Author
Listed:
- John W. Pokallus
- Jonathan N. Pauli
Abstract
Animals reduce their exposure to predation often at the cost of nutritional inputs. A variety of predator avoidance strategies exist, but species generally exist along a spectrum with some primarily utilizing behavioral responses to avoid predation and others relying more on morphological defenses to deter predation. North American porcupines (Erethizon dorsatum) possess a well-developed predator deterrent strategy (i.e., quills). During the winter, porcupines enter a nutritional bottleneck where they principally rely on endogenous stores to survive winter. We hypothesized that porcupine behavior in winter would, then, be primarily driven by nutritional demands rather than predation risk. To test this trade-off between perceived risk of predation and nutritional stress, we analyzed the length and sinuosity of movement patterns, relative to nutritional condition (urinary urea: creatinine), snow conditions (depth, density), and a risk landscape (predation risk and refuges). As predicted, the sinuosity of movement paths was unrelated to any of our variables, but we detected a strong correlation between lengths of movements with risk landscape. Specifically, the length of porcupine movement declined as the average risk of predation increased, and the presence of refuge trees in their movement path was positively related to path length. Thus, even for animals possessing extreme morphological defenses effective at deterring predation, and during a period of nutritional stress, movement and behavior are nevertheless driven by perceived predation risk.
Suggested Citation
John W. Pokallus & Jonathan N. Pauli, 2016.
"Predation shapes the movement of a well-defended species, the North American porcupine, even when nutritionally stressed,"
Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 27(2), pages 470-475.
Handle:
RePEc:oup:beheco:v:27:y:2016:i:2:p:470-475.
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:27:y:2016:i:2:p:470-475.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.