Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The effects of owl predation on the foraging behavior of heteromyid rodents

  • Original Papers
  • Published:
Oecologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Researchers have documented microhabitat partitioning among the heteromyid rodents of the deserts of North America that may result from microhabitat specific predation rates; large/bipedal species predominate in the open/risky microhabitat and small/quadrupedal species predominate in the bush/safer microhabitat. Here, we provide direct experimental evidence on the role of predatory risk in affecting the foraging behavior of three species of heteromyid rodents: Arizona pocket mouse (Perognathus amplus; small/quadrupedal), Bailey's pocket mouse (P. baileyi; large/quadrupedal), and Merriam's kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami; large/bipedal). Both kangaroo rats and pocket mice are behaviorally flexible and able to adjust their foraging behavior to nightly changes in predatory risk. Under low levels of perceived predatory risk the kangaroo rat foraged relatively more in the open microhabitat than the two pocket mouse species. In response to the presence of barn owls, however, all three species shifted their habitat use towards the bush microhabitat. In response to direct measures of predatory risk, i.e. the actual presence of owls, all three species reduced foraging and left resource patches at higher giving up densities of seeds. In response to indirect indicators of predatory risk, i.e. illumination, there was a tendency for all three species to reduce foraging. The differences in morphology between pocket mice and kangaroo rats do appear to influence their behavioral responses to predatory risk.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Belman KL, Kranse FB (1983) Adaptive complexity of interactions between feeding and escape in crayfish. Science 221:779–781

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowers MA, Brown JH (1982) Body size and coexistence in desert rodents: chance or community structure? Ecology 63:391–400

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown JH (1973) Species diversity of seed eating desert rodents in dune habitats. Ecology 54:775–787

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown JH, Lieberman G (1973) Resource utilization and coexistence of seed-eating rodents in sand dune habitats. Ecology 54:788–797

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown JS (1986) Coexistence on a resource whose abundance varies: a test with desert rodents. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Univ Arizona, Tucson, 231 pp

  • Brown JS (1988) Patch use as an indicator of habitat preference, predation risk, and competition. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 22:37–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownlee KA (1965) “Statistical Theory and Methodolog in Science and Engineering, 2nd Edition”. Wiley, New York, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Calder WA III (1984) “Size, Function, and Life History”. Harvard Univ Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  • Charnov EL, Orians GH, Hyatt K (1976) Ecological implications of resource depression. Amer Natur 110:247–259

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke JA (1983) Moonlight's influence on predator/prey interactions between short-eared owls (Asio flammeus) and deermice (Peromyscus maniculatus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 13:205–209

    Google Scholar 

  • Dice LR (1945) Minimum intensities of illumination under which owls can find dead prey by sight. Amer Natur 79:385–416

    Google Scholar 

  • Dice LR (1947) Effectiveness of selectivity by owls of deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus) which contrast with their color background. Contr Lab Vert Biol Univ Mich No 34 20 pp

  • Edwards J (1983) Diet shifts in the moose due to predator avoidance. Oecologia (Berlin) 60:185–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg JF (1963) The behavior of heteromyid rodents. Univ Calif Publ Zool Vol 69, iv + 100 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Frye RJ (1983) Experimental field evidence of interspecific agression between two species of kangaroo rats (Dipodomys). Oecologia (Berlin) 47:323–327

    Google Scholar 

  • Holt RD (1984) Spatial heterogeneity, indirect interactions, and the coexistence of prey species. Amer Nat 124:377–406

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurlbert SH (1984) Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecol Monogr 54:187–211

    Google Scholar 

  • Ives AR, Dobson AP (1987) Antipredator behavior and the population dynamics of simple predator-prey systems. Amer Natur 130:431–447

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerfoot WC, Sih A, eds. (1987) “Predation, Direct and Indirect Impacts on Aquatic Systems”. University Press of New England, Hanover, New Hampshire

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotler BP (1984) Risk of predation and the structure of desert rodent communities. Ecology 65:689–701

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotler BP, Holt RD (1988) Predation and competition: the interaction of two types of species interaction. Oikos (in press)

  • Langeford A (1983) Pattern of nocturnal activity of male Dipodomys merriami (Heteromyidae). Southwest Natur 28:341–346

    Google Scholar 

  • Lima SL, Valone TJ, Caraco T (1985) Foraging efficiency-predation risk tradeoff in the gray squirrel. Anim Behav 33:155–165

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockard RB, Owings DH (1974) Seasonal variation in moonlight avoidance by bannertail kangaroo rats. J Mammal 55:189–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Milinski M, Heller R (1978) Influence of a predator on the optimal foraging behaviour of sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus L.). Nature 275:642–644

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohman MD, Frost BW, Cohen EB (1983) Reverse diel vertical migration: an escape from invertebrate predators. Science 220:1404–1407

    Google Scholar 

  • Peckarsky BL, Dodson SI (1980) Do stonefly predators influence benthic distributions in streems? Ecology 61:1275–1282

    Google Scholar 

  • Price MV (1978) The role of microhabitat specialization in structuring desert rodent communities. Ecology 58:1393–1399

    Google Scholar 

  • Price MV, Waser NW, Bass TA (1984) Effects of moonlight on microhabitat use by desert rodents. J Mammal 65:353–356

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenzweig ML (1973) Habitat selection experiments with a pair of coexisting heteromyid rodent species. Ecology 62:327–335

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenzweig ML, MacArthur RT (1963) Graphic representation and stability conditions of predator-prey interactions. Amer Nat 97:209–223

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenzweig ML, Winakur J (1969) Population ecology of desert rodent communities: habitat and environmental complexity. Ecology 50:558–572

    Google Scholar 

  • Sih A (1980) Optimal behaviour: can foragers balance two conflicting demands? Science 210:1041–1043

    Google Scholar 

  • Sih A (1982) Foraging strategies and the avoidance of predation by an aquatic insect, Notonecta hoffmanni. Ecology 63:786–796

    Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff D, Boecklen W (1981) Santa Rosalia reconsidered: size ratios and competition. Evolution 35:1206–1228

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson SD (1982) Microhabitat utilization and foraging behavior of bipedal and quadrupedal heteromyid rodents. Ecology 63:1303–1312

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson SD, MacMillen RE, Burke EM, Taylor CR (1980) The energetic cost of bipedal hopping in small mammals. Nature 287:223–224

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster DB (1962) A function of the enlarged middle ear cavities of the kangaroo rat, Dipodomys. Physiol Zool 35:248–255

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster DB, Webster M (1971) Adaptive value of hearing and vision in kangaroo rat predator avoidance. Brain Behav Evol 4:310–322

    Google Scholar 

  • Werner EE, Gilliam JF, Hall DJ, Mittlebach GG (1983) An experimental test of the effects of predation risk on habitat use in fish. Ecology 64:1540–1548

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Joel S. Brown

    Present address: Department of Biological Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, 60680, Chicago, IL, USA

  2. Burt P. Kotler

    Present address: Blaustein Institute for Desert Research, Ben-Gurion University, 84990, Sede Boqer, Israel

  3. Rosemary J. Smith

    Present address: Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, 85721, Tucson, AZ, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biology, Pomona College, 91711, Claremont, CA, USA

    Joel S. Brown, Burt P. Kotler, Rosemary J. Smith & William O. Wirtz II

Authors
  1. Joel S. Brown
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Burt P. Kotler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rosemary J. Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. William O. Wirtz II
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brown, J.S., Kotler, B.P., Smith, R.J. et al. The effects of owl predation on the foraging behavior of heteromyid rodents. Oecologia 76, 408–415 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00377036

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00377036

Key words

Search

Navigation