IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v34y2023i6p1013-1022..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

White-tailed deer responses to acoustic predator cues are contingent upon past land use and contemporary fire regime

Author

Listed:
  • Savannah L Bartel
  • John C Kilgo

Abstract

Prey can assess the immediate risk of predation by detecting cues of predator presence, and it is expected that prey should invest in costly antipredator behaviors when a cue of predator presence is detected. Features of the habitat in which the cue is detected, such as vegetative concealment, serve as indirect cues of risk and can mediate how prey respond to direct cues of predator presence. Past agricultural land use and contemporary fire regimes are common disturbances that may modify prey perceptions of risk and could, therefore, alter prey responses to direct cues of predator presence. We examined whether the overlap of these two disturbances affected white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) responses to cues of predator presence by measuring deer vigilance and foraging bout duration in response to coyote (Canis latrans) vocalizations across 20 woodlands that varied in past land use and contemporary fire regime. Frequent fire regimes consistently increased deer visibility to predators across both land-use history contexts. Deer exhibited no behavioral response to the predator cue in habitats containing infrequent fire regimes or agricultural legacies. Deer responded to the cue in frequently burned woodlands without agricultural legacies through increased vigilance and time spent at a foraging location. These findings reveal that land-use legacies and contemporary fire regimes can mediate how prey respond to direct cues of risk. They also suggest that prey may balance the uncertainty associated with cues of predation risk with the urgency of responding to a potential attack by being vigilant and remaining in place.

Suggested Citation

  • Savannah L Bartel & John C Kilgo, 2023. "White-tailed deer responses to acoustic predator cues are contingent upon past land use and contemporary fire regime," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 34(6), pages 1013-1022.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:34:y:2023:i:6:p:1013-1022.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/arad071
    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. Theodore Stankowich & Richard G. Coss, 2007. "Effects of risk assessment, predator behavior, and habitat on escape behavior in Columbian black-tailed deer," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 18(2), pages 358-367.
    2. Michael Griesser & Magdalena Nystrand, 2009. "Vigilance and predation of a forest-living bird species depend on large-scale habitat structure," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 20(4), pages 709-715.
    3. John L. Orrock & Brent J. Danielson & R. Jory Brinkerhoff, 2004. "Rodent foraging is affected by indirect, but not by direct, cues of predation risk," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 15(3), pages 433-437, May.
    4. Justin P. Suraci & Devin J. Roberts & Michael Clinchy & Liana Y. Zanette, 2017. "Fearlessness towards extirpated large carnivores may exacerbate the impacts of naïve mesocarnivores," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 28(2), pages 439-447.
    5. Savannah L Bartel & John L Orrock & Ulrika Candolin, 2021. "Past agricultural land use affects multiple facets of ungulate antipredator behavior," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 32(5), pages 961-969.
    6. Michael J. Cherry & L. Mike Conner & Robert J. Warren, 2015. "Effects of predation risk and group dynamics on white-tailed deer foraging behavior in a longleaf pine savanna," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 26(4), pages 1091-1099.
    7. Johan Lind & Will Cresswell, 2005. "Determining the fitness consequences of antipredation behavior," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 16(5), pages 945-956, September.
    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. Kenneth F. Kellner & Arielle W. Parsons & Roland Kays & Joshua J. Millspaugh & Christopher T. Rota, 2022. "A Two-Species Occupancy Model with a Continuous-Time Detection Process Reveals Spatial and Temporal Interactions," Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics, Springer;The International Biometric Society;American Statistical Association, vol. 27(2), pages 321-338, June.
    2. Melia G. Nafus & Jennifer M. Germano & Jeanette A. Perry & Brian D. Todd & Allyson Walsh & Ronald R. Swaisgood, 2015. "Hiding in plain sight: a study on camouflage and habitat selection in a slow-moving desert herbivore," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 26(5), pages 1389-1394.
    3. Jennie M. Carr & Steven L. Lima, 2012. "Heat-conserving postures hinder escape: a thermoregulation–predation trade-off in wintering birds," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 23(2), pages 434-441.
    4. N. A. Freidenfelds & T. R. Robbins & T. Langkilde, 2012. "Evading invaders: the effectiveness of a behavioral response acquired through lifetime exposure," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 23(3), pages 659-664.
    5. Kimberley J. Mathot & Josue David Arteaga-Torres & Anne Besson & Deborah M. Hawkshaw & Natasha Klappstein & Rebekah A. McKinnon & Sheeraja Sridharan & Shinichi Nakagawa, 2024. "A systematic review and meta-analysis of unimodal and multimodal predation risk assessment in birds," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15, December.
    6. Emma Lynch & Joseph M. Northrup & Megan F. McKenna & Charles R. Anderson & Lisa Angeloni & George Wittemyer, 2015. "Landscape and anthropogenic features influence the use of auditory vigilance by mule deer," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 26(1), pages 75-82.
    7. Nicole A. Schneider & Michael Griesser, 2013. "Incubating females use dynamic risk assessment to evaluate the risk posed by different predators," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 24(1), pages 47-52.
    8. Tore Slagsvold & Jan Hušek & Jason D. Whittington & Karen L. Wiebe, 2014. "Antipredator behavior: escape flights on a landscape slope," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 25(2), pages 378-385.
    9. Anu Eskelinen & Maria-Theresa Jessen & Hector A. Bahamonde & Jonathan D. Bakker & Elizabeth T. Borer & Maria C. Caldeira & W. Stanley Harpole & Meiyu Jia & Luciola S. Lannes & Carla Nogueira & Harry O, 2023. "Herbivory and nutrients shape grassland soil seed banks," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-11, December.
    10. Max Radvan & Anthony R Rendall & Michael A Weston, 2023. "The habitat connectivity hypothesis of escape in urban woodland birds," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 34(2), pages 297-305.
    11. Rachel Grant & Tim Halliday & Elizabeth Chadwick, 2013. "Amphibians’ response to the lunar synodic cycle—a review of current knowledge, recommendations, and implications for conservation," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 24(1), pages 53-62.
    12. Bettridge, Caroline & Lehmann, J. & Dunbar, R.I.M., 2010. "Trade-offs between time, predation risk and life history, and their implications for biogeography: A systems modelling approach with a primate case study," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 221(5), pages 777-790.

    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:34:y:2023:i:6:p:1013-1022.. 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.