Living and dying in a multi-predator landscape of fear: Roe deer are squeezed by contrasting pattern of predation risk imposed by lynx and humans

Oikos

Volumn 123, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 641-651

  Lone, Karen ^a   Loe, Leif Egil ^a   Gobakken, Terje ^a   Linnell, John D C ^b   Odden, John ^b   Remmen, Jørgen ^a   Mysterud, Atle ^c  

^a NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES   (Norway)

^b NORWEGIAN INSTITUTE FOR NATURE RESEARCH   (Norway)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTIPREDATOR DEFENSE; BEHAVIORAL RESPONSE; DEER; FELID; FOOD AVAILABILITY; GPS; HABITAT TYPE; HUNTING; LIDAR; PREDATION RISK; PREDATOR; PREDATOR-PREY INTERACTION; RISK FACTOR; VEGETATION STRUCTURE;

NORWAY;

CAPREOLUS; LYNX; VERTEBRATA;

EID: 84900428102     PISSN: 00301299     EISSN: 16000706     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2013.00938.x     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Arnemo J. M. et al. (eds) 2012. Biomedical protocols for free-ranging brown bears, wolves, wolverines and lynx. - Hedmark Univ. College.
2. Atwood T. C. et al. 2007. Comparative patterns of predation by cougars and recolonizing wolves in Montana's Madison Range. - J. Wildlife Manage. 71 : 1098 - 1106.
3. Atwood T. C. et al. 2009. Spatial partitioning of predation risk in a multiple predator-multiple prey system. - J. Wildlife Manage. 73 : 876 - 884.
4. Basille M. et al. 2009. What shapes Eurasian lynx distribution in human dominated landscapes: selecting prey or avoiding people? - Ecography 32 : 683 - 691
5. Berger J. et al. 2001. Recolonizing carnivores and naïve prey: conservation lessons from pleistocene extinctions. - Science 291 : 1036 - 1039.
6. Brandtberg T. 2007. Classifying individual tree species under leaf-off and leaf-on conditions using airborne lidar. - ISPRS J. Photogramm. 61 : 325 - 340.
7. Brøseth H. and Tovmo M. 2012. Number of family groups, population estimate and population development of lynx in Norway for 2012. - NINA Rep. 859, p. 23.
8. Camp M. et al. 2013. Examining functional components of cover: the relationship between concealment and visibility in shrub-steppe habitat. - Ecosphere 4 : art19.
9. Ciuti S. et al. 2012. Human selection of elk behavioural traits in a landscape of fear. - Proc. R. Soc. B 279 : 4407 - 4416.
10. Coops N. C. et al. 2010. Assessing the utility of lidar remote sensing technology to identify mule deer winter habitat. - Can. J. Remote Sens. 36 : 81 - 88.
11. Creel S. and Christianson D. 2008. Relationships between direct predation and risk effects. - Trends Ecol. Evol. 23 : 194 - 201.
12. Cresswell W. and Quinn J. L. 2013. Contrasting risks from different predators change the overall nonlethal effects of predation risk. - Behav. Ecol. 24 : 871 - 876.
13. Cromsigt J. P. et al. 2013. Hunting for fear: innovating management of human-wildlife conflicts. - J. Appl. Ecol. 50 : 544 - 549.
14. Crosmary W. G. et al. 2012. African ungulates and their drinking problems: hunting and predation risks constrain access to water. - Anim. Behav. 83 : 145 - 153.
15. Hebblewhite M. et al. 2005. Spatial decomposition of predation risk using resource selection functions: an example in a wolf-elk predator-prey system. - Oikos 111 : 101 - 111.
16. Heithaus M. R. 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 - 562.
17. Hernandez L. and Laundré J. W. 2005. Foraging in the 'landscape of fear' and its implications for habitat use and diet quality of elk Cervus elaphus and bison Bison bison. - Wildlife Biol. 11 : 215 - 220.
18. Kauffman M. J. et al. 2010. Are wolves saving Yellowstone's aspen? A landscape-level test of a behaviorally mediated trophic cascade. - Ecology 91 : 2742 - 2755.
19. Kotler B. P. et al. 1992. Predator facilitation: the combined effect of snakes and owls on the foraging behavior of gerbils. - Ann. Zool. Fenn. 29 : 199 - 206.
20. Laundré J. W. et al. 2001. Wolves, elk and bison: reestablishing the 'landscape of fear' in Yellowstone National Park, USA. - Can. J. Zool. 79 : 1401 - 1409.
21. Lesak A. A. et al. 2011. Modeling forest songbird species richness using LiDAR-derived measures of forest structure. - Remote Sens. Environ. 115 : 2823 - 2835.
22. Lima S. L. 1992. Life in a multi-predator environment: some considerations for anti-predatory vigilance. - Ann. Zool. Fenn. 29 : 217 - 226.
23. Lima S. L. and Dill L. M. 1990. Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. - Can. J. Zool. 68 : 619 - 640.
24. Loarie S. R. et al. 2013. Lion hunting behaviour and vegetation structure in an African savanna. - Anim. Behav. 85 : 899 - 906.
25. Loe L. E. et al. 2012. Effects of spatial scale and sample size in GPS-based species distribution models: are the best models trivial for red deer management? - Eur. J. Wildlife Res. 58 : 195 - 203.
26. Martinuzzi S. et al. 2009. Mapping snags and understory shrubs for a LiDAR-based assessment of wildlife habitat suitability. - Remote Sens. Environ. 113 : 2533 - 2546.
27. May R. et al. 2008. Habitat differentiation within the large-carnivore community of Norway's multiple-use landscapes. - J. Appl. Ecol. 45 : 1382 - 1391.
28. Middleton A. D. et al. 2013. Linking anti-predator behaviour to prey demography reveals limited risk effects of an actively hunting large carnivore. - Ecol. Lett. 16 : 1023 - 1030.
29. Mysterud A. and Østbye E. 1999. Cover as a habitat element for temperate ungulates: effects on habitat selection and demography. - Wildlife Soc. Bull. 27 : 385 - 394.
30. Mysterud A. et al. 2012. Contrasting migration tendencies of sympatric red deer and roe deer suggest multiple causes of migration in ungulates. - Ecosphere 3 : art92.
31. Nilsen E. B. et al. 2009. Climate, season, and social status modulate the functional response of an efficient stalking predator: the Eurasian lynx. - J. Anim. Ecol. 78 : 741 - 751.
32. Næsset E. 2002. Predicting forest stand characteristics with airborne scanning laser using a practical two-stage procedure and field data. - Remote Sens. Environ. 80 : 88 - 99.
33. Odden J. et al. 2006. Diet of Eurasian lynx, Lynx lynx, in the boreal forest of southeastern Norway: the relative importance of livestock and hares at low roe deer density. - Eur. J. Wildlife Res. 52 : 237 - 244.
34. Odden J. et al. 2008. Vulnerability of domestic sheep to lynx depredation in relation to roe deer density. - J. Wildlife Manage. 72 : 276 - 282.
35. Ordiz A. et al. 2011. Predators or prey? Spatio-temporal discrimination of human-derived risk by brown bears. - Oecologia 166 : 59 - 67.
36. Ørka H. O. et al. 2013. Characterizing forest species composition using multiple remote sensing data sources and inventory approaches. - Scand. J. For. Res. 28 : 1 - 12.
37. Proffitt K. M. et al. 2009. Contrasting effects of wolves and human hunters on elk behavioral responses to predation risk. - J. Wildlife Manage. 73 : 345 - 356.
38. Ratikainen I. I. et al. 2007. Use of winter habitat by roe deer at a northern latitude where Eurasian lynx are present. - J. Zool. 273 : 192 - 199.
39. Ripple W. J. et al. 2001. Trophic cascades among wolves, elk and aspen on Yellowstone National Park's northern range. - Biol. Conserv. 102 : 227 - 234.
40. Sappington J. et al. 2007. Quantifying landscape ruggedness for animal habitat analysis: a case study using bighorn sheep in the Mojave Desert. - J. Wildlife Manage. 71 : 1419 - 1426.
41. Schmitz O. J. 2008. Effects of predator hunting mode on grassland ecosystem function. - Science 319 : 952 - 954.
42. Sih A. et al. 1998. Emergent impacts of multiple predators on prey. - Trends Ecol. Evol. 13 : 350 - 355.
43. Sonnichsen L. et al. 2013. Behavioural responses of European roe deer to temporal variation in predation risk. - Ethology 119 : 233 - 243.
44. Thaker M. et al. 2011. Minimizing predation risk in a landscape of multiple predators: effects on the spatial distribution of African ungulates. - Ecology 92 : 398 - 407.
45. Torres R. T. et al. 2012. Life at the edge: roe deer occurrence at the opposite ends of their geographical distribution, Norway and Portugal. - Mamm. Biol. Z. Säugetierkunde 77 : 140 - 146.
46. Turner A. M. et al. 1999. Predator identity and consumer behavior: differential effects of fish and crayfish on the habitat use of a freshwater snail. - Oecologia 118 : 242 - 247.
47. Turner W. et al. 2003. Remote sensing for biodiversity science and conservation. - Trends Ecol. Evol. 18 : 306 - 314.
48. Vierling K. T. et al. 2008. Lidar: shedding new light on habitat characterization and modeling. - Front. Ecol. Environ. 6 : 90 - 98.
49. White P. et al. 2011. Body condition and pregnancy in northern Yellowstone elk: evidence for predation risk effects? - Ecol. Appl. 21 : 3 - 8.
50. Wing B. M. et al. 2012. Prediction of understory vegetation cover with airborne lidar in an interior ponderosa pine forest. - Remote Sens. Environ. 124 : 730 - 741.