ArticleThe Journal of animal ecology2024
Asymmetrical predation intensity produces divergent antipredator behaviours in primary and secondary prey.
Article in The Journal of animal ecology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Asymmetrical predation intensity produces divergent antipredator behaviours in primary and secondary prey.The Journal of animal ecology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
It is widely recognized that predators can influence prey through both direct consumption and by inducing costly antipredator behaviours, the latter of which can produce nonconsumptive effects that cascade through trophic systems. Yet, determining how particular prey manage risk in natural settings remains challenging as empirical studies disproportionately focus on single predator-prey dyads. Here, we contrast foraging strategies within the context of a primary and secondary prey to explore how antipredator behaviours emerge as a product of predation intensity as well as the setting in which an encounter takes place. We studied the effects of spotted owls (Strix occidentalis) on two species experiencing asymmetrical risk: dusky-footed woodrats (Neotoma fuscipes; primary prey) and deer mice (Peromyscus spp.; alternative prey). Woodrats are most abundant within young forests, but predominantly captured by owls foraging within mature forests; in contrast, deer mice occur in high densities across forest types and seral stages and are consumed at lower per-capita rates overall. We deployed experimental foraging patches within areas of high and low spotted owl activity, created artificial risky and safe refuge treatments, and monitored behaviour throughout the entirety of prey foraging bouts. Woodrats were more vigilant and foraged less within mature forests and at riskier patches, although the effect of refuge treatment was contingent upon forest type. In contrast, deer mice only demonstrated consistent behavioural responses to riskier refuge treatments; forest type had little effect on perceived risk or the relative importance of refuge treatment. Thus, habitat can interact with predator activity to structure antipredator responses differently for primary versus secondary prey. Our findings show that asymmetrical predation can modulate both the magnitude of perceived risk and the strategies used to manage it, thus highlighting an important and understudied contingency in risk effects research. Evaluating the direct and indirect effects of predation through the paradigm of primary and secondary prey may improve our understanding of how nonconsumptive effects can extend to population- and community-level responses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.