Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Avoiding the subject: the implications of avoidance behaviour for detecting predators

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Estimating predator abundance can be challenging. Many predators are inherently difficult to detect due to their low population densities, large home ranges and cryptic behaviour. Detection rates derived from camera traps, spotlight surveys and track counts in sand plots are often used as indices of abundance. However, many factors can influence a species’ detection rate and the extent to which it might reflect the species’ actual abundance. I investigated the relationships between detections, abundance and activity of two sympatric predators, the Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) and the feral cat (Felis catus). I used camera traps to detect devils and feral cats across eastern Tasmania in southern Australia, where devil populations have progressively and variably declined since 1996 following the spread of the fatal devil facial tumour disease. Devil and cat detections on individual cameras were negatively correlated; however, this was unrelated to abundance. While cats and devils were detected at nearly all of the same sites, cats appeared to avoid devils over short distances, suggesting that negative relationships in detections at the camera scale may reflect fine-scale behavioural avoidance rather than suppression of abundance. These findings highlight the importance of understanding avoidance behaviour when designing surveys to detect predators and when using indices to infer interactions or numerical relationships among sympatric predators. These findings also provide a cautionary tale that highlights the need to consider alternative hypotheses to explain observed patterns, as the implications for species conservation and management outcomes could vary dramatically.

Significance statement

Indices derived from detection rates are often used to estimate and monitor changes in the abundance of predators and to infer numerical and behavioural relationships among sympatric predators and between predators and their prey. In this study, I present camera detection data for two sympatric predators, the Tasmanian devil (5–12 kg) and the feral cat (2–6 kg), to illustrate that negative relationships in commonly used abundance indices may in fact reflect avoidance behaviour rather than a suppression of abundance. By simultaneously measuring avoidance behaviour across multiple spatial and temporal scales, I demonstrate that relationships in abundance indices vary markedly over different scales. These findings have significant implications for designing surveys to detect predators and for using indices to infer relationships in sympatric predator abundance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agostinelli C, Lund U (2013) R package ‘circular’: circular statistics (version 0.4-7), https://r-forge.r-project.org/projects/circular/ Accessed 19 November 2014

  • Bailey LL, Simons TR, Pollock KH (2004) Estimating site occupancy and species detection probability parameters for terrestrial salamanders. Ecol Appl 14:692–702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batschelet E (1981) Circular statistics in biology. Academic Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Baynes B (2007) Spatial behaviour and landscape use in a Tasmanian devil population. BSc Honours thesis, University of Tasmania

  • Bengsen A, Butler J, Masters P (2011) Estimating and indexing feral cat population abundances using camera traps. Wildlife Res 38:732–739

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertness MD, Brisson CP, Coverdale TC, Bevil MC, Crotty SM, Suglia ER (2014) Experimental predator removal causes rapid salt marsh die-off. Ecol Lett 17:830–835

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Bischof R, Ali H, Kabir M, Hameed S, Nawaz MA (2014) Being the underdog: an elusive small carnivore uses space with prey and time without enemies. J Zool 293:40–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broekhuis F, Cozzi G, Valeix M, McNutt JW, Macdonald DW (2013) Risk avoidance in sympatric large carnivores: reactive or predictive? J Anim Ecol 82:1098–1105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brook LA, Johnson CN, Ritchie EG (2012) Effects of predator control on behaviour of an apex predator and indirect consequences for mesopredator suppression. J Appl Ecol 49:1278–1286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown JH (1971) Mechanisms of competitive exclusion between two species of chipmunks. Ecology 52:305–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burbidge AA, McKenzie NL (1989) Patterns in the modern decline of Western Australia's vertebrate fauna: causes and conservation implications. Biol Conserv 50:143–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carbone C, Christie S, Conforti K, Coulson T, Franklin N, Ginsberg J, Griffiths M, Holden J, Kawanishi K, Kinnaird M (2001) The use of photographic rates to estimate densities of tigers and other cryptic mammals. Anim Conserv 4:75–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creel S, Christianson D (2008) Relationships between direct predation and risk effects. Trends Ecol Evol 23:194–201

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Crooks KR, Soulé ME (1999) Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions in a fragmented system. Nature 400:563–566

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (2014) The natural values Atlas. © Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, State of Tasmania, http://www.naturalvaluesatlas.tas.gov.au. Accessed 1 May 2014

  • Development Core Team R (2013) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, http://www.R-project.org/

    Google Scholar 

  • Durant SM (1998) Competition refuges and coexistence: an example from Serengeti carnivores. J Anim Ecol 67:370–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards S, Gange AC, Wiesel I (2016) An oasis in the desert: the potential of water sources as camera trap sites in arid environments for surveying a carnivore guild. J Arid Environ 124:304–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Estes JA, Terborgh J, Brashares JS et al (2011) Trophic downgrading of planet earth. Science 333:301–306

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fancourt BA, Nicol SC, Hawkins CE (2013) Evidence of rapid population decline of the eastern quoll (Dasyurus viverrinus) in Tasmania. Aust Mammal 35:195–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fancourt BA, Hawkins CE, Cameron EZ, Jones ME, Nicol SC (2015) Devil declines and catastrophic cascades: is mesopredator release of feral cats inhibiting recovery of the eastern quoll? PLoS One 10:e0119303

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Fedriani JM, Fuller TK, Sauvajot RM, York EC (2000) Competition and intraguild predation among three sympatric carnivores. Oecologia 125:258–270

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fiske I, Chandler R (2011) Unmarked: an R package for fitting hierarchical models of wildlife occurrence and abundance. J Stat Softw 43:1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford AT, Goheen JR (2015) Trophic cascades by large carnivores: a case for strong inference and mechanism. Trends Ecol Evol 30:725–735

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Garvey PM, Glen AS, Pech RP (2015) Foraging ermine avoid risk: behavioural responses of a mesopredator to its interspecific competitors in a mammalian guild. Biol Invasions 17:1771–1783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gese EM (2001) Monitoring of terrestrial carnivore populations. In: Gittleman JL, Funk SM, MacDonald DW, Wayne RK (eds) Carnivore conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 372–396

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamede R, Lachish S, Belov K, Woods G, Kreiss A, Pearse A-M, Lazenby B, Jones M, McCallum H (2012) Reduced effect of Tasmanian devil facial tumor disease at the disease front. Conserv Biol 26:124–134

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hardy PC, Morrison ML (2000) Factors affecting the detection of elf owls and western screech owls. Wildl Soc Bull 28:333–342

    Google Scholar 

  • Harmsen BJ, Foster RJ, Silver SC, Ostro LET, Doncaster CP (2009) Spatial and temporal interactions of sympatric jaguars (Panthera onca) and pumas (Puma concolor) in a neotropical forest. J Mammal 90:612–620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harmsen BJ, Foster RJ, Silver S, Ostro L, Doncaster CP (2010) Differential use of trails by forest mammals and the implications for camera-trap studies: a case study from Belize. Biotropica 42:126–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins CE, Baars C, Hesterman H et al (2006) Emerging disease and population decline of an island endemic, the Tasmanian devil Sarcophilus harrisii. Biol Conserv 131:307–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayward MW, Marlow N (2014) Will dingoes really conserve wildlife and can our methods tell? J Appl Ecol 51:835–838

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayward MW, Slotow R (2009) Temporal partitioning of activity in large African carnivores: tests of multiple hypotheses. S Afr J Wildl Res 39:109–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayward MW, Boitani L, Burrows ND, Funston PJ, Karanth KU, MacKenzie DI, Pollock KH, Yarnell RW (2015) Ecologists need robust survey designs, sampling and analytical methods. J Appl Ecol 52:286–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollings T, Jones M, Mooney N, McCallum H (2014) Trophic cascades following the disease-induced decline of an apex predator, the Tasmanian devil. Conserv Biol 28:63–75

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jennelle CS, Runge MC, MacKenzie DI (2002) The use of photographic rates to estimate densities of tigers and other cryptic mammals: a comment on misleading conclusions. Anim Conserv 5:119–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones JPG (2011) Monitoring species abundance and distribution at the landscape scale. J Appl Ecol 48:9–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones ME, Jarman P, Lees C, Hesterman H, Hamede R, Mooney N, Mann D, Pukk C, Bergfeld J, McCallum H (2007) Conservation management of Tasmanian devils in the context of an emerging, extinction-threatening disease: devil facial tumour disease. EcoHealth 4:326–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koenker R (2013) quantreg: Quantile regression. R package version 5.05, http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=quantreg. Accessed 16 September 2014

  • Lachish S, Jones M, McCallum H (2007) The impact of disease on the survival and population growth rate of the Tasmanian devil. J Anim Ecol 76:926–936

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lazenby B (2012) Do feral cats affect small mammals? A case study from the forests of southern Tasmania. PhD thesis, University of Sydney

  • Lazenby BT, Dickman CR (2013) Patterns of detection and capture are associated with cohabiting predators and prey. PLoS One 8:e59846

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, Lachman GB, Droege S, Royle AJ, Langtimm CA (2002) Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one. Ecology 83:2248–2255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahon PS, Banks PB, Dickman CR (1998) Population indices for wild carnivores: a critical study in sand-dune habitat, south-western Queensland. Wildl Res 25:11–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meredith M, Ridout M (2014a) overlap: Estimates of coefficient of overlapping for animal activity patterns. R package version 0.2.3, http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=overlap. Accessed 21 September 2014

  • Meredith M, Ridout M (2014b) Overview of the overlap package, http://cran.at.r-project.org/web/packages/overlap/vignettes/overlap.pdf. Accessed 21 July 2014

  • Nimmo DG, Watson SJ, Forsyth DM, Bradshaw CJA (2015) Dingoes can help conserve wildlife and our methods can tell. J Appl Ecol 52:281–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palomares F, Caro TM (1999) Interspecific killing among mammalian carnivores. Am Nat 153:492–508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollock KH, Nichols JD, Simons TR, Farnsworth GL, Bailey LL, Sauer JR (2002) Large scale wildlife monitoring studies: statistical methods for design and analysis. Environmetrics 13:105–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Read JL, Bengsen AJ, Meek PD, Moseby KE (2015) How to snap your cat: optimum lures and their placement for attracting mammalian predators in arid Australia. Wildlife Res 42:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridout MS, Linkie M (2009) Estimating overlap of daily activity patterns from camera trap data. J Agr Biol Envir Stat 14:322–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ripple WJ, Estes JA, Beschta RL et al (2014) Status and ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores. Science 343:1241484

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers TL, Elliott JK (2013) Differences in relative abundance and size structure of the sea stars Pisaster ochraceus and Evasterias troschelii among habitat types in Puget Sound, Washington, USA. Mar Biol 160:853–865

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rounsevell DE, Taylor RJ, Hocking GJ (1991) Distribution records of native terrestrial mammals in Tasmania. Wildlife Res 18:699–717

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Royle JA, Nichols JD (2003) Estimating abundance from repeated presence-absence data or point counts. Ecology 84:777–790

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders A (2012) The occupancy of native and introduced Tasmanian carnivores in intact and fragmented landscapes. BSc Honours thesis, University of Tasmania

  • Schmitz OJ, Beckerman AP, O'Brien KM (1997) Behaviorally mediated trophic cascades: effects of predation risk on food web interactions. Ecology 78:1388–1399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • St. Clair RC, Gregory PT (1990) Factors affecting the northern range limit of painted turtles (Chrysemys picta): winter acidosis or freezing? Copeia 1990:1083–1089

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephens PA, Pettorelli N, Barlow J, Whittingham MJ, Cadotte MW (2015) Management by proxy? The use of indices in applied ecology. J Appl Ecol 52:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokeld D, Frank ASK, Hill B, Choy JL, Mahney T, Stevens A, Young S, Rangers D, Rangers W, Gillespie GR (2015) Multiple cameras required to reliably detect feral cats in northern Australian tropical savanna: an evaluation of sampling design when using camera traps. Wildlife Res 42:642–649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanson A, Caro T, Davies-Mostert H, Mills MGL, Macdonald DW, Borner M, Masenga E, Packer C (2014) Cheetahs and wild dogs show contrasting patterns of suppression by lions. J Anim Ecol 83:1418–1427

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas L, Buckland ST, Rexstad EA, Laake JL, Strindberg S, Hedley SL, Bishop JRB, Marques TA, Burnham KP (2010) Distance software: design and analysis of distance sampling surveys for estimating population size. J Appl Ecol 47:5–14

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Troy SN (2014) Spatial ecology of the Tasmanian spotted-tailed quoll. PhD thesis, University of Tasmania

  • Vanak AT, Fortin D, Thaker M, Ogden M, Owen C, Greatwood S, Slotow R (2013) Moving to stay in place: behavioral mechanisms for coexistence of African large carnivores. Ecology 94:2619–2631

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wang Y, Allen ML, Wilmers CC (2015) Mesopredator spatial and temporal responses to large predators and human development in the Santa Cruz Mountains of California. Biol Conserv 190:23–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wayne AF, Maxwell MA, Ward CG, Vellios CV, Ward BG, Liddelow GL, Wilson I, Wayne JC, Williams MR (2013) Importance of getting the numbers right: quantifying the rapid and substantial decline of an abundant marsupial, Bettongia penicillata. Wildlife Res 40:169–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weckel M, Giuliano W, Silver S (2006) Jaguar (Panthera onca) feeding ecology: distribution of predator and prey through time and space. J Zool 270:25–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Weitzman MS (1970) Measures of overlap of income distributions of white and Negro families in the United States. Technical Report No. 22. US Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • White GC, Burnham KP (1999) Program MARK: survival estimation from populations of marked animals. Bird Study 46:S120–S138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittington J, St. Clair CC, Mercer G (2005) Spatial responses of wolves to roads and trails in mountain valleys. Ecol Appl 15:543–553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willis KJ, Whittaker RJ (2002) Species diversity—scale matters. Science 295:1245–1248

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wilmers CC, Wang Y, Nickel B, Houghtaling P, Shakeri Y, Allen ML, Kermish-Wells J, Yovovich V, Williams T (2013) Scale dependent behavioral responses to human development by a large predator, the puma. PLoS One 8:e60590

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson GJ, Delahay RJ (2001) A review of methods to estimate the abundance of terrestrial carnivores using field signs and observations. Wildlife Res 28:151–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to the following property owners and managers for permission to access study sites and provision of accommodation: Ken Rowe, Arne Woolley, Bruce and Lynne Michael, Julian Von Bibra, Andrew Cameron, Peter Downie, Julian Bush, Gunns Ltd, Forestry Tasmania, Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service (Cradle Mountain-Lake St. Clair, Freycinet, Bruny Island and Seven Mile Beach) and the Tasmanian Land Conservancy. My thanks to all the volunteers who assisted with field work, in particular Jocelyn Goon, Amy Saunders and Halley Durrant. I thank Elissa Cameron, Stewart Nicol and three anonymous reviewers for providing comments on an earlier draft and Clare Hawkins, Stewart Nicol, Chris Johnson and Menna Jones for PhD supervision while this study was conducted. Cameras and vehicles used in this study were funded by the Australian Research Council and the National Environmental Research Program. This study was carried out with permission from the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE) under scientific permits FA11050, FA11208, FA11295, FA12048 and FA13060.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Biological Sciences, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 55, Hobart, TAS, 7001, Australia

    Bronwyn A. Fancourt

Authors
  1. Bronwyn A. Fancourt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bronwyn A. Fancourt.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

This study was performed in accordance with the University of Tasmania Animal Ethics Committee Permit #A11655.

Funding

This study was funded by a Holsworth Wildlife Research Endowment.

Conflict of interest

The author declares that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Communicated by L. Z. Garamszegi

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(PDF 191 kb)

ESM 2

(PDF 183 kb)

ESM 3

(PDF 112 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fancourt, B.A. Avoiding the subject: the implications of avoidance behaviour for detecting predators. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 70, 1535–1546 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-016-2162-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-016-2162-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation