Do Australian small mammals respond to native and introduced predator odours?

Abstract Coevolution is thought to have led to many small mammal species avoiding the scent marks of their main mammalian predators, as they provide a reliable cue to predation risk. Most support for this hypothesis comes from northern hemisphere predator/prey systems, however, it is unclear whether this avoidance of predator faecal odour occurs in Australia's mammalian fauna, which has evolved in relative isolation from the rest of the world, and is dominated by marsupials rather than placentals. We tested this theory for an Australian system with marsupial and placental predators and prey, that share a long‐term (>1 million years) or short‐term (<150 years) exposure to each other. The predators were the native marsupial tiger quoll Dasyurus maculatus and the introduced placental red fox Vulpes vulpes. The potential prey were three native rodent species, the bush rat Rattus fuscipes, the swamp rat Rattus lutreolus, the eastern chestnut mouse Pseudomys gracilicaudatus, and the marsupial brown antechinus Antechinus stuartii. Small mammals were captured in Elliott traps with 1/3 of traps treated with fox faeces, 1/3 treated with quoll faeces and the remainder left untreated. The native rodent species all showed avoidance of both tiger quoll and red fox odours whereas the marsupial antechinus showed no responses to either odour. Either predator odour avoidance has not evolved in this marsupial or their reaction to predator odours may be exhibited in ways which are not recognizable through trapping. The avoidance by the rodents of fox odour as well as quoll odour indicates this response may either be due to common components in fox and quoll odour, or it may be a recently evolved response.     

Within-colony feeding selectivity by a corallivorous reef fish: foraging to maximize reward?

Foraging theory predicts that individuals should choose a prey that maximizes energy rewards relative to the energy expended to access, capture, and consume the prey. However, the relative roles of differences in the nutritive value of foods and costs associated with differences in prey accessibility are not always clear. Coral‐feeding fishes are known to be highly selective feeders on particular coral genera or species and even different parts of individual coral colonies. The absence of strong correlations between the nutritional value of corals and prey preferences suggests other factors such as polyp accessibility may be important. Here, we investigated within‐colony feeding selectivity by the corallivorous filefish, Oxymonacanthus longirostris, and if prey accessibility determines foraging patterns. After confirming that this fish primarily feeds on coral polyps, we examined whether fish show a preference for different parts of a common branching coral, Acropora nobilis, both in the field and in the laboratory experiments with simulated corals. We then experimentally tested whether nonuniform patterns of feeding on preferred coral species reflect structural differences between polyps. We found that O. longirostris exhibits nonuniform patterns of foraging in the field, selectively feeding midway along branches. On simulated corals, fish replicated this pattern when food accessibility was equal along the branch. However, when food access varied, fish consistently modified their foraging behavior, preferring to feed where food was most accessible. When foraging patterns were compared with coral morphology, fish preferred larger polyps and less skeletal protection. Our results highlight that patterns of interspecific and intraspecific selectivity can reflect coral morphology, with fish preferring corals or parts of coral colonies with structural characteristics that increase prey accessibility.     

Do native predators benefit from non‐native prey?

Despite knowledge on invasive species’ predatory effects, we know little of their influence as prey. Non‐native prey should have a neutral to positive effect on native predators by supplementing the prey base. However, if non‐native prey displace native prey, then an invader's net influence should depend on both its abundance and value relative to native prey. We conducted a meta‐analysis to quantify the effect of non‐native prey on native predator populations. Relative to native prey, non‐native prey similarly or negatively affect native predators, but only when studies employed a substitutive design that examined the effects of each prey species in isolation from other prey. When native predators had access to non‐native and native prey simultaneously, predator abundance increased significantly relative to pre‐invasion abundance. Although non‐native prey may have a lower per capita value than native prey, they seem to benefit native predators by serving as a supplemental prey resource.     

Is coarse woody debris in lakes a refuge or a trap for benthic invertebrates exposed to fish predation?

1. Coarse woody debris (CWD) in the littoral zone of lakes constitutes a preferred habitat for macroinvertebrates and fish. CWD differs in the surface complexity depending on its decay status. Therefore, CWD may provide distinct types of shelters and thus modify the structure of the macroinvertebrate community as well as its susceptibility to fish predation.
2. We ran an enclosure experiment in a lake littoral zone to test the effect of surface complexity of CWD on the interactions between the predator, Eurasian perch (Perca fluviatilis) and its potential macroinvertebrate prey. We deployed 10 enclosures containing fresh wood with a smooth surface and 10 enclosures containing decayed wood with a more complex, rough surface and allowed colonisation by macroinvertebrates. Five enclosures of each type were then stocked by perch and exposed to fish predation.
3. The abundance and biomass of macroinvertebrates were significantly higher on decayed wood with greater surface complexity than on fresh wood; however, the type of CWD did not strongly influence the taxonomic composition and diversity of invertebrates.
4. The direct effect of perch predation on the macroinvertebrate community was weak. Perch reduced only the abundance of adult Dikerogammarus villosus, while other potential prey, such as chironomids, was more abundant in the presence of the fish. The impact of perch consumption of these larvae was probably obscured by interspecific interactions among chironomids and D. villosus, which were impaired in the fish enclosures.
5. We found no clear evidence that the influence of perch on macroinvertebrates was mediated by the complexity of the wood surface. However, fish diet analysis showed that on decayed wood, perch preferentially consumed chironomids, and consumption of D. villosus was much lower, while on fresh wood, the preferential consumption of chironomids decreased with increasing consumption of gammarids. This suggests that such differences in fish diet could be an effect of complex interactions between wood microstructure, prey density and its ability to find refuge in CWD.
6. The effect of CWD microstructure on predator–prey interactions was visible with respect to interspecific relationships between chironomids and gammarids, which on more complex decayed wood were moderated in the absence of perch.