IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v32y2021i6p1380-1390..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perceived risk structures the space use of competing carnivores

Author

Listed:
  • Mauriel Rodriguez Curras
  • Emiliano Donadío
  • Arthur D Middleton
  • Jonathan N Pauli

Abstract

Competition structures ecological communities. In carnivorans, competitive interactions are disproportionately costly to subordinate carnivores who must account for the risk of interspecific killing when foraging. Accordingly, missed opportunity costs for meso-carnivores imposed by risk can benefit the smallest-bodied competitors. However, the extent to which the risk perpetuates into spatial partitioning in hierarchically structured communities remains unknown. To determine how risk-avoidance behaviors shape the space-use of carnivore communities, we studied a simple community of carnivores in northern Patagonia, Argentina: pumas (Puma concolor; an apex carnivore), culpeo foxes (Lycalopex culpaeus; a meso-carnivore), and chilla foxes (Lycalopex griseus; a small carnivore). We used multi-species occupancy models to quantify the space use within the carnivore community and giving-up densities to understand the behaviors that structure space use. Notably, we applied an analytical framework that tests whether the actual or perceived risk of predation most strongly influences the space use of subordinate carnivores although accounting for their foraging and vigilance behaviors. We found that there was a dominance hierarchy from the apex carnivore through the meso-carnivore to the subordinate small carnivore, which was reflected in space. Although both meso- and small carnivores exhibited similar predator avoidance behavioral responses to apex carnivores, the habitat associations of apex carnivores only altered meso-carnivore space use. The biases in risk management we observed for meso-carnivores likely translates into stable co-existence of this community of competing carnivores. We believe our analytical framework can be extended to other communities to quantify the spatial-behavioral tradeoffs of risk.

Suggested Citation

  • Mauriel Rodriguez Curras & Emiliano Donadío & Arthur D Middleton & Jonathan N Pauli, 2021. "Perceived risk structures the space use of competing carnivores," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 32(6), pages 1380-1390.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:32:y:2021:i:6:p:1380-1390.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/arab104
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nathan R Geraldi & Peter I Macreadie, 2013. "Restricting Prey Dispersal Can Overestimate the Importance of Predation in Trophic Cascades," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(2), pages 1-9, February.
    2. Guy A Balme & Ross T Pitman & Hugh S Robinson & Jennie R B Miller & Paul J Funston & Luke T B Hunter, 2017. "Leopard distribution and abundance is unaffected by interference competition with lions," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 28(5), pages 1348-1358.
    3. Fiske, Ian & Chandler, Richard, 2011. "unmarked: An R Package for Fitting Hierarchical Models of Wildlife Occurrence and Abundance," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 43(i10).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Linda M. Haines, 2016. "A Note on the Royle–Nichols Model for Repeated Detection–Nondetection Data," Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics, Springer;The International Biometric Society;American Statistical Association, vol. 21(3), pages 588-598, September.
    2. Tracey N Johnson & Kristen Nasman & Zachary P Wallace & Lucretia E Olson & John R Squires & Ryan M Nielson & Patricia L Kennedy, 2019. "Survey design for broad-scale, territory-based occupancy monitoring of a raptor: Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) as a case study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-22, March.
    3. Johnston, Alison & Moran, Nick & Musgrove, Andy & Fink, Daniel & Baillie, Stephen R., 2020. "Estimating species distributions from spatially biased citizen science data," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 422(C).
    4. Therin M Bradshaw & Abigail G Blake-Bradshaw & Auriel M V Fournier & Joseph D Lancaster & John O’Connell & Christopher N Jacques & Michael W Eichholz & Heath M Hagy, 2020. "Marsh bird occupancy of wetlands managed for waterfowl in the Midwestern USA," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(2), pages 1-19, February.
    5. Zhiyuan Lv & Jun Yang & Ben Wielstra & Jie Wei & Fei Xu & Yali Si, 2019. "Prioritizing Green Spaces for Biodiversity Conservation in Beijing Based on Habitat Network Connectivity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-20, April.
    6. Jha, Ashish & J, Praveen & Nameer, P.O., 2022. "Contrasting occupancy models with presence-only models: Does accounting for detection lead to better predictions?," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 472(C).
    7. Karavarsamis, N. & Huggins, R.M., 2019. "Two-stage approaches to the analysis of occupancy data II. The heterogeneous model and conditional likelihood," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 195-207.
    8. Benjamin Juan Padilla & Chris Sutherland, 2021. "Defining dual-axis landscape gradients of human influence for studying ecological processes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(11), pages 1-17, November.
    9. Bryn E Evans & Cory E Mosby & Alessio Mortelliti, 2019. "Assessing arrays of multiple trail cameras to detect North American mammals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-18, June.
    10. Ferreira, Guilherme Braga, 2018. "When the blanket is too short: Potential negative impacts of expanding indigenous land over a national park in a high priority area for conservation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 359-364.
    11. Duarte, Adam & Adams, Michael J. & Peterson, James T., 2018. "Fitting N-mixture models to count data with unmodeled heterogeneity: Bias, diagnostics, and alternative approaches," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 374(C), pages 51-59.
    12. Kowalewski, Lucas K. & Chizinski, Christopher J. & Powell, Larkin A. & Pope, Kevin L. & Pegg, Mark A., 2015. "Accuracy or precision: Implications of sample design and methodology on abundance estimation," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 316(C), pages 185-190.
    13. Matthew R. P. Parker & Laura L. E. Cowen & Jiguo Cao & Lloyd T. Elliott, 2023. "Computational Efficiency and Precision for Replicated-Count and Batch-Marked Hidden Population Models," Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics, Springer;The International Biometric Society;American Statistical Association, vol. 28(1), pages 43-58, March.
    14. Linda M. Haines, 2020. "Multinomial N‐mixture models for removal sampling," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 76(2), pages 540-548, June.
    15. Edgar Santos‐Fernandez & Julie Vercelloni & Aiden Price & Grace Heron & Bryce Christensen & Erin E. Peterson & Kerrie Mengersen, 2024. "Increasing Trust in New Data Sources: Crowdsourcing Image Classification for Ecology," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 92(1), pages 43-61, April.
    16. Krista L. Noe & Christopher T. Rota & Mack W. Frantz & James T. Anderson, 2022. "Restored and Natural Wetland Small Mammal Communities in West Virginia, USA," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-14, September.
    17. Alex Diana & Emily Beth Dennis & Eleni Matechou & Byron John Treharne Morgan, 2023. "Fast Bayesian inference for large occupancy datasets," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 79(3), pages 2503-2515, September.

    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:32:y:2021:i:6:p:1380-1390.. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.