European Roe Deer Increase Vigilance When Faced with Immediate Predation Risk by Eurasian Lynx

Prey animals must balance antipredatory behaviour with foraging behaviour. According to the risk allocation hypothesis, prey increase antipredatory behaviour and reduce foraging activity during pulses of high risk, but with continuous risk, other activities must continue and antipredatory behaviour decreases despite the risk. We studied the impact of lynx presence on the vigilance behaviour of wild roe deer under conditions of (i) a pulsed elevated risk by experimentally spreading lynx urine as an olfactory cue, and (ii) continuous risk by comparing an area where lynx was eradicated 160 years ago to an area where lynx has been re‐introduced 30 years ago. Roe deer were extremely vigilant in response to the predator olfactory cue; however, roe deer vigilance did not differ measurably among areas with or without potential lynx presence. Deer were more vigilant before sunset than during the night at both study areas, probably due to long‐term adaptation of roe deer to human hunting during daytime. Vigilance decreased from August to September even though activity of lynx increases in autumn, which may be a result either of increased foraging due to decrease in food quality in autumn, or of changes in social organization of the deer. Our results suggested that the degree of vigilance depends on environmental cues. We found that roe deer respond to lynx urine despite a long absence of lynx in the ecosystem. Our results support the risk allocation hypothesis for responses to pulses of high risk but not for responses to continuous elevated levels of risk.     

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.     

Hunting‐mediated predator facilitation and superadditive mortality in a European ungulate

Predator‐prey theory predicts that in the presence of multiple types of predators using a common prey, predator facilitation may result as a consequence of contrasting prey defense mechanisms, where reducing the risk from one predator increases the risk from the other. While predator facilitation is well established in natural predator‐prey systems, little attention has been paid to situations where human hunters compete with natural predators for the same prey. Here, we investigate hunting‐mediated predator facilitation in a hunter‐predator‐prey system. We found that hunter avoidance by roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) exposed them to increase predation risk by Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx). Lynx responded by increasing their activity and predation on deer, providing evidence that superadditive hunting mortality may be occurring through predator facilitation. Our results reveal a new pathway through which human hunters, in their role as top predators, may affect species interactions at lower trophic levels and thus drive ecosystem processes.     

Seeing a Ghost? Vigilance and Its Drivers in a Predator‐free World

Vigilance is a key to the early detection of predators, but may be costly if it impairs foraging efficiency. Hence, we would expect vigilance to be suppressed and/or counter‐selected in predator‐free environments, although this might depend on the environmental drivers influencing perceived predation risk. We studied vigilance in two populations of Sitka black‐tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus sitkensis) on Haida Gwaii (Canada) which have not been exposed to predators since they colonized the study islands approx. 60 yr ago. In this context, anti‐predator behavior should not have any obvious current benefit. Moreover, its maintenance should be particularly costly in our study populations because these deer have depleted their food resources and, thus, anti‐predator behaviors should interfere with time spent searching for scarce resources. We used bait stations equipped with camera traps to assess vigilance under standardized feeding conditions. We expected to observe lower vigilance levels than those observed elsewhere in locations with predators. We investigated how vigilance varied in relation to the amount of bait, the level of visibility, and between day and night. During the day, deer spent, on average, 14% of their time in overt vigilance during foraging bouts, a level similar to, although in the lower range of, values reported at sites where predators are present. Levels of vigilance were lower at night, and decreased with increasing visibility, but not during the day. Deer were less vigilant when bait availability was high, but only when visibility was also high. We discuss why the maintenance of vigilance is here best explained by the ghosts of predators past, and how, at the temporal scale of a few generations, the ecological factors driving vigilance levels might override the absence of significant risk from large predators.     

The Effect of Simulated African Wild Dog Presence on Anti‐predator Behaviour of Kudu and Impala

In this study, we examined the behavioural, temporal and spatial effects of simulated African wild dog (Lycaon pictus) presence on its two main prey species: kudu (Tragelaphus strepsiceros) and impala (Aepyceros melampus). We spread African wild dog faeces around waterholes and played African wild dog sounds at different intervals to mimic immediate and non‐immediate predation pressure. We looked at anti‐predator behaviour at both a herd and individual level and distinguished between high‐quality (detracts from all other activities), high‐cost vigilance and low‐quality (used to monitor the surrounding in spare time), low‐cost vigilance to determine costs involved. We found that simulated African wild dog presence had little effect on anti‐predator behaviour of their free‐ranging prey. Only when immediate predation risk was mimicked did kudu invest in (additional) high‐quality vigilance, whereas impala showed no response. Regardless of direct cues of African wild dog presence, behavioural adjustments to reduce predation risk were primarily based on environmental factors such as time of the day and broad‐scale habitat structure. Predators have been shown to utilize waterholes to hunt, and prey species are therefore likely to maximize anti‐predator behaviour in this high‐risk environment based on environmental variables affecting predation risk, the main predator within the system, and water requirements, leaving little flexibility to respond to (simulated) African wild dog presence.     

Dying from the lesser of three evils: facilitation and non‐consumptive effects emerge in a model with multiple predators

Prey modify their behaviour to avoid predation, but dilemmas arise when predators vary in hunting style. Behaviours that successfully evade one predator sometimes facilitate exposure to another predator, forcing the prey to choose the lesser of two evils. In such cases, we need to quantify behavioural strategies in a mix of predators. We model optimal behaviour of Atlantic cod Gadus morhua larvae in a water column, and find the minimal vulnerability from three common predator groups with different hunting modes; 1) ambush predators that sit‐and‐wait for approaching fish larvae; 2) cruising invertebrates that eat larvae in their path; and 3) fish which are visually hunting predators. We use a state‐dependent model to find optimal behaviours (vertical position and swimming speed over a diel light cycle) under any given exposure to the three distinct modes of predation. We then vary abundance of each predator and quantify direct and indirect effects of predation. The nature and strength of direct and indirect effects varied with predator type and abundance. Larvae escaped about half the mortality from fish by swimming deeper to avoid light, but their activity level and cumulative predation from ambush predators increased. When ambush invertebrates dominated, it was optimal to be less active but in more lit habitats, and predation from fish increased. Against cruising predators, there was no remedy. In all cases, the shift in behaviour allowed growth to remain almost the same, while total predation were cut by one third. In early life stages with high and size‐dependent mortality rates, growth rate can be a poor measure of the importance of behavioural strategies.     

Costs and Benefits of Sociality Differ Between Female Guanacos Living in Contrasting Ecological Conditions

According to current theory, anti‐predator benefits promote group formation in open‐dwelling ungulates. An inverse relationship between vigilance effort and group size has been documented frequently and thought to reflect the consequent decrease in perceived predation risk as group size increases. In contrast, competition costs are supposed to set the upper limit to the number of individuals that can forage together. As anti‐predator behavior is no longer functional in the absence of predation and competition costs might be affected by resource distribution, the net benefit of aggregation will depend on the particular combination of predation risk and habitat structure experienced by the individual. To test this hypothesis, group‐size effects on female time allocation and within‐group aggression rate were compared between two guanaco populations exposed to contrasting levels of puma predation. Habitat structure within both sites consisted of mosaics of shrublands and grasslands, and group‐size effects were also compared between these habitat types. Females under predation risk showed a strong reduction in vigilance as the number of adults in the group increased, whereas females from the predator‐free population showed overall low levels of vigilance, regardless of group size. These results emphasize the anti‐predator significance of the group‐size effect on female vigilance, as well as guanaco plasticity to adjust time allocation to local conditions. On the other hand, within‐group aggression rate increased with the number of adults in the group. Aggression rate was almost null within groups located in grasslands but was significantly higher in shrublands, regardless of predation risk, suggesting that the more heterogeneous distribution of shrubs increases the interference competition level. These results strengthen the notion of predation pressure and habitat structure as major determinants of the balance between costs and benefits of group living, and highlight the potential of individual behavioral patterns to make qualitative predictions about group‐size variation within territorial ungulates.     

Temporal variation in habitat selection breaks the catch‐22 of spatially contrasting predation risk from multiple predators

Predator avoidance depends on prey being able to discern how risk varies in space and time, but this is made considerably more complicated if risk is simultaneously present from multiple predators. This is the situation for an increasing number of mammalian prey species, as large carnivores recover or are reintroduced in ecosystems on several continents. Roe deer Capreolus capreolus in southern Norway illustrate a case in which prey face two predators with contrasting patterns of predation risk. They face a catch‐22 situation: spatially avoiding the risk from one predator (lynx Lynx lynx in dense habitat) implies exposure to the other (hunters in open habitat). Using GPS‐data from 29 roe deer, we tested for daily and seasonal variation in roe deer selection for habitat with respect to the habitats’ year‐round average risk level. Generally, roe deer altered their habitat selection between night and day in a pattern consistent with being able to avoid predicted risk from the nocturnal lynx during night and predicted risk from human hunters during day. However, seasonal variation in habitat selection only partially corresponded with the predicted seasonal variation in risk. Whereas roe deer avoided areas with high risk from hunters more strongly during the hunting season than in other seasons, there was a lack of selection towards areas and time periods lowering the risk of lynx predation during winter. It seems likely that the risk of starvation and thermal stress constrain roe deer habitat selection during this energetically challenging season with cold temperatures, snow cover and limited natural forage. The habitat selection pattern of roe deer fits thus only partly with the two contrasting risk gradients they face. Adjusting risk‐avoidance behavior temporally can be an adaptive response in the case of several predators whose predation patterns differ in space and time.     

Life cycle period and activity of prey influence their susceptibility to predators

In a multi‐prey system, predators kill different kinds of prey according to their availability, where “availability” is a function of prey abundance and vulnerability (e.g. anti‐predator behavior). We hypothesized that prey availability changes seasonally, for instance because reproduction leads to a higher abundance of young in spring and summer or because changes in behavior such as during the mating season makes the prey periodically more vulnerable. We tested this hypothesis in a simple predator‐prey system in the Jura Mountains of Switzerland and France, where a single large mammalian predator, the Eurasian lynx, preys upon two ungulate species, the roe deer and the chamois. In 1996 and 1997 we were able to assign a total of 190 roe deer and 54 chamois killed by lynx to a specific age and sex class (males, females or juveniles). As expected, the proportion of juveniles killed varied considerably among periods, being at the highest from 1st of June to 15th of August. No significant seasonal differences were detected regarding the frequency of predation on males versus females. In particular, the interaction between species and period, expected because of different timing of the rutting period between roe deer and chamois, was not significant. Females were killed only slightly more often during gestation. The relationship between prey abundance and vulnerability is highly complex, as the lynx’ prey selection needs to be analyzed not only horizontally (changes of a specific prey category with season) but also vertically (an increase in the vulnerability of one category releases predation pressure on others). Second, we predicted that certain activities, such as feeding, expose prey to predation more than others. We found more chamois predated when feeding, whereas roe deer were predated mainly when ruminating. This interspecific discrepancy reflects differences either in the anti‐predator behavior of roe deer and chamois or in the relative time allocation to feeding and ruminating between the two species.     

Are behavioural responses to predation cues linked across life cycle stages?

1. Prey organisms can perceive cues to predation hazard and adopt low‐risk behaviours to increase survival. Animals with complex life cycles, such as insects, can exhibit such anti‐predatory behaviours in multiple life stages. 2. Cues to predation risk may induce ovipositing females to choose habitats with low predation risk. Cues to predation risk may also induce larvae to adopt facultative behaviours that reduce risk of predation. 3. One hypothesis postulates that anti‐predation behaviours across adult and larval stages may be negatively associated because selection for effective anti‐predator behaviour in one stage leads to reduced selection for avoidance of predators in other stages. An alternative hypothesis suggests that selection by predation favours multi‐component defences, with both avoidance of oviposition and facultative adoption of low‐risk behaviours by larvae. 4. Laboratory and field experiments were used to determine whether defensive responses of adult and larval mosquitoes are positively or negatively associated. The study tested effects of waterborne cues from predatory Toxorhynchites theobaldi on oviposition choices and larval behaviours of three of its common prey: Culex mollis, Limatus durhamii and Aedes albopictus. 5. Culex mollis shows strong anti‐predator responses in both life stages, consistent with the hypothesis of a multi‐component behavioural defence. The other two species showed no detectable responses to waterborne predator cues in either adult or larval stages. Larvae of these unresponsive species were significantly more vulnerable to this predator than was C. mollis. 6. For these mosquitoes, species appear either to have been selected for multi‐component defences against predation or to act in ways that could be called predator‐naïve.     

Behavioural responses of free‐ranging western grey kangaroos (Macropus fuliginosus) to olfactory cues of historical and recently introduced predators

Predation risk influences foraging decisions and time allocation of prey species, and may result in habitat shifts from potentially dangerous to safer areas. We examined a wild population of western grey kangaroos (Macropus fuliginosus) to test the efficacy of predator faecal odour in influencing time allocated to different behaviours and inducing changes in habitat use. Kangaroos were exposed to fresh faeces of a historical predator, the dingo (Canis lupus dingo), a recently introduced predator, the red fox (Vulpes vulpes), a herbivore (horse, Equus caballus) and an unscented control simultaneously. Kangaroos did not increase vigilance in predator‐scented areas. However, they investigated odour sources by approaching and sniffing; more time was spent investigating fox odour than control odours. Kangaroos then exhibited a clear anti‐predator response to predator odours, modifying their space use by rapidly escaping, then avoiding fox and dingo odour sources. Our results demonstrate that wild western grey kangaroos show behavioural responses to predator faeces, investigating then avoiding these olfactory cues of potential predation risk, rather than increasing general vigilance. This study contributes to our understanding of the impact of introduced mammalian predators on marsupial prey and demonstrates that a native Australian marsupial can recognize and respond to the odour of potential predators, including one that has been recently introduced.     

Are behavioural traits in prey sensitive to the risk imposed by predatory fish?

1. Behavioural differences among prey species may result from evolutionary adaptations that facilitate coexistence with different predators and influence vulnerability to predators. It has been hypothesised that prey species modify their behaviour in relation to the risk posed by particular predators. 2. We examined the relationship between anti‐predator behaviour and predation risk in five species of larval odonates in combination with three predatory fish species (perch, gudgeon and rudd) that differ in foraging behaviour. The odonates, Platycnemis pennipes, Coenagrion puella, Lestes sponsa, Sympetrum striolatum and Libellula depressa, differ with regard to their life cycle and habitat, including water depth, occurrence in temporary ponds and co‐existence with fish. 3. The odonate species differed in their response to fish: (i) Two species showed a flexible response. Larval C. puella reduced activity in the presence of fish, regardless of species, whereas L. depressa altered their activity only in the presence of gudgeon. (ii) Independent of fish species, all odonates except L. depressa exhibited spatial avoidance of fish. This was interpreted as a more general anti‐predator response. (iii) In some cases the odonates showed no response to predators and their behaviour was thus independent of predation risk. 4. Our results confirm that all odonates responded to the presence of at least some predatory fish, and that some odonate species discriminated between fish species. However, we found no significant correlation between behavioural modifications and predation risk, indicating that anti‐predator responses and predation risk depend on the particular predator and the species being preyed on.     

Non-lethal effects of predation in birds

Predators can affect individual fitness and population and community processes through lethal effects (direct consumption or ‘density’ effects), where prey is consumed, or through non‐lethal effects (trait‐mediated effects or interactions), where behavioural compensation to predation risk occurs, such as animals avoiding areas of high predation risk. Studies of invertebrates, fish and amphibians have shown that non‐lethal effects may be larger than lethal effects in determining the behaviour, condition, density and distribution of animals over a range of trophic levels. Although non‐lethal effects have been well described in the behavioural ecology of birds (and also mammals) within the context of anti‐predation behaviour, their role relative to lethal effects is probably underestimated. Birds show many behavioural and physiological changes to reduce direct mortality from predation and these are likely to have negative effects on other aspects of their fitness and population dynamics, as well as affecting the ecology of their own prey and their predators. As a consequence, the effects of predation in birds are best measured by trade‐offs between maximizing instantaneous survival in the presence of predators and acquiring or maintaining resources for long‐term survival or reproduction. Because avoiding predation imposes foraging costs, and foraging behaviour is relatively easy to measure in birds, the foraging–predation risk trade‐off is probably an effective framework for understanding the importance of non‐lethal effects, and so the population and community effects of predation risk in birds and other animals. Using a trade‐off approach allows us to predict better how changes in predator density will impact on population and community dynamics, and how animals perceive and respond to predation risk, when non‐lethal effects decouple the relationship between predator density and direct mortality rate. The trade‐off approach also allows us to identify where predation risk is structuring communities because of avoidance of predators, even when this results in no observable direct mortality rate.     

Predator Detection is Limited in Microhabitats with High Light Intensity: An Experiment with Brown‐Headed Cowbirds

Variations in ambient light conditions across different microhabitats can modify the detectability of predators and prey. Prey have been shown to be more visible in sunlit than in shaded patches, leading to higher predation risk and more investment in vigilance (predation risk hypothesis). Additionally, prey have been hypothesized to take longer to detect predators in sunlit compared to shaded patches because of the excess of sunlight causing glare effects (disability glare hypothesis). We tested the predictions of these two non‐mutually exclusive hypotheses in a seminatural experiment with brown‐headed cowbirds by measuring vigilance behavior and detection of a ground predator in patches under the shade of vegetation and in the open. Light intensity and achromatic contrast were higher in the sunlit patches, which could enhance glare effects, but chromatic contrast was higher in the shaded patches. Brown‐headed cowbirds took longer to show alert reactions to and flee from a ground predator in sunlit compared to shaded patches. However, the two parameters associated with perceived predation risk (vigilance prior to the predator exposure and time to resume foraging after the attack) did not differ between sunlit and shaded patches. Our findings support to a greater extent the disability glare hypothesis than the predation risk hypothesis. Overall, ambient light conditions can affect two critical components of behavioral predator–prey interactions in terrestrial habitats: detection of and escape from predators. The effects of disability glare are expected to be more pronounced in bird species with wider visual fields or without sun‐shading structures; however, species may compensate through various behaviors (e.g. avoidance of sunlit patches and changes in head orientation).     

Do predators influence the behaviour of bats?

Many aspects of animal behaviour are affected by real‐time changes in the risk of predation. This conclusion holds for virtually all taxa and ecological systems studied, but does it hold for bats? Bats are poorly represented in the literature on anti‐predator behaviour, which may reflect a lack of nocturnal predators specialized on bats. If bats actually experience a world with minimal anti‐predator concerns, then they will provide a unique contrast within the realm of vertebrate ecology. Alternatively, such predator‐driven behaviour in bats may not yet be fully understood, given the difficulties in working with these highly mobile and nocturnal animals. We provide a wide‐ranging exploration of these issues in bat behaviour. We first cover the basic predator‐prey information available on bats, both on potential predators and the ways in which bats might perceive predators and respond to attacks. We then cover work relevant to key aspects of bat behaviour, such as choice of daytime roosts, the nature of sleep and torpor, evening roost departures, moonlight avoidance, landscape‐related movement patterns, and habitat selection. Overall, the evidence in favour of a strong influence of predators on bat behaviour is equivocal, with the picture clouded by contradictory results and a lack of information on potential predators and the perception of risk by bats. It seems clear that day‐active bats run a considerable risk of being killed by diurnal raptors, which are able to capture bats with relative ease. Thus, bats taking advantage of a pulse of insects just prior to sunset are likely taking risks to gain much‐needed energy. Further, the choice of daytime roosts by bats is probably strongly influenced by roost safety. Few studies, however, have directly addressed either of these topics. As a group, insectivorous temperate‐zone bats show no clear tendency to avoid apparently risky situations, such as activity on moonlit nights. However, some observations are consistent with the idea that predation risk affects choice of movement paths and feeding areas by temperate‐zone bats, as well as the timing of roost departures. The behaviour of tropical bats, on the other hand, seems more generally influenced by predators; this is especially true for tropical nectarivores and frugivores, but also for insectivorous bats. Presumably there are more serious predators on bats in the tropics (e.g. specialized raptors or carnivorous bats), but the identity of these predators is unclear. More information is needed to assess fully the influence of predators on bat behaviour. There is much need for work on the ways in which bats perceive predators via auditory, visual, and olfactory cues, and whether bats have some knowledge of the risks posed by different predators. Also needed is information on how predators attack bats and how bats react to attacking predators. Difficult to obtain, but of critical value, will be information on the nature of the predation risk experienced by bats while away from roosts and during the full darkness of night.     

Cross-continental differences in patterns of predation: will naive moose in Scandinavia ever learn?

Predation has been recognized as a major selective force in the evolution of behavioural characteristics of mammals. As a consequence of local predator extinction, prey may lose knowledge about natural predators but usually express behavioural adjustments after return of predators. Human harvest may replace natural predation but prey selection may differ from that of natural predators leading to a change in the behavioural response of prey. We show that hunting success (HS) of re-colonizing wolves (Canis lupus) on moose (Alces alces) in Scandinavia was higher than reported in North America, where moose have been continuously exposed to wolves and grizzly bears. We found no evidence that moose expressed behavioural adjustments that lowered the HS of wolves in territories that had been occupied by wolves for up to 21 years. Moose behaviour towards wolves and humans typically differs in Scandinavia compared to North America. We explain the differences found to be caused by variation in predation pressure by large carnivores and the rate, and mode, of human harvest during the twentieth century.     

Predator‐avoidance behaviour in a nocturnal petrel exposed to a novel predator

Many species of bird recognize acoustic and visual cues given by their predators and have complex defence adaptations to reduce predation risk. Recognition of threats posed by specific predators and specialized anti‐predation behaviours are common. In this study we investigated predator recognition and anti‐predation behaviours in a pelagic seabird, Leach's Storm‐petrel Oceanodroma leucorhoa, at a site where predation risk from Great Skuas Stercorarius skua is exceptionally high. Leach's Storm‐petrels breed in burrows and come on land only at night. Counter‐predator adaptations were investigated correlatively in relation to changing natural light levels at night, and experimentally in relation to nocturnal visual and acoustic signals from Great Skuas. Colony attendance by Leach's Storm‐petrels was attuned to changes in light conditions at night and was highest when nights were darkest. This behaviour is likely to reduce predation risk on land; however, specific recognition of Great Skuas and specialized defence behaviours were not found. Leach's Storm‐petrels, in particular apparently non‐breeding individuals, were entirely naïve to the threat posed by Great Skuas and were captured easily in a variety of different ways, on the ground and in the air. Lack of specialized behavioural adaptations in Leach's Storm‐petrels against Great Skuas may be because spatial overlap of breeding distributions of these species appears to be a rare and recent phenomenon.     

Correlated geographic variation in predation risk and antipredator behaviour within a wide‐ranging snake species (Notechis scutatus,Elapidae)

Geographic variation in antipredator behaviour within wide‐ranging species may be driven by both genetic and environmental influences. We quantified antipredator responses in neonatal (laboratory born, n = 555) and adult (field caught, n = 346) tiger snakes (Notechis scutatus) from 11 mainland and island sites in southern Australia. We used these data to test predictions from Bonnet et al.'s hypothesis that the vigour of antipredator responses in this species reflects behavioural plasticity (in turn, driven by an individual snake's exposure to predators during its lifetime) rather than by genetic variation in this trait. We used the number of predator taxa in each area as an index of predator risk. As predicted, adult snakes from predator‐rich areas had more vigorous defensive responses when handled, whereas neonatal behaviour (although also variable among populations) was unrelated to predator species richness. Adult males bit more readily than adult females (as expected from the greater predation exposure of males during mate searching) but no such sex difference was evident in neonates. Although alternative models remain possible, our data are most consistent with the hypothesis that geographic divergence in antipredator tactics within this species primarily reflects developmentally plastic responses to local predation risk.     

Linking anti‐predator behaviour to prey demography reveals limited risk effects of an actively hunting large carnivore

Ecological theory predicts that the diffuse risk cues generated by wide‐ranging, active predators should induce prey behavioural responses but not major, population‐ or community‐level consequences. We evaluated the non‐consumptive effects (NCEs) of an active predator, the grey wolf (Canis lupus), by simultaneously tracking wolves and the behaviour, body fat, and pregnancy of elk (Cervus elaphus), their primary prey in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. When wolves approached within 1 km, elk increased their rates of movement, displacement and vigilance. Even in high‐risk areas, however, these encounters occurred only once every 9 days. Ultimately, despite 20‐fold variation in the frequency of encounters between wolves and individual elk, the risk of predation was not associated with elk body fat or pregnancy. Our findings suggest that the ecological consequences of actively hunting large carnivores, such as the wolf, are more likely transmitted by consumptive effects on prey survival than NCEs on prey behaviour.     

Trophic cascades: the primacy of trait-mediated indirect interactions

Trophic cascades are textbook examples of predator indirect effects on ecological systems. Yet there is considerable debate about their nature, strength and overall importance. This debate stems in part from continued uncertainty about the ultimate mechanisms driving cascading effects. We present a synthesis of empirical evidence in support of one possible ultimate mechanism: the foraging‐predation risk trade‐offs undertaken by intermediary species. We show that simple trade‐off behaviour can lead to both positive and negative indirect effects of predators on plant resources and hence can explain considerable contingency on the nature and strength of cascading effects among systems. Thus, predicting the sign and strength of indirect effect simply requires knowledge of habitat and resource use by prey with regard to predators’ presence, habitat use and hunting mode. The synthesis allows us to postulate a hypothesis for new conceptualization of trophic cascades which is to be viewed as an ultimate trade‐off between intervening species. In this context, different predators apply different rules of engagement based on their hunting mode and habitat use. These different rules then determine whether behavioural effects persist or attenuate at the level of the food chain.