Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 60, Issue 4, pp 457–464 | Cite as

Meta-analysis of foraging and predation risk trade-offs in terrestrial systems

Review

Abstract

Although there is ample evidence for the generality of foraging and predation trade-offs in aquatic systems, its application to terrestrial systems is less comprehensive. In this review, meta-analysis was used to analyze experiments on giving-up-densities in terrestrial systems to evaluate the overall magnitude of predation risk on foraging behavior and experimental conditions mediating its effect. Results indicate a large and significant decrease in foraging effort as a consequence of increased predation risk. Whether experiments were conducted under natural or artificial conditions produced no change in the overall effect predation had on foraging. Odor and live predators as a correlate of predation risk had weaker and nonsignificant effects compared to habitat characteristics. The meta-analysis suggests that the effect of predation risk on foraging behavior in terrestrial systems is strongly dependent on the type of predation risk being utilized.

Keywords

Giving-up densities Predation Predation risk Foraging Optimal foraging Trade-offs Meta-analysis 

References

  1. Abrams PA (1992) Predators that benefit prey and prey that harm predators: Unusual effects of interacting foraging adaptations. Am Nat 140:573–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abrams PA (1993) Optimal traits when there are several costs: The interaction of mortality and energy costs in determining foraging behavior. Behav Ecology 4:246–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Altendorf KB, Laundre JW, Lopez Gonzalez CA, Brown JS (2001) Assessing the effects of predation risk on foraging behavior of mule deer. J Mammal 82:430–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arthur AD, Pech RP, Dickman CR (2004) Habitat structure mediates the non-lethal effects of predation on enclosed populations of house mice. J Anim Ecol 73(5):867–877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bateson M (2002) Recent advances in our understanding of risk-sensitive foraging preferences. Proc Nutr Soc 61(4):509–516CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Boinski S, Kauffman L, Westoll A, Stickler CM, Cropp S, Ehmke E (2003) Are vigilance, risk from avian predators and group size consequences of habitat structure? A comparison of three species of squirrel monkey (Saimiri oerstedii, S. boliviensis, and S. sciureus). Behav 140:1421–1467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bouskila A (1995) Interactions between predation risk and competition—a field-study of kangaroo rats and snakes. Ecology 76(1):165–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bowers MA (1988) Seed removal experiments on desert rodents: The microhabitat by moonlight effect. J Mammal 69:201–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown JS (1988) Patch use as an indicator of habitat preference, predation risk, and competition. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 22:37–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown JS (1989) Mechanisms underlying the organization of a desert rodent community. J Arid Environ 17(2):211–218Google Scholar
  11. Brown JS (1992) Patch use under predation risk. I. Models and predictions. Ann Zool Fenn 29:301–309Google Scholar
  12. Brown JS, Kotler BP (2004) Hazardous duty pay and the foraging cost of predation. Ecol Lett 7:999–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brown JS, Kotler BP, Valone TJ (1994) Foraging under predation: a comparison of energetic and predation costs in a Negev and Sonoran Desert rodent community. Aust J Zool 42:435–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brown JS, Kotler BP, Mitchell WA (1997) Competition between birds and mammals: a comparison of giving-up densities between crested larks and gerbils. Evol Ecol 11(6):757–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brown JS, Kotler BP, Knight MH (1998) Patch use in the pygmy rock mouse (Petromyscus collinus). Mammalia 62(1):108–112Google Scholar
  16. Caraco T, Martindale S, Pulliam HR (1980) Avian time budgets and distance to cover. Auk 97(4):872–875Google Scholar
  17. Charnov EL (1976) Optimal foraging: the marginal value theorem. Theor Pop Bio 9:129–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cohen J (1969) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Dill LM (1987) Animal decision making and its ecological consequences: the future of aquatic ecology and behaviour. Can J Zool 65:803–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Engelhart A, Muller-Schwarze D (1995) Responses of beaver (Castor canadensis KUHL) to predator chemicals. J Chem Ecol 21:1349–1364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Epple G, Mason JR, Nolte DL, Campell DL (1993) Effects of predator odors on feeding in the mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa). J Mammal 74:715–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gilliam JF, Frasier DF (1987) Habitat selection under predation hazard: test of a model with foraging minnows. Ecology 68:1856–1862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gurevitch J, Hedges LV (1993) Meta-analysis: Combining the results of independent experiments. In: Scheiner SM, Gurevitch J (eds) Design and analysis of ecological experiments, 1st edn. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 378–398Google Scholar
  24. Gurevitch J, Hedges LV (1999) Statistical issues in ecological meta-analyses. Ecology 80(4):1142–1149Google Scholar
  25. Gurevitch J, Morrison JA, Hedges LV (2000) The interaction between competition and predation: A meta-analysis of field experiments. Am Nat 155(4):435–453CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Gurevitch J, Morrow LL, Wallace A, Walsh JS (1992) A Meta-analysis of competition in field experiments. Am Nat 140(4):539–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gutman R, Dayan T (2005) Temporal partitioning: an experiment with two species of spiny mice. Ecology 86(1):164–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hay ME, Fuller PJ (1981) Seed escape from heteromyid rodents: the importance of microhabitat and seed preference. Ecology 62:1395–1399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hedges LV, Olkin I (1985) Statistical methods for Meta-analysis. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Hedges LV, Gurevitch J, Curtis PS (1999) The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental Ecology. Ecology 80(4):1150–1156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hernández L, Laundre JW, Gurung M (2005) From the field: use of camera traps to measure predation risk in a puma-mule deer system. Wildl Soc Bull 33:353–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Holtcamp WN, Grant WE, Vinson B (1997) Patch use under predation hazard: effect of the red imported fire ant on deer mouse foraging behavior. Ecology 78:308–317Google Scholar
  33. Houston AI, McNamara JM, Hutchinson JMC (1993) General results concerning the trade-off between gaining energy and avoiding predation. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 341:375–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jacob J, Brown JS (2000) Microhabitat use, giving-up densities and temporal activity as short- and long-term anti-predator behaviors in common voles. Oikos 91:131–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Janson CH (1990) Ecological consequences of individual spatial choice in foraging groups of brown capuchin monkeys, Cebus Apella. Anim Behav 40:922–934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jones M, Dayan T (2000) Foraging behavior and microhabitat use by spiny mice, Acomys cahirinus and A. russatus, in the presence of Blanford’s fox (Vulpes cana) odor. J Chem Ecol 26(2):455–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kotler BP (1997) Patch use by gerbils in a risky environment: manipulating food and safety to test four models. Oikos 78(2):274–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kotler BP, Brown JS, Slotow RH, Goodfriend WL, Strauss M (1993) The influence of snakes on the foraging behavior of gerbils. Oikos 67:309–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kotler BP, Brown JS, Knight MH (1999) Habitat and patch use by hyraxes: there’s no place like home? Ecol Lett 2(2):82–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kotler BP, Brown JS, Hickey M (1999) Food storability and the foraging behavior of fox squirrels (Sciurus niger). Am Midl Nat 142(1):77–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kotler BP, Brown JS, Oldfield A, Thorson J, Cohen D (2001) Foraging substrate and escape substrate: Patch use by three species of gerbils. Ecology 82(6):1781–1790Google Scholar
  42. Kotler BP, Brown JS, Bouskila A (2004). Apprehension and time allocation in gerbils: The effects of predatory risk and energetic state. Ecology 85(4):917–922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lima SL (1985) Maximizing feeding efficiency and minimizing time exposed to predators—a trade-off in the black-capped chickadee. Oecologia 66(1):60–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lima SL (1998) Nonlethal effects in the ecology of predator–prey interactions—what are the ecological effects of anti-predator decision-making? Bioscience 48(1):25–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lima SL, Valone TJ (1986) Influence of predation risk on diet selection: a simple example in the grey squirrel. Anim Behav 34:536–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lima SL, Dill LM (1990) Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation. Can J Zool 68:619–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McNamara JM, Houston AI (1987) Starvation and predation as factors limiting population size. Ecology 68:1515–1519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Millinski M (1986) Constraints placed by predators on feeding behavior. In: Pitcher T (ed) The behaviour of teleost fishes. Croom Helm, London, pp 236–252Google Scholar
  49. Mohr K, Vibe-Petersen S, Jeppesen LL, Bildsoe M, Leirs H (2003) Foraging of multimammate mice, Mastomys natalensis, under different predation pressure: cover, patch-dependent decisions and density-dependent GUDs. Oikos 100(3):459–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Newman JA, Recer GM, Zwicker SM, Caraco T (1988) Effects of predation hazard on foraging constraints—patch-use strategies in grey squirrels. Oikos 53(1):93–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Orrock JL, Danielson BJ (2004) Rodents balancing a variety of risks: invasive fire ants and indirect and direct indicators of predation risk. Oecologia 140(4):662–667CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Orrock JL, Danielson BJ, Brinkerhoff RJ (2004) Rodent foraging is affected by indirect, but not by direct, cues of predation risk. Behav Ecol 15(3):433–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Oyugi JO, Brown JS (2003) Giving-up densities and habitat preferences of European starlings and American robins. Condor 105(1):130–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pfister JA, Muller-Schwarze D, Balph DF (1990) Effects of predator fecal odors on feed selection by sheep and cattle. J Chem Ecol 16:573–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Powell F, Banks PB (2004) Do house mice modify their foraging behaviour in response to predator odours and habitat? Anim Behav 67:753–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Price MV, Correll RA (2001) Depletion of seed patches by Merriam’s kangaroo rats: Are GUD assumptions met? Ecol Lett 4:334–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pusenius J, Schmidt KA (2002) The effects of habitat manipulation on population distribution and foraging behavior in meadow voles. Oikos 98(2):251–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rosenberg MS, Adams DC, Gurevitch J (1999) MetaWin 2.0. Statistical software for conducting meta-analysis: fixed effects models, mixed effect models, and resampling tests. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  59. Rohner C, Krebs CJ (1996) Owl predation on snowshoe hares: consequences of antipredator behaviour. Oecologia 108(2):303–310Google Scholar
  60. Sih A (1980) Optimal behavior: can foragers balance two conflicting demands. Science 210:1041–1043PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sih A (1982) Foraging strategies and the avoidance of predation by an aquatic insect. Ecology 63:786–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sih A (1987) Predators and prey lifestyles: an ecological overview. In: Kerfoot WC, Sih A (eds) Predation: direct and indirect impacts on aquatic communities. Univ. Press of New England, Hanover, New Hampshire, pp 203–224Google Scholar
  63. Sih A (1992) Prey uncertainty and the balancing of antipredator and feeding needs. Am Nat 5:1052–1069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Stephens DW, Krebs JR (1988) Foraging theory. Mono Behav Ecol. Princeton Univ. Press, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  65. Stokes VL, Pech RP, Banks PB, Arthur AD (2004) Foraging behaviour and habitat use by Antechinus flavipes and Sminthopsis murina (Marsupialia : Dasyuridae) in response to predation risk in eucalypt woodland. Biol Conserv 117(3):331–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sullivan TP, Crump DR (1984) Influence of mustelid scent-gland compounds on suppression of feeding by snowshoe hares (Lepus americanus). J Chem Ecol 10:1809–1821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sundell J, Dudek D, Klemme I, Koivisto E, Pusenius J, Ylonen H (2004) Variation in predation risk and vole feeding behaviour: a field test of the risk allocation hypothesis. Oecologia 139(1):157–162CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Thorson JM, Morgan RA, Brown JS, Norman JE (1998) Direct and indirect cues of predatory risk and patch use by fox squirrels and thirteen-lined ground squirrels. Behav Ecol 9:151–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Valone TJ, Lima SL (1987) Carrying food items to cover for consumption: the behavior of ten bird species feeding under the risk of predation. Oecologia 71:286–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Yunger JA, Meserve PL, Gutiérrez JR (2002) Small mammal foraging behavior: mechanisms for coexistence and implications for population dynamics. Ecol Monogr 72(4):561–577Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecology and EvolutionStony Brook UniversityStony BrookUSA

Personalised recommendations