Who ends up in the eagle owl pellets? A new method to assess whether water voles experience different predation risk

Mammalian Biology

Volumn 76, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 683-686

  Melis, Claudia ^a   Holmern, Tomas ^a   Ringsby, Thor Harald ^a   Sæther, Bernt Erik ^a  

^a NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Norway)

Author keywords

Arvicola amphibius; Bubo bubo; Capture mark recapture; Norway; Optimal foraging theory; Predation

Indexed keywords

BODY CONDITION; FIELDWORK; MARK-RECAPTURE METHOD; NATURAL SELECTION; OPTIMUM FORAGING THEORY; PREDATION RISK; PREDATOR-PREY INTERACTION; PREY SIZE; RAPTOR; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RODENT;

NORWAY;

ARVICOLA; AVES; BUBO BUBO; MICROTUS RICHARDSONI; MURIDAE; STRIGIFORMES;

EID: 80053611422     PISSN: 16165047     EISSN: 16181476     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.mambio.2011.06.008     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Burnham K.P., Anderson D.R. Model Selection and Multi-model Inference: A Practical Information-theoretic Approach 2002, Springer Verlag, Berlin.
2. Errington P.L. Predation and vertebrate populations. The Quarterly Review of Biology 1946, 21:221-245.
3. Evsikov V.I., Nazarova G.G., Muzyka V.Y. Body condition and reproductive characteristics of female water voles (Arvicola terrestris L.). Russian Journal of Ecology 2008, 6:414-417.
4. FitzGibbon C.D., Fanshawe J. The condition and age of Thompson's gazelles killed by cheetahs and wild dogs. Journal of Zoology 1989, 218:99-107.
5. Frafjord K. Do eagle owls select larger water voles?. Fauna Norvegica 2003, 23:42-47.
6. Genovart M., Negre N., Tavecchia G., Bistuer A., Parpal L., Oro D. The young, the weak and the sick: evidence of natural selection by predation. Plos One 2010, 5.
7. Green A. Mass/length residuals: measures of body condition or generators of spurious results?. Ecology 2001, 8:1473-1483.
8. Greene C.H. Patterns of prey selection: implications of predator foraging tactics. American Naturalist 1986, 128:824-839.
9. Harper S.J., Batzli G.O. Monitoring use of runways by voles with passive integrated transponders. Journal of Mammalogy 1996, 77:364-369.
10. Hughes J.J., Ward D. Predation risk and distance to cover affect foraging behaviour in Namib Desert gerbils. Animal Behaviour 1993, 46:1243-1245.
11. Husseman J.S., Murray D.L., Power G., Mack C., Wenger C.R., Quigley H. Assessing differential prey selection patterns between two sympatric large carnivores. Oikos 2003, 101:591-601.
12. Jacobsen, K.-O., Røv, N., 2007. Hubro på Sleneset og vindkraft, In NINA Rapport.
13. Jedrzejewska B., Sidorovich V.E., Pikulik M.M., Jedrzejewski W. Feeding habits of the otter and the American mink in Bialowieza Primeval Forest (Poland) compared to other Eurasian populations. Ecography 2001, 24:165-180.
14. Keith L.B., Cary J.R., Rongstad O.J., Brittingham M.C. Demography and ecology of a declining snowshoe hare population. Wildlife Monographs 1984, 90.
15. Kenward R. Hawks and doves: factors affecting success and selection in goshawk attacks on woodpigeons. Journal of Animal Ecology 1978, 47:449-460.
16. Krebs C.J., Singleton G.R. Indices of condition for small mammals. Australian Journal of Zoology 1993, 41:317-323.
17. Lessells C.M., Boag P.T. Unrepeatable repeatabilities: a common mistake. The Auk 1987, 104:116-121.
18. MacArthur R.H., Pianka E.R. On the optimal use of a patchy environment. American Naturalist 1966, 100:603-609.
19. Meri T., Halonen M., Mappes T., Suhonen J. Younger bank voles are more vulnerable to avian predation. Canadian Journal of Zoology 2008, 86:1074-1078.
20. McNamara J.M., Houston A.I. Starvation and predation as factors limiting population size. Ecology 1987, 68:1515-1519.
21. Moorhouse T.P., Gelling M., McLaren G.W., Mian R., Macdonald D.W. Physiological consequences of captive conditions in water voles (Arvicola terrestris). Journal of Zoology 2007, 271:19-26.
22. Moorhouse T.P., Macdonald D.W. Indirect negative impacts of radio-collaring: sex ratio variation in water voles. Journal of Applied Ecology 2005, 1:91-98.
23. Murray D.L. Differential body condition and vulnerability to predation in snowshoe hares. Journal of Animal Ecology 2002, 71:614-625.
24. Norrdahl K., Korpimäki E. Does mobility or sex of voles affect risk of predation by mammalian predators?. Ecology 1998, 79:226-232.
25. Penteriani V., Delgado M.D.M., Bartolommei P., Maggio C., Alonso-Alvarez C., Holloway G.J. Owls and rabbits: predation against substandard individuals of an easy prey. Journal of Avian Biology 2008, 39:215-221.
26. Rohner C., Krebs C.J. Owl predation on snowshoe hares: consequences of antipredator behaviour. Oecologia 1996, 108:303-310.
27. Sinclair A.R.E., Arcese P. Population consequences of predation-sensitive foraging: the Serengeti wildebeest. Ecology 1995, 76:882-891.
28. Temple S.A. Do predators always capture substandard individuals disproportionately from prey populations?. Ecology 1987, 68:669-674.
29. van Dobben W.H. The food of the cormorant in the Netherlands. Ardea 1952, 34:1-63.
30. Wirsing A.J., Steury T.D., Murray D.L. Relationship between body condition and vulnerability to predation in red squirrels and snowshoe hares. Journal of Mammalogy 2002, 83:707-715.
31. Woodroffe G.L. The Water Vole 2000, The Mammal Society, London.