Diagnosing predation risk effects on demography: can measuring physiology provide the means?
Predators kill prey thereby affecting prey survival and, in the traditional top-down view of predator limitation, that is their sole effect. Bottom-up food limitation alters the physiological condition of individuals affecting both fecundity and survival. Predators of course also scare prey inducing anti-predator defences that may carry physiological costs powerful enough to reduce prey fecundity and survival. Here, we consider whether measuring physiology can be used as a tool to unambiguously diagnose predation risk effects. We begin by providing a review of recent papers reporting physiological effects of predation risk. We then present a conceptual framework describing the pathways by which predators and food can affect prey populations and give an overview of predation risk effects on demography in various taxa. Because scared prey typically eat less the principal challenge we see will be to identify measures that permit us to avoid mistaking predator-induced reductions in food intake for absolute food shortage. To construct an effective diagnostic toolkit we advocate collecting multiple physiological measures and utilizing multivariate statistical procedures. We recommend conducting two-factor predation risk × food manipulations to identify those physiological effects least likely to be mistaken for responses to bottom-up food limitation. We suggest there is a critical need to develop a diagnostic tool that can be used when it is infeasible to experimentally test for predation risk effects on demography, as may often be the case in wildlife conservation, since failing to consider predation risk effects may cause the total impact of predators to be dramatically underestimated.
KeywordEcology of fear Food supply Non-consumptive effects Non-lethal predator effects Predator–prey interaction
- Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Hamlin KL, Garrott RA, White PJ, Cunningham JA (2009) Contrasting wolf-ungulate interactions in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. In: Garrott RA, White PJ, Watson FGR (eds) The ecology of large mammals in central Yellowstone: sixteen years of integrated field studies. Elsevier, San Diego, pp 541–577Google Scholar
- Kats L, Dill L (1998) The scent of death: chemosensory assessment of predation risk by prey animals. Ecoscience 5:361–394Google Scholar
- MacLeod CD, MacLeod R, Learmonth JA, Cresswell W, Pierce GJ (2014) Predicting population level risk effects of predation from the responses of individuals. Ecology (in press)Google Scholar
- Morosinotto C, Ruuskanen S, Thomson RL, Siitari H, Korpimäki E, Laaksonen T (2013) Predation risk affects the levels of maternal immune factors in avian eggs. J Avian Biol 44:427–436Google Scholar
- Soares MC, Bshary R, Cardoso SC, Cote IM, Oliveira RF (2012) Face your fears: cleaning gobies inspect predators despite being stressed by them. PLOS ONE 7:e39781Google Scholar
- Seiter SA (2011) Predator presence suppresses immune function in a larval amphibian. Evol Ecol Res 13:283–293Google Scholar