, Volume 159, Issue 3, pp 661–668 | Cite as

Patch use in time and space for a meso-predator in a risky world

  • Shomen MukherjeeEmail author
  • Michal Zelcer
  • Burt P. Kotler
Behavioral Ecology - Original Paper


Predator–prey studies often assume a three trophic level system where predators forage free from any risk of predation. Since meso-predators themselves are also prospective prey, they too need to trade-off between food and safety. We applied foraging theory to study patch use and habitat selection by a meso-predator, the red fox. We present evidence that foxes use a quitting harvest rate rule when deciding whether or not to abandon a foraging patch, and experience diminishing returns when foraging from a depletable food patch. Furthermore, our data suggest that patch use decisions of red foxes are influenced not just by the availability of food, but also by their perceived risk of predation. Fox behavior was affected by moonlight, with foxes depleting food resources more thoroughly (lower giving-up density) on darker nights compared to moonlit nights. Foxes reduced risk from hyenas by being more active where and when hyena activity was low. While hyenas were least active during moon, and most active during full moon nights, the reverse was true for foxes. Foxes showed twice as much activity during new moon compared to full moon nights, suggesting different costs of predation. Interestingly, resources in patches with cues of another predator (scat of wolf) were depleted to significantly lower levels compared to patches without. Our results emphasize the need for considering risk of predation for intermediate predators, and also shows how patch use theory and experimental food patches can be used for a predator. Taken together, these results may help us better understand trophic interactions.


Giving-up densities Intraguild predation Optimal foraging Predation risk Vulpes vulpes 



Thanks to Beer Sheva Zoo, Aviv (Ranger, Holot Mashabim Nature Reserve) and the Israel Nature and National Parks Protection Authority. We would like to thank Amos Bouskila for his valuable advice at all stages of this study. We also thank Yaron Ziv and Aziz Subach for their ideas and suggestions. We thank Toby Goldberg for her assistance during fieldwork. M.Z. would like to thank Yaffa and Itay for their support and immense technical help. We would also like to thank Joel Brown, Barney Luttbeg and an anonymous reviewer for their valuable comments. The experiments comply with the current laws of Israel.


  1. Berger KM, Gese EM (2007) Does interference competition with wolves limit the distribution and abundance of coyotes? J Anim Ecol 76:1075–1085PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown JS (1988) Patch use as an indicator of habitat preference, predation risk, and competition. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 22:37–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown JS (1992) Patch use under predation risk: I. Models and predictions. Ann Zool Fenn 29:301–309Google Scholar
  4. Brown JS, Alkon PU (1990) Testing values of crested porcupine habitats by experimental food patches. Oecologia 83:512–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown JS, Kotler BP (2004) Hazardous duty pay and the foraging cost of predation. Ecol Lett 7:999–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown JS, Laundre JW, Gurung M (1999) The ecology of fear: optimal foraging, game theory, and trophic interactions. J Mammal 80:385–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Case TJ, Gilpin ME (1974) Interference competition and niche theory. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 71:3073–3077PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Charnov EL (1976) Optimal foraging, marginal value theorem. Theor Popul Biol 9:129–136PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dickman CR (1992) Predation and habitat shift in the house mouse, Mus domesticus. Ecology 73:313–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dickman CR, Doncaster CP (1984) Responses of small mammals to red fox (Vulpes vulpes) odour. J Zool 204:251–253Google Scholar
  11. Donadio E, Buskirk SW (2006) Diet, morphology and interspecific killing in carnivore. Am Nat 167:524–536PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fedriani JM, Palomares F, Delibes M (1999) Niche relations among three sympatric Mediterranean carnivores. Oecologia 121:138–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Helldin JO, Liberg O, Glöersen G (2006) Lynx (Lynx lynx) killing red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in boreal Sweden—frequency and population effects. J Zool 270:657–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Holt RD, Polis GA (1997) A theoretical framework for intraguild predation. Am Nat 149:745–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Iwasa Y, Higashi M, Yamamura N (1981) Prey distribution as a factor determining the choice of optimal foraging strategy. Am Nat 117:710–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kotler BP, Brown JS (1990) Harvest rates of two gerbilline rodents. J Mammal 71:591–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kotler BP, Brown JS, Hasson O (1991) Factors affecting gerbil foraging behavior and rates of owl predation. Ecology 72:2249–2260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kotler BP, Brown JS, Dall SRX, Gresser S, Ganey D, Bouskila A (2002) Foraging games between owls and gerbils: temporal dynamics of resource depletion and apprehension in gerbils. Evol Ecol Res 4:495–518Google Scholar
  19. Kotler BP, Brown JS, Bouskila A, Mukherjee S, Goldberg T (2004) Foraging games between gerbils and their predators: seasonal changes in schedules of activity and apprehension. Isr J Zool 50:255–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kotler BP, Brown JS, Morris DW (2007) Behavioral indicators and conservation: wielding “the biologist’s tricorder”. Isr J Ecol Evol 53:237–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kruuk H (1972) The spotted hyena. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  22. Luttbeg B, Sih A (2004) Predator and prey habitat selection games: the effects of how prey balance foraging and predation risk. Isr J Zool 50:233–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mendelssohn H, Yom-Tov Y (1999) Fauna plaestina, mammalia of Israel. The Israel Academy of Science and Humanities, JerusalemGoogle Scholar
  24. Polis GA, Holt RD (1992) Intraguild predation—the dynamics of complex trophic interactions. Trends Ecol Evol 7:151–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Polis GA, Myers CA, Holt RD (1989) The ecology and evolution of intraguild predation: potential competitors that eat each other. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 20:297–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ralls K, White PJ (1995) Predation on San Joaquin kit foxes by larger canids. J Mammal 76:723–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rosenheim JA (1998) Higher-order predators and the regulation of insect herbivore populations. Annu Rev Entomol 43:421–447PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rosenheim JA (2004) Top predators constrain the habitat selection game played by intermediate predators and their prey. Isr J Zool 50:129–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rosenzweig ML (1966) Community structure in sympatric carnivore. J Mammal 47:602–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rosenzweig ML (1973) Exploitation in 3 trophic levels. Am Nat 107:275–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sih A, Crowley P, McPeek M, Petranka J, Strohmeier K (1985) Predation, competition, and prey communities: a review of field experiments. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 16:269–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sih A, Englund G, Wooster D (1998) Emergent impacts of multiple predators on prey. Trends Ecol Evol 13:350–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Skutelsky O (1996) Predation risk and state-dependent foraging in scorpions: effects of moonlight on foraging in the scorpion Buthus occitanus. Anim Behav 52:49–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Thurber JM, Peterson RO, Woolington JD, Vucetich JA (1992) Coyote coexistence with wolves on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Can J Zool 70:2494–2498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Valone TJ, Brown JS (1989) Measuring patch assessment abilities of Desert granivores. Ecology 70:1800–1810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Voigt DR, Earle BD (1983) Avoidance of coyotes by red fox families. J Wildl Manage 47:852–857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wilkinson L, Hill M, Welna JP, Birkenbeuel GK (1992) SYSTAT for windows: statistics, version 5. SYSTAT, Evanston, ILGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shomen Mukherjee
    • 1
    Email author
  • Michal Zelcer
    • 1
    • 2
  • Burt P. Kotler
    • 1
  1. 1.Mitrani Department of Desert Ecology, Blaustein Institutes for Desert ResearchBen-Gurion University of the NegevSede BoqerIsrael
  2. 2.Pharmaceutical R&DPerrigo Israel PharmaceuticalsYeruhamIsrael

Personalised recommendations