A comparison of shark and wolf research reveals similar behavioral responses by prey

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment

Volumn 9, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 335-341

  Wirsing, Aaron J ^a   Ripple, William J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL RESPONSE; CANID; COMMUNICATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ECOSYSTEM DYNAMICS; ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT; FACILITATION; MARINE ECOSYSTEM; PREDATOR-PREY INTERACTION; RESEARCH WORK; SHARK; TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM; VIGILANCE;

CANIS FAMILIARIS; CANIS LUPUS; CERVUS ELAPHUS; CHONDRICHTHYES; DUGONG DUGON; GALEOCERDO; GALEOCERDO CUVIER;

EID: 79961192395     PISSN: 15409295     EISSN: 15409309     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1890/090226     Document Type: Review

References (50)

1. Bergman EJ, Garrott RA, Creel S, et al. 2006. Assessment of prey vulnerability through analysis of wolf movements and kill sites. Ecol Appl 16: 273-84.
2. Beyer HL. 2006. Wolves, elk and willow on Yellowstone National Park's northern range (MS thesis). Edmonton, Canada: University of Alberta.
3. Bibikov DI. 1982. Wolf ecology and management in the USSR. In: Harrington FJ and Paquet PC (Eds). Wolves of the world: perspectives of behavior, ecology, and conservation. Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes Publications.
4. Carr MH, Neigel JE, Estes JA, et al. 2003. Comparing marine and terrestrial ecosystems: implications for the design of coastal marine reserves. Ecol Appl 13: S90-107. (Pubitemid 36872570)
5. Chase JM. 2000. Are there real differences among aquatic and terrestrial food webs? Trends Ecol Evol 15: 412-15.
6. Childress MJ and Lung MA. 2003. Predation risk, gender and the group size effect: does elk vigilance depend upon the behaviour of conspecifics? Anim Behav 66: 389-98. (Pubitemid 36990324)
7. Cole JJ. 2005. Communication between terrestrial and marine ecologists: loud, sometimes abrasive, but healthy and occasionally useful. Mar Ecol-Prog Ser 304: 272-74. (Pubitemid 43096942)
8. Creel S and Christianson D. 2008. Relationships between direct predation and risk effects. Trends Ecol Evol 23: 194-201.
9. Creel S, Winnie Jr J, Maxwell B, et al. 2005. Elk alter habitat selection as an antipredator response to wolves. Ecology 86: 3387-97. (Pubitemid 43086914)
10. Cresswell W. 1994. Flocking is an effective anti-predation strategy in redshanks, Tringa totanus. Anim Behav 47: 433-42.
11. Duarte CM. 2007. Marine ecology warms up to theory. Trends Ecol Evol 22: 331-33. (Pubitemid 46920546)
12. Fortin D, Beyer HL, Boyce MS, et al. 2005. Wolves influence elk movements: behavior shapes a trophic cascade in Yellowstone National Park. Ecology 86: 1320-30. (Pubitemid 40641206)
13. Gales N, McCauley RD, Lanyon J, et al. 2004. Change in abundance of dugongs in Shark Bay, Ningaloo and Exmouth Gulf, Western Australia: evidence for large-scale migration. Wildlife Res 31: 283-90. (Pubitemid 39147326)
14. Halley JM. 2005. Comparing aquatic and terrestrial variability: at what scale do ecologists communicate? Mar Ecol-Prog Ser 304: 274-80. (Pubitemid 43096943)
15. Halofsky JS and Ripple WJ. 2008. Fine-scale predation risk on elk after wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone National Park, USA. Oecologia 155: 869-77.
16. Heithaus MR and Dill LM. 2002. Food availability and tiger shark predation risk influence bottlenose dolphin habitat use. Ecology 83: 480-91. (Pubitemid 34122459)
17. Heithaus MR, Dill LM, Marshall GJ, et al. 2002. Habitat use and foraging behavior of tiger sharks (Galeocerdo cuvier) in a subtropical seagrass ecosystem. Mar Biol 140: 237-48. (Pubitemid 36064922)
18. Heithaus MR, Frid A, Wirsing AJ, et al. 2008. Predicting ecological consequences of marine top predator declines. Trends Ecol Evol 23: 202-10.
19. Heithaus MR, Frid A, Wirsing AJ, et al. 2007. State-dependent risk-taking by green sea turtles mediates top-down effects of tiger shark intimidation in a marine ecosystem. J Anim Ecol 76: 837-44. (Pubitemid 47262770)
20. Heithaus MR, Hamilton IM, Wirsing AJ, et al. 2006. Validation of a randomization procedure to assess animal habitat preferences: microhabitat use of tiger sharks in a seagrass ecosystem. J Anim Ecol 75: 666-76. (Pubitemid 43739118)
21. Heithaus MR, Wirsing AJ, Burkholder D, et al. 2009. Towards a predictive framework for predator risk effects: the interaction of landscape features and prey escape tactics. J Anim Ecol 78: 556-62.
22. Hernández L and Laundré JW. 2005. Foraging in the landscape of fear and its implications for habitat use and diet quality of elk and bison. Wildlife Biol 11: 215-20. (Pubitemid 41399748)
23. Laundré JW, Hernández L, and Altendorf KB. 2001. Wolves, elk, and bison: reestablishing the "landscape of fear" in Yellowstone National Park, USA. Can J Zool 79: 1401-09.
24. Lingle S. 2002. Coyote predation and habitat segregation of whitetailed deer and mule deer. Ecology 83: 2037-48. (Pubitemid 36524792)
25. McNamara JM and Houston AI. 1987. Starvation and predation as factors limiting population size. Ecology 68: 1515-19.
26. Menge BA, Chan F, Dudas S, et al. 2009. Do terrestrial ecologists ignore aquatic literature? Front Ecol Environ 7: 182-83.
27. Peacor SD and Werner EE. 2001. The contribution of trait-mediated indirect effects to the net effects of a predator. P Natl Acad Sci USA 98: 3904-08. (Pubitemid 32249870)
28. Peckarsky BL, Abrams PA, Bolnick DL, et al. 2008. Revisiting the classics: considering nonconsumptive effects in textbook examples of predator-prey interactions. Ecology 89: 2416-25.
29. Preisser EL, Bolnick DI, and Bernard MF. 2005. Scared to death? The effects of intimidation and consumption in predator-prey interactions. Ecology 86: 501-09. (Pubitemid 40356083)
30. Raffaelli D, Solan M, and Webb TJ. 2005. Do marine and terrestrial ecologists do it differently? Mar Ecol-Prog Ser 304: 283-89. (Pubitemid 43096945)
31. Ripple WJ and Beschta RL. 2007. Restoring Yellowstone's aspen with wolves. Biol Conserv 138: 514-19. (Pubitemid 47187298)
32. Ripple WJ and Beschta RL. 2006. Linking wolves to willows via risk-sensitive foraging by ungulates in the northern Yellowstone ecosystem. Forest Ecol Manag 230: 96-106.
33. Ripple WJ and Beschta RL. 2004. Wolves and the ecology of fear: can predation risk structure ecosystems? BioScience 54: 755-66. (Pubitemid 39073974)
34. Sansom A, Lind J, and Cresswell W. 2009. Individual behavior and survival: the roles of predator avoidance, foraging success, and vigilance. Behav Ecol 20: 1168-74.
35. Sargeant BL, Wirsing AJ, Heithaus MR, et al. 2007. Can environmental heterogeneity explain individual foraging variation in wild bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops sp)? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61: 679-88. (Pubitemid 46363611)
36. Schmitz OJ. 1998. Direct and indirect effects of predation and predation risk in old-field interaction webs. Am Nat 151: 327-42. (Pubitemid 28132191)
37. Schmitz OJ, Hamback PA, and Beckerman AP. 2000. Trophic cascades in terrestrial systems: a review of the effects of carnivore removals on plants. Am Nat 155: 141-53. (Pubitemid 30187790)
38. Schmitz OJ, Krivan V, and Ovadia O. 2004. Trophic cascades: the primacy of trait-mediated indirect interactions. Ecol Lett 7: 153-63. (Pubitemid 38260819)
39. Sinclair ARE and Arcese R. 1995. Population consequences of predation- sensitive foraging: the Serengeti wildebeest. Ecology 76: 882-91.
40. Steele JH. 1991. Can ecological theory cross the land-sea bound- ary? J Theor Biol 153: 425-36. (Pubitemid 23397236)
41. Terborgh J and Estes JA (Eds). 2010. Trophic cascades. Washington, DC: Island Press.
42. Trussell GC, Ewanchuk PJ, and Matassa CM. 2006. Habitat effects on the relative importance of trait- and density-mediated indirect interactions. Ecol Lett 9: 1245-52. (Pubitemid 44571666)
43. Werner EE and Peacor SD. 2003. A review of trait-mediated indirect interactions in ecological communities. Ecology 84: 1083-1100. (Pubitemid 37435382)
44. Winnie Jr J and Creel S. 2007. Sex-specific behavioural responses of elk to spatial and temporal variation in the threat of wolf predation. Anim Behav 73: 215-25. (Pubitemid 46013849)
45. Wirsing AJ, Cameron KE, and Heithaus MR. 2010. Spatial responses to predators vary with prey escape mode. Anim Behav 79: 531-37.
46. Wirsing AJ, Heithaus MR, and Dill LM. 2007a. Fear factor: do dugongs (Dugong dugon) trade food for safety from tiger sharks (Galeocerdo cuvier)? Oecologia 153: 1031-40. (Pubitemid 47389335)
47. Wirsing AJ, Heithaus MR, and Dill LM. 2007b. Living on the edge: dugongs prefer to forage in microhabitats allowing for escape from rather than avoidance of predators. Anim Behav 74: 93-101. (Pubitemid 47001340)
48. Wirsing AJ, Heithaus MR, and Dill LM. 2007c. Can you dig it? Use of excavation, a risky foraging tactic, by dugongs is sensitive to predation danger. Anim Behav 74: 1085-91. (Pubitemid 47538525)
49. Wirsing AJ, Heithaus MR, and Dill LM. 2006. Tiger shark (Galeocerdo cuvier) abundance and growth in a subtropical embayment: evidence from 7 years of standardized fishing effort. Mar Biol 149: 961-68. (Pubitemid 43989384)
50. Wirsing AJ, Heithaus MR, Frid A, et al. 2008. Seascapes of fear: evaluating sublethal predator effects experienced and generated by marine mammals. Mar Mammal Sci 24: 1-15. (Pubitemid 351239272)