Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40652220›Full record

ArticleMovement ecology2025

When, where, and how prey pair antipredator behaviors to natural and anthropogenic mortality risks.

Michael E Egan, Abigail M Weber, Nicole Gorman, Michael W Eichholz, Daniel Skinner, Peter E Schlichting, Guillaume Bastille-Rousseau

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Movement ecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Michael E EganCooperative Wildlife Research Laboratory, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, 62901-6504, USA. michael.egan@siu.edu.
Abigail M WeberCooperative Wildlife Research Laboratory, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, 62901-6504, USA.
Nicole GormanCooperative Wildlife Research Laboratory, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, 62901-6504, USA.
Michael W EichholzCooperative Wildlife Research Laboratory, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, 62901-6504, USA.
Daniel SkinnerIllinois Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources, 1 Natural Resources Way, Springfield, IL, 62702, USA.
Peter E SchlichtingIllinois Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources, 1 Natural Resources Way, Springfield, IL, 62702, USA.
Guillaume Bastille-RousseauCooperative Wildlife Research Laboratory, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, 62901-6504, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBehavioral responses of prey to predation risk have ecological impacts that can be as great as direct mortality. Risk response involves either behavioral changes or spatial avoidance, but it is not clear how prey decide between these strategies. Theory often suggests that prey pair responses to risks based on the hunting mode of the prey (hunting mode hypothesis), but prey may ignore hunting mode to prioritize responding to the most lethal predators (lethality hypothesis). Furthermore, prey may respond to the spatial distribution of these risks (risky places hypothesis) or respond only during the periods of highest risk (risky times hypothesis).

methodsTo test these hypotheses, we evaluated the behavioral responses of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) to risks from two natural mesopredators and human sources of mortality. Specifically, we determined, for each source of risk, whether deer responded with behavioral state changes or spatial avoidance and whether this behavior changed with time (diurnally and annually). We collared and tracked 40 female and 29 male deer. To determine the response of deer to risk, we collected data on the distribution of coyotes (Canis latrans), bobcats (Lynx rufus), human modification, hunters, and roads. We used hidden Markov models to determine whether each covariate impacted the probability of transitioning between behavioral states and selection functions to determine whether deer spatially avoided each covariate.

resultsGenerally, deer changed behavioral state in response to both mesopredators but avoided human modification. In response to mesopredators, deer consistently shifted to slower movement behavioral states. Spatial responses to human modification varied depending on the time of day. During daylight hours, deer selected for human modification, but during the crepuscular and nighttime period, deer avoided human modification.

conclusionsSpace use was most strongly related to more lethal humans, providing support for the lethality hypothesis. Despite prioritizing humans, mesopredators impacted behavioral state, suggesting that mesopredators still have important impacts on prey behavior. Finally, temporal patterns of avoidance align with other studies that indicate avoidance of predators is time-dependent, but further highlight the complex push-pull relationship of human modified areas on wildlife.

Identifiers

PMID40652220
PMCPMC12255098

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.