator communities and positively impact productivity by moderating negative interactions among predators.     

Differences in predator composition alter the direction of structure‐mediated predation risk in macrophyte communities

Structural complexity strongly influences the outcome of predator–prey interactions in benthic marine communities affecting both prey concealment and predator hunting efficacy. How habitat structure interacts with species‐specific differences in predatory style and antipredatory strategies may therefore be critical in determining higher trophic functions. We examined the role of structural complexity in mediating predator–prey interactions across several macrophyte habitats along a gradient of structural complexity in three different bioregions: western Mediterranean Sea (WMS), eastern Indian Ocean (EIO) and northern Gulf of Mexico (NGM). Using sea urchins as model prey, we measured survival rates of small (juveniles) and medium (young adults) size classes in different habitat zones: within the macrophyte habitat, along the edge and in bare sandy spaces. At each site we also measured structural variables and predator abundance. Generalised linear models identified biomass and predatory fish abundance as the main determinants of predation intensity but the efficiency of predation was also influenced by urchin size class. Interestingly though, the direction of structure‐mediated effects on predation risk was markedly different between habitats and bioregions. In WMS and NGM, where predation by roving fish was relatively high, structure served as a critical prey refuge, particularly for juvenile urchins. In contrast, in EIO, where roving fish predation was low, predation was generally higher inside structurally complex environments where sea stars were responsible for much of the predation. Larger prey were generally less affected by predation in all habitats, probably due to the absence of large predators. Overall, our results indicate that, while the structural complexity of habitats is critical in mediating predator–prey interactions, the direction of this mediation is strongly influenced by differences in predator composition. Whether the regional pool of predators is dominated by visual roving species or chemotactic benthic predators may determine if structure dampens or enhances the influence of top–down control in marine macrophyte communities.     

Effects of size structure and habitat complexity on predator–prey interactions

1. A predator's ability to suppress its prey depends on the level of interference among predators. While interference typically decreases with increasing habitat complexity, it often increases with increasing size differences among individuals. However, little is known about how variation in intrinsic factors such as population size structure alters predator–prey interactions and how this intrinsic variation interacts with extrinsic variation. 2. By experimentally varying the level of vegetation cover and the size structure of the predatory damselfly Ischnura posita Hagen, we examined the individual and interactive effects of variation in habitat complexity and predator size structure on prey mortality. 3. Copepod prey survival linearly increased as the I. posita size ratio decreased and differed by up to 31% among different predator size structures. Size classes had an additive effect on prey survival, most likely because intraspecific aggression appeared size‐independent and size classes differed in microhabitat preference: large I. posita spent 14% more time foraging on the floor than small larvae and spent more time in the vegetation with increasing habitat complexity. Despite this difference in microhabitat use among size classes, habitat structure did not influence predation rates or interference among size classes. 4. In general, results suggest that seasonal and spatial variation in the size structure of populations could drive some of the discrepancies in predator‐mediated prey suppression observed in nature, and this variation could exceed the effects of variation in habitat structure.     

Mechanisms of coexistence in diverse herbivore–carnivore assemblages: demographic,temporal and spatial heterogeneities affecting prey vulnerability

Simple models coupling the dynamics of single predators to single prey populations tend to generate oscillatory dynamics of both predator and prey, or extirpation of the prey followed by that of the predator. In reality, such oscillatory dynamics may be counteracted by prey refugia or by opportunities for prey switching by the predator in multi‐prey assemblages. How these mechanisms operate depends on relative prey vulnerability, a factor ignored in simple interactive models. I outline how compositional, temporal, demographic and spatial heterogeneities help explain the contrasting effects of top predators on large herbivore abundance and population dynamics in species‐rich African savanna ecosystems compared with less species‐diverse northern temperate or subarctic ecosystems. Demographically, mortality inflicted by predation depends on the relative size and life history stage of the prey. Because all animals eventually die and are consumed by various carnivores, the additive component of the mortality inflicted is somewhat less than the predation rate. Prey vulnerability varies annually and seasonally, and between day and night. Spatial variation in the risk of predation depends on vegetation cover as well as on the availability of food resources. During times of food shortage, herbivores become prompted to occupy more risky habitats retaining more food. Predator concentrations dependent on the abundance of primary prey species may restrict the occurrence of other potential prey species less resistant to predation. The presence of multiple herbivore species of similar size in African savannas allows the top predator, the lion, to shift its prey selection flexibly dependent on changing prey vulnerability. Hence top–down and bottom–up influences on herbivore populations are intrinsically entangled. Models coupling the population dynamics of predators and prey need to accommodate the changing influences of prey demography, temporal variation in environmental conditions, and spatial variation in the relative vulnerability of alternative prey species to predation. Synthesis While re‐established predators have had major impacts on prey populations in northern temperate regions, multiple large herbivore species typically coexist along with diverse carnivores in African savanna ecosystems. In order to explain these contrasting outcomes, certain functional heterogeneities must be recognised, including relative vulnerability of alternative prey, temporal variation in the risk of predation, demographic differences in susceptibility to predation, and spatial contrasts in exposure to predation. Food shortfalls prompt herbivores to exploit more risky habitats, meaning that top–down and bottom–up influences on prey populations are intrinsically entangled. Models coupling the interactive dynamics of predator and prey populations need to incorporate these varying influences on relative prey vulnerability.     

Habitat requirements of weasels <Emphasis Type="Italic">Mustela nivalis</Emphasis> constrain their impact on prey populations in complex ecosystems of the temperate zone

Differences in habitat use by prey and predator may lead to a shift of occupied niches and affect dynamics of their populations. The weasel Mustela nivalis specializes in hunting rodents, therefore habitat preferences of this predator may have important consequences for the population dynamics of its prey. We investigated habitat selection by weasels in the Bia?owie?a Forest in different seasons at the landscape and local scales, and evaluated possible consequences for the population dynamics of their prey. At the landscape scale, weasels preferred open habitats (both dry and wet) and avoided forest. In open areas they selected habitats with higher prey abundance, except during the low-density phase of the vole cycle, when the distribution of these predators was more uniform. Also in winter, the distribution of weasels at the landscape scale was proportional to available resources. In summer, within open dry and wet habitats, weasels preferred areas characterised by dense vegetation, but avoided poor plant cover. In winter, weasels used wet open areas proportionally to availability of habitats when hunting, but in contrast to summer, they rested only in habitats characterized by a lower water level, which offered better thermal conditions. At the local scale, the abundance of voles was a less important factor affecting the distribution of these predators. Although we were not able to provide direct evidence for the existence of refuges for voles, our results show that they may be located within habitat patches, where availability of dense plant cover and physiological constraints limit the activity of weasels. Our results indicate that in complex ecosystems of the temperate zone, characterized by a mosaic pattern of vegetation types and habitat specific dynamics of rodents, impact of weasels on prey populations might be limited.     

Evaluating the effects of large marine predators on mobile prey behavior across subtropical reef ecosystems

The indirect effect of predators on prey behavior, recruitment, and spatial relationships continues to attract considerable attention. However, top predators like sharks or large, mobile teleosts, which can have substantial top–down effects in ecosystems, are often difficult to study due to their large size and mobility. This has created a knowledge gap in understanding how they affect their prey through nonconsumptive effects. Here, we investigated how different functional groups of predators affected potential prey fish populations across various habitats within Biscayne Bay, FL. Using baited remote underwater videos (BRUVs), we quantified predator abundance and activity as a rough proxy for predation risk and analyzed key prey behaviors across coral reef, sea fan, seagrass, and sandy habitats. Both predator abundance and prey arrival times to the bait were strongly influenced by habitat type, with open homogenous habitats receiving faster arrival times by prey. Other prey behaviors, such as residency and risk‐associated behaviors, were potentially driven by predator interaction. Our data suggest that small predators across functional groups do not have large controlling effects on prey behavior or stress responses over short temporal scales; however, habitats where predators are more unpredictable in their occurrence (i.e., open areas) may trigger risk‐associated behaviors such as avoidance and vigilance. Our data shed new light on the importance of habitat and context for understanding how marine predators may influence prey behaviors in marine ecosystems.     

Revealing the role of predator interference in a predator–prey system with disease in prey population

Predation on a species subjected to an infectious disease can affect both the infection level and the population dynamics. There is an ongoing debate about the act of managing disease in natural populations through predation. Recent theoretical and empirical evidence shows that predation on infected populations can have both positive and negative influences on disease in prey populations. Here, we present a predator–prey system where the prey population is subjected to an infectious disease to explore the impact of predator on disease dynamics. Specifically, we investigate how the interference among predators affects the dynamics and structure of the predator–prey community. We perform a detailed numerical bifurcation analysis and find an unusually large variety of complex dynamics, such as, bistability, torus and chaos, in the presence of predators. We show that, depending on the strength of interference among predators, predators enhance or control disease outbreaks and population persistence. Moreover, the presence of multistable regimes makes the system very sensitive to perturbations and facilitates a number of regime shifts. Since, the habitat structure and the choice of predators deeply influence the interference among predators, thus before applying predators to control disease in prey populations or applying predator control strategy for wildlife management, it is essential to carefully investigate how these predators interact with each other in that specific habitat; otherwise it may lead to ecological disaster.     

Habitat-dependent foraging in a classic predator–prey system: a fable from snowshoe hares

Current research contrasting prey habitat use has documented, with virtual unanimity, habitat differences in predation risk. Relatively few studies have considered, either in theory or in practice, simultaneous patterns in prey density. Linear predator–prey models predict that prey habitat preferences should switch toward the safer habitat with increasing prey and predator densities. The density‐dependent preference can be revealed by regression of prey density in safe habitat versus that in the riskier one (the isodar). But at this scale, the predation risk can be revealed only with simultaneous estimates of the number of predators, or with their experimental removal. Theories of optimal foraging demonstrate that we can measure predation risk by giving‐up densities of resource in foraging patches. The foraging theory cannot yet predict the expected pattern as predator and prey populations covary. Both problems are solved by measuring isodars and giving‐up densities in the same predator–prey system. I applied the two approaches to the classic predator–prey dynamics of snowshoe hares in northwestern Ontario, Canada. Hares occupied regenerating cutovers and adjacent mature‐forest habitat equally, and in a manner consistent with density‐dependent habitat selection. Independent measures of predation risk based on experimental, as well as natural, giving‐up densities agreed generally with the equal preference between habitats revealed by the isodar. There was no apparent difference in predation risk between habitats despite obvious differences in physical structure. Complementary studies contrasting a pair of habitats with more extreme differences confirmed that hares do alter their giving‐up densities when one habitat is clearly superior to another. The results are thereby consistent with theories of adaptive behaviour. But the results also demonstrate, when evaluating differences in habitat, that it is crucial to let the organisms we study define their own habitat preference.     

Implications of a fluctuating fish predator guild on behavior, distribution, and abundance of a shared prey species: the grass shrimp Palaemonetes pugio

In some systems, the identity of a prey species' dominant predator(s) may not be constant over time. In cases in which a prey species exhibits different responses to various predator species, such changes in predator identity may have population-wide consequences. Our goals were to determine (1) whether mortality of and refuge use by the grass shrimp, Palaemonetes pugio, were predator-specific, and (2) how effects of prey size and habitat interacted with predator type. Striped bass (Morone saxatilis) exerted twice as much predation pressure as mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus), although not equally as great on large (female) and small (male) shrimp. Mummichog, which fed preferentially on large shrimp, forced a partitioning of habitat between the two shrimp size classes. In contrast, large and small shrimp occupied similar habitats when subjected to striped bass, which fed on both size classes equally. Refuge use of grass shrimp depended on predator type. In the presence of mummichog, which occupied shallower depths in the water column than striped bass, shrimp stayed deep and close to structural habitat. Striped bass, which were deeper, caused shrimp to move high in the water column away from structural habitat. When both predators were present, shrimp distribution was similar to that when only striped bass were present, striped bass predation rate was enhanced, and overall mortality was higher than with either predator alone. Results suggest that at times when mummichogs are the dominant predators, large (female) shrimp experience higher predation than small (male) shrimp and are physically separated from their potential mates. When striped bass are more abundant, male and female shrimp may share a similar, shallow, less structure-oriented distribution and be subjected to higher mortality. When both predators are present, mortality rates may be higher still. This predator-, size-, and habitat-specificity of grass shrimp behavior suggests significant population and distribution consequences of fluctuating predator guilds and fluctuating cover of structural habitats in the field.     

Heterogeneous landscapes and the role of refuge on the population dynamics of a specialist predator and its prey

How, and where, a prey species survives predation by a specialist predator during low phases of population fluctuations or a cycle, and how the increase phase of prey population is initiated, are much-debated questions in population and theoretical ecology. The persistence of the prey species could be due mainly to habitats that act as refuges from predation and/or due to anti-predatory behaviour of individuals. We present models for the former conjecture in two (and three) habitat systems with a specialist predator and its favoured prey. The model is based on dispersal of prey between habitats with high reproductive output but high risk of predation, and less productive habitats with relatively low risk of predation. We illustrate the predictions of our model using parameters from one of the most intriguing vertebrate predator–prey systems, the multi-annual population cycles of boreal voles and their predators. We suggest that cyclic population dynamics could result from a sequence of extinction and re–colonization events. Field voles (Microtus agrestis), a key vole species in the system, can be hunted to extinction in their preferred meadow habitat, but persist in sub-optimal wet habitats where their main predator, the least weasel (Mustela nivalis nivalis) has a low hunting efficiency. Re–colonization of favourable habitats would occur after the predator population crashes. At the local scale, the model suggests that the periodicity and amplitude of population cycles can be strongly influenced by the relative availability of risky and safe habitats for the prey. Furthermore, factors like intra-guild predation may lead to reduced predation pressure on field voles in sub-optimal habitats, which would act as a refuge for voles during the low phase of their population cycles. Elasticity analysis suggested that our model is quite robust to changes in most parameters but sensitive to changes in the population dynamics of field voles in the optimal grassland habitat, and to the maximum predation rate of weasels.     

Living and dying in a multi‐predator landscape of fear: roe deer are squeezed by contrasting pattern of predation risk imposed by lynx and humans

The theory of predation risk effects predicts behavioral responses in prey when risk of predation is not homogenous in space and time. Prey species are often faced with a tradeoff between food and safety in situations where food availability and predation risk peak in the same habitat type. Determining the optimal strategy becomes more complex if predators with different hunting mode create contrasting landscapes of risk, but this has rarely been documented in vertebrates. Roe deer in southeastern Norway face predation risk from lynx, as well as hunting by humans. These two predators differ greatly in their hunting methods. The predation risk from lynx, an efficient stalk‐and‐ambush predator is expected to be higher in areas with dense understory vegetation, while predation risk from human hunters is expected to be higher where visual sight lines are longer. Based on field observations and airborne LiDAR data from 71 lynx predation sites, 53 human hunting sites, 132 locations from 15 GPS‐marked roe deer, and 36 roe deer pellet locations from a regional survey, we investigated how predation risk was related to terrain attributes and vegetation classes/structure. As predicted, we found that increasing cover resulted in a contrasting lower predation risk from humans and higher predation risk from lynx. Greater terrain ruggedness increased the predation risk from both predators. Hence, multiple predators may create areas of contrasting risk as well as double risk in the same landscape. Our study highlights the complexity of predator–prey relationship in a multiple predator setting. Synthesis In this study of risk effects in a multi‐predator context, LiDAR data were used to quantify cover in the habitat and relate it to vulnerability to predation in a boreal forest. We found that lynx and human hunters superimpose generally contrasting landscapes of fear on a common prey species, but also identified double‐risk zones. Since the benefit of anti‐predator responses depends on the combined risk from all predators, it is necessary to consider complete predator assemblages to understand the potential for and occurrence of risk effects across study systems.     

Piscivore efficiency and refuging prey: the importance of predator search mode

In predator-prey interactions, the efficiency of the predator is dependent on characteristics of both the predator and the prey, as well as the structure of the environment. In a field enclosure experiment, we tested the effects of a prey refuge on predator search mode, predator efficiency and prey behaviour. Replicated enclosures containing young of the year (0+) and 1-year-old (1+) perch were stocked with 3 differentially sized individuals of either of 2 piscivorous species, perch (Perca fluviatilis), pike (Esox lucius) or no piscivorous predators. Each enclosure contained an open predator area with three small vegetation patches, and a vegetated absolute refuge for the prey. We quantified the behaviour of the predators and the prey simultaneously, and at the end of the experiment the growth of the predators and the mortality and habitat use of the prey were estimated. The activity mode of both predator species was stationary. Perch stayed in pairs in the vegetation patches whereas pike remained solitary and occupied the corners of the enclosure. The largest pike individuals stayed closest to the prey refuge whereas the smallest individuals stayed farthest away from the prey refuge, indicating size-dependent interference among pike. Both size classes of prey showed stronger behavioural responses to pike than to perch with respect to refuge use, distance from refuge and distance to the nearest predator. Prey mortality was higher in the presence of pike than in the presence of perch. Predators decreased in body mass in all treatments, and perch showed a relatively stronger decrease in body mass than pike during the experiment. Growth differences of perch and pike, and mortality differences of prey caused by predation, can be explained by predator morphology, predator attack efficiency and social versus interference behaviour of the predators. These considerations suggest that pike are more efficient piscivores around prey refuges such as the littoral zones of lakes, whereas perch have previously been observed to be more efficient in open areas, such as in the pelagic zones of lakes.     

Habitat-mediated survival of newly settled red king crab in the presence of a predatory fish: Role of habitat complexity and heterogeneity

Red king crab (RKC) (Paralithodes camtschaticus) are generally associated with structurally complex habitats during the first 2 years of benthic life. In this first experimental laboratory study with a fish predator, survival of newly settled juvenile RKC was tested in eight different habitat treatments with varying amounts and types of physical structure, open sand, gravel bottom, and habitat islands. Video observations provided insights on habitat-mediated interactions between Pacific halibut predators (Hippoglossus stenolepis) and crab prey. Survival of RKC increased with amount of physical structure and was highest in the most heterogeneous habitat and in habitats characterized by high density patches. Predator activity decreased with increasing amount of structure, and attacks on RKC were correlated with predator activity. Low survival in open sand habitat was associated with both high attack rate and high capture success (captures per attack). Lower levels of capture success did not vary among the habitats containing algae and other complex physical structures, but attack rates declined with increasing amount of structure, and encounter rate (i.e., prey detection and attack) was the primary determinant of mortality. RKC were capable of detecting predators and adjusted their behavior to avoid predation by sheltering in dense microhabitat patches. Successful stock enhancement for greatly reduced populations of RKC in the Gulf of Alaska will depend upon placing seed stock in habitats with abundant protective habitat, and high quality microhabitats may serve as well as continuous cover.     

Foraging habitat determines predator–prey size relationships in marine fishes

Predator–prey size (PPS) relationships are determined by predator behaviour, with the likelihood of prey being eaten dependent on their size relative to that of the consumer. Published PPS relationships for 30 pelagic or benthic marine fish species were analysed using quantile regression to determine how median, lower and upper prey sizes varied with predator size and habitat. Habitat effects on predator foraging activity/mode, morphology, growth and natural mortality are quantified and the effects on PPS relationships explored. Pelagic species are more active, more likely to move by caudal fin propulsion and grow more rapidly but have higher mortality rates than benthic species, where the need for greater manoeuvrability when foraging in more physically complex habitats favours ambush predators using pectoral fin propulsion. Prey size increased with predator size in most species, but pelagic species ate relatively smaller prey than benthic predators. As pelagic predators grew, lower prey size limits changed little, and prey size range increased but median relative prey size declined, whereas the lower limit increased and median relative prey size was constant or increased in benthic species.     

食饵庇护所对斑块环境下Leslie-Gower捕食系统的影响

建立了一个显式含有空间庇护所的两斑块Leslie-Gower捕食者-食饵系统。假设只有食饵种群在斑块间以常数迁移率迁移,且在每个斑块上食饵间的迁移比局部捕食者-食饵相互作用发生的时间尺度要快。利用两个时间尺度,可以构建用来描述所有斑块总的食饵和捕食者密度的综合系统。数学分析表明,在一定条件下,存在唯一的正平衡点,并且此平衡点全局稳定。进一步,捕食者的数量随着食饵庇护所数量增加而降低;在一定条件下,食饵的数量随着食饵庇护所数量增加先增加后降低,在足够强的庇护所强度下,两物种出现灭绝。对比以往研究,利用显式含有和隐含空间庇护所的数学模型所得结论不一致,这意味着在研究庇护所对捕食系统种群动态影响时,空间结构可能起着重要作用。     

Effects of Structural Refuge and Density on Foraging Behaviour and Mortality of Hungry Tadpoles Subject to Predation Risk

Theoretical models of prey behaviour predict that food‐limited prey engage in risk‐prone foraging and thereby succumb to increased mortality from predation. However, predation risk also may be influenced by factors including prey density and structural cover, such that the presumed role of prey hunger on predation risk may be obfuscated in many complex predator–prey systems. Using a tadpole (prey) – dragonfly larva (predator) system, we determined relative risk posed to hungry vs. sated prey when both density and structural cover were varied experimentally. Overall, prey response to perceived predation risk was primarily restricted to increased cover use, and hungry prey did not exhibit risk‐prone foraging. Surprisingly, hungry prey showed lower activity than sated prey when exposed to predation risk, perhaps indicating increased effort in search of refuge or spatial avoidance of predator cues among sated animals. An interaction between hunger level and predation risk treatments indicated that prey state affected sensitivity to perceived risk. We also examined the lethal implications of prey hunger by allowing predators to select directly between hungry and sated prey. Although predators qualitatively favoured hungry prey when density was elevated and structural cover was sparse, the overall low observed variation in mortality risk between hunger treatments suggests that preferential selection of hungry prey was weak. This implies that hunger effects on prey mortality risk may not be readily observed in complex landscapes with additional factors influencing risk. Thus, current starvation‐predation trade‐off theory may need to be broadened to account for other mechanisms through which undernourished prey may cope with predation risk.     

Hypoxic refuges,predator–prey interactions and habitat selection by fishes

Localized hypoxic habitats were created in Delta Marsh, Manitoba, Canada to determine the potential of regions of moderate hypoxia to act as refuges for forage fishes from piscine predators. Minnow traps and giving‐up density (GUD) plates (plexiglas plates covered with trout crumble and fine gravel) were used to assess habitat use and perceived habitat quality for forage fishes, respectively, while passive integrated transponder tags provided data on habitat use by predator species to assess the level of predation risk. Data were collected both before and after a hypoxia manipulation (2–3 mg l^?1 dissolved oxygen, DO) to create a before–after control–effect style experiment. Fathead minnows Pimephales promelas were more abundant and consumed more food from GUD plates in hypoxic bays after the DO manipulation, indicating hypoxic locations were perceived as higher quality, lower‐risk habitats. The frequency of predator visits was not consistently affected. The duration of visits, and therefore the total time spent in these habitats, however, was significantly shorter. These predator data, combined with the prey information, are consistent with the hypothesis that hypoxic regions function as predator refuges. The refuge effect is not the result of predator exclusion, however; instead predators are rendered less capable of foraging and pose less of a threat in hypoxic locations.     

Differential risk effects of wolves on wild versus domestic prey have consequences for conservation

Predators play integral roles in shaping ecosystems through cascading effects to prey and vegetation. Such effects occur when prey species alter their behavior to avoid predators, a phenomenon called the risk effects of predators. Risk effects of wild predators such as wolves are well documented for wild prey, but not for free ranging domestic animals such as cattle despite their importance for ecosystem function and conservation. We compared risk effects of satellite‐collared wolves (n = 16) on habitat selection by global‐positioning‐system‐collared elk (n = 10) and cattle (n = 31). We calculated resource selection functions (RSFs) in periods before, during and after wolf visits in elk home ranges or cattle pastures. The habitat variables tested included: distance to roads and trails, terrain ruggedness, food‐quality and distance to forest. When wolves were present, elk stayed closer to forest cover and selected less for high‐quality‐food habitat. Thus, the risk effects of wolf presence on elk produced a change in the tradeoff between food and cover selection. Cattle responded by avoiding high‐quality‐food habitat and selecting areas closer to roads and trails (where people likely provided security), but these effects manifested only after wolves had left. Artificial selection in cattle may have attenuated natural anti‐predator behaviors. The effects of predators on ecosystems are likely different when mediated through risk effects on domestic compared to wild animals. Furthermore, predator control in response to livestock predation, an important conservation issue, may produce broad ecosystem effects triggered by decrease of an important predator species. Conservation planners should consider these effects where domestic herbivores are dominant species in the ecosystem.     

You can’t run but you can hide: refuge use in frog tadpoles elicits density-dependent predation by dragonfly larvae

The potential role of prey refuges in stabilizing predator–prey interactions is of longstanding interest to ecologists, but mechanisms underlying a sigmoidal predator functional response remain to be fully elucidated. Authors have disagreed on whether the stabilizing effect of prey refuges is driven by prey- versus predator-centric mechanisms, but to date few studies have married predator and prey behavioural observations to distinguish between these possibilities. We used a dragonfly nymph–tadpole system to study the effect of a structural refuge (leaf litter) on the predator’s functional response, and paired this with behavioural observations of both predator and prey. Our study confirmed that hyperbolic (type II) functional responses were characteristic of foraging predators when structural cover was low or absent, whereas the functional response was sigmoidal (type III) when prey were provided with sufficient refuge. Prey activity and refuge use were density independent across cover treatments, thereby eliminating a prey-centric mechanism as being the genesis for density-dependent predation. In contrast, the predator’s pursuit length, capture success, and handling time were altered by the amount of structure implying that observed shifts in density-dependent predation likely were related to predator hunting efficiency. Our study advances current theory by revealing that despite fixed-proportion refuge use by prey, presence of a prey refuge can induce density-dependent predation through its effect on predator hunting strategy. Ultimately, responses of predator foraging decisions in response to changes in prey availability and search efficiency may be more important in producing density-dependent predation than the form of prey refuge use.