Oecologia

, Volume 179, Issue 4, pp 1033–1040 | Cite as

Interference competition: odours of an apex predator and conspecifics influence resource acquisition by red foxes

Behavioral ecology - Original research

Abstract

Apex predators can impact smaller predators via lethal effects that occur through direct killing, and non-lethal effects that arise when fear-induced behavioural and physiological changes reduce the fitness of smaller predators. A general outcome of asymmetrical competition between co-existing predator species is that larger predators tend to suppress the abundances of smaller predators. Here, we investigate interference effects that an apex predator, the dingo (Canis dingo), has on the acquisition of food and water by the smaller red fox (Vulpes vulpes), by exposing free-ranging foxes to the odour of dingoes and conspecifics in an arid environment. Using giving-up densities we show that foxes foraged more apprehensively at predator-odour treatments than unscented controls, but their food intake did not differ between dingo- and fox-odour treatments. Using video analysis of fox behaviour at experimental water stations we show that foxes spent more time engaged in exploration behaviour at stations scented with fox odour and spent more time drinking at water stations scented with dingo odour. Our results provide support for the idea that dingo odour exerts a stronger interference effect on foxes than conspecific odour, but suggest that the odours of both larger dingoes and unfamiliar conspecifics curtailed foxes’ acquisition of food resources.

Keywords

Mesopredator release Non-lethal effects Olfactory communication Giving-up densities Dingo 

References

  1. Arnold J, Soulsbury CD, Harris S (2011) Spatial and behavioral changes by red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in response to artificial territory intrusion. Can J Zool 89:808–815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berger KM, Gese EM (2007) Does interference competition with wolves limit the distribution and abundance of coyotes? J Anim Ecol 76:1075–1085CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Blizard RA, Perry GC (1979) Response of captive male red foxes (Vulpes vulpes L.) to some conspecific odors. J Chem Ecol 5:869–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blumstein DT, Daniel JC (2007) Quantifying bahaviour the JWatcher way. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown J (1988) Patch use as an indicator of habitat preference, predation risk, and competition. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 22:37–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bytheway J, Carthey AR, Banks P (2013) Risk vs. reward: how predators and prey respond to aging olfactory cues. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 67:715–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carthey AJ (2012) Naiveté, novelty and native status: mismatched ecological interactions in the Australian environment. PhD dissertation, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  8. Creel S, Winnie J, Maxwell B, Hamlin K, Creel M (2005) Elk alter habitat selection as an antipredator response to wolves. Ecology 86:3387–3397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Creel S, Christianson D, Liley S, Winnie JA (2007) Predation risk affects reproductive physiology and demography of elk. Science 315:960CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Cubaynes S, MacNulty DR, Stahler DR, Quimby KA, Smith DW, Coulson T (2014) Density-dependent intraspecific aggression regulates survival in northern Yellowstone wolves (Canis lupus). J Anim Ecol 83:1344–1356CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Cupples JB, Crowther MS, Story G, Letnic M (2011) Dietary overlap and prey selectivity among sympatric carnivores: could dingoes suppress foxes through competition for prey? J Mamm 92:590–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Donadio E, Buskirk SW (2006) Diet, morphology, and interspecific killing in Carnivora. Am Nat 167:524–536CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Fawcett J, Fawcett J, Soulsbury C (2013) Seasonal and sex differences in urine marking rates of wild red foxes Vulpes vulpes. J Ethol 31:41–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gause GF (1934) The struggle for existence. Williams and Wilkins, BaltimoreCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gese EM, Ruff RL (1997) Scent-marking by coyotes, Canis latrans: the influence of social and ecological factors. Anim Behav 54:1155–1166CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Glen AS, Dickman CR (2005) Complex interactions among mammalian carnivores in Australia, and their implications for wildlife management. Biol Rev 80:387–401CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Gorman ML, Trowbridge BJ (1989) The role of odor in the social lives of carnivores. In: Gittleman JL (ed) Carnivore behaviour, ecology, and evolution. Cornell University, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Griffin PC, Griffin SC, Waroquiers C, Mills LS (2005) Mortality by moonlight: predation risk and the snowshoe hare. Behav Ecol 16:938–944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harris S, Smith GC (1987) Demography of two urban fox (Vulpes vulpes) populations. J Appl Ecol 24:75–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Henry JD (1977) The use of urine marking in the scavenging behavior of the red fox (Vulpes vulpes). Behaviour 61:82–106CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Holt RD, Polis GA (1997) A theoretical framework for intraguild predation. Am Nat 149:745–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnson CN, VanDerWal J (2009) Evidence that dingoes limit abundance of a mesopredator in eastern Australian forests. J Appl Ecol 46:641–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jones ME (1998) The function of vigilance in sympatric marsupial carnivores: the eastern quoll and the Tasmanian devil. Anim Behav 56:1279–1284CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Larivière S, Pasitschniak-Arts M (1996) Vulpes vulpes. Mamm Species 537:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Letnic M, Dworjanyn SA (2011) Does a top predator reduce the predatory impact of an invasive mesopredator on an endangered rodent? Ecography 34:827–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Letnic M, Koch F (2010) Are dingoes a trophic regulator in arid Australia? A comparison of mammal communities on either side of the dingo fence. Aust Ecol 35:167–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Letnic M, Ritchie EG, Dickman CR (2012) Top predators as biodiversity regulators: the dingo Canis lupus dingo as a case study. Biol Rev 87:390–413CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Lima SL, Dill LM (1990) Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 68:619–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lovari S, Pokheral CP, Jnawali SR, Fusani L, Ferretti F (2015) Coexistence of the tiger and the common leopard in a prey-rich area: the role of prey partitioning. J Zool 295:122–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mahon PS, Bates PB, Dickman CR (1998) Population indices for wild carnivores: a critical study in sand-dune habitat, south-western Queensland. Wildl Res 25:217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marsack P, Campbell G (1990) Feeding-behavior and diet of Dingoes in the Nullarbor region, Western-Australia. Wildl Res 17:349–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Martin P, Bateson P (1993) Measuring behaviour: an introductory guide. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Monclús R, Arroyo M, Valencia A, de Miguel F (2009) Red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) use rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) scent marks as territorial marking sites. J Ethol 27:153–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Morris T, Gordon CE, Letnic M (2015) Divergent foraging behaviour of a desert rodent, Notomys fuscus, in covered and open microhabitats revealed using giving up densities and video analysis. Aust Mammal 37:46–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Moseby KE, Stott J, Crisp H (2009) Movement patterns of feral predators in an arid environment—implications for control through poison baiting. Wildl Res 36:422–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Moseby KE, Neilly H, Read JL, Crisp HA (2012) Interactions between a top order predator and exotic mesopredators in the Australian rangelands. Int J Ecol 2012:250–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mukherjee S, Zelcer M, Kotler B (2009) Patch use in time and space for a meso-predator in a risky world. Oecologia 159:661–668CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Preisser EL, Bolnick DI, Benard MF (2005) Scared to death? The effects of intimidation and consumption in predator–prey interactions. Ecology 86:501–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. R Development Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  40. Ritchie EG, Johnson CN (2009) Predator interactions, mesopredator release and biodiversity conservation. Ecol Lett 12:982–998CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Rockhill AP, DePerno CS, Powell RA (2013) The effect of illumination and time of day on movements of bobcats (Lynx rufus). PLoS One 8:e69213PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Rothman RJ, Mech LD (1979) Scent-marking in lone wolves and newly formed pairs. Anim Behav 27(Part 3):750–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Scheinin S, Yom-Tov Y, Motro U, Geffen E (2006) Behavioural responses of red foxes to an increase in the presence of golden jackals: a field experiment. Anim Behav 71:577–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shapira I, Sultan H, Shanas U (2008) Agricultural farming alters predator–prey interactions in nearby natural habitats. Anim Conserv 11:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stoddart MD (1980) The ecology of vertebrate olfaction. Chapman and Hall, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Taylor SK, Buergelt CD, Roelke-Parker ME, Homer BL, Rotstein DS (2002) Causes of mortality of free-ranging Florida panthers. J Wildl Dis 38:107–114CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 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
  48. Vanak A, Thaker M, Gompper M (2009) Experimental examination of behavioural interactions between free-ranging wild and domestic canids. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 64:279–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Voigt DR, Earle BD (1983) Avoidance of coyotes by red fox families. J Wildl Manage 47:852–857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wallach AD, Ritchie EG, Read J, O’Neill AJ (2009) More than mere numbers: the impact of lethal control on the social stability of a top-order predator. PLoS One 4:e6861PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. White PCL, Harris S (1994) Encounters between red foxes (Vulpes vulpes): implications for territory maintenance, social cohesion and dispersal. J Anim Ecol 63:315–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Ecosystem Science, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental SciencesUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Conservation BiologyDenver Zoological FoundationDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations