Trade-offs between sight lines and escape habitat determine spatial strategies of risk management by a keystone herbivore

Prey individuals possess four basic strategies to manage predation risk while foraging: time allocation, space use, apprehension, and foraging tenacity. But there are no direct tests of theory detailing how spatial strategies change and covary from fine to coarse scales of environmental variability....

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Douglas W. Morris, Sundararaj Vijayan
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Canadian Science Publishing 2018-03-01
Series:FACETS
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.facetsjournal.com/doi/10.1139/facets-2016-0062
_version_ 1818016547032006656
author Douglas W. Morris
Sundararaj Vijayan
author_facet Douglas W. Morris
Sundararaj Vijayan
author_sort Douglas W. Morris
collection DOAJ
description Prey individuals possess four basic strategies to manage predation risk while foraging: time allocation, space use, apprehension, and foraging tenacity. But there are no direct tests of theory detailing how spatial strategies change and covary from fine to coarse scales of environmental variability. We address this shortcoming with experiments that estimated space use and vigilance of snowshoe hares while we measured foraging tenacity in artificial resource patches placed in risky open versus safe alder habitat. Hares employed only two of eight a priori options to manage risk. Hares increased vigilance and reduced foraging in open areas as the distance from cover increased. Hares did not differentiate between open and alder habitats, increase vigilance at the coarse-grained scale, or reduce vigilance and foraging tenacity under supplemental cover. Hares were more vigilant in the putatively safe alder than in the purportedly risky open habitat. These apparently paradoxical results appear to reflect a trade-off between the benefit of alder as escape habitat and the cost of obscured sight lines that reduce predator detection. The trade-off also appears to equalize safety between habitats at small scales and suggests that common-sense predictions detailing how prey reduce risk may make no sense at all.
first_indexed 2024-04-14T07:13:52Z
format Article
id doaj.art-ab804f11f2f944fa96e227b427ed6a2f
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2371-1671
2371-1671
language English
last_indexed 2024-04-14T07:13:52Z
publishDate 2018-03-01
publisher Canadian Science Publishing
record_format Article
series FACETS
spelling doaj.art-ab804f11f2f944fa96e227b427ed6a2f2022-12-22T02:06:21ZengCanadian Science PublishingFACETS2371-16712371-16712018-03-01333835710.1139/facets-2016-0062Trade-offs between sight lines and escape habitat determine spatial strategies of risk management by a keystone herbivoreDouglas W. Morris0Sundararaj Vijayan1Department of Biology, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, ON P7B 5E1, Canada.Department of Biology, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, ON P7B 5E1, Canada.Prey individuals possess four basic strategies to manage predation risk while foraging: time allocation, space use, apprehension, and foraging tenacity. But there are no direct tests of theory detailing how spatial strategies change and covary from fine to coarse scales of environmental variability. We address this shortcoming with experiments that estimated space use and vigilance of snowshoe hares while we measured foraging tenacity in artificial resource patches placed in risky open versus safe alder habitat. Hares employed only two of eight a priori options to manage risk. Hares increased vigilance and reduced foraging in open areas as the distance from cover increased. Hares did not differentiate between open and alder habitats, increase vigilance at the coarse-grained scale, or reduce vigilance and foraging tenacity under supplemental cover. Hares were more vigilant in the putatively safe alder than in the purportedly risky open habitat. These apparently paradoxical results appear to reflect a trade-off between the benefit of alder as escape habitat and the cost of obscured sight lines that reduce predator detection. The trade-off also appears to equalize safety between habitats at small scales and suggests that common-sense predictions detailing how prey reduce risk may make no sense at all.http://www.facetsjournal.com/doi/10.1139/facets-2016-0062foraginggiving-up densityhabitatkeystone herbivorepredation riskrisk managementspatial scalesnowshoe hare
spellingShingle Douglas W. Morris
Sundararaj Vijayan
Trade-offs between sight lines and escape habitat determine spatial strategies of risk management by a keystone herbivore
FACETS
foraging
giving-up density
habitat
keystone herbivore
predation risk
risk management
spatial scale
snowshoe hare
title Trade-offs between sight lines and escape habitat determine spatial strategies of risk management by a keystone herbivore
title_full Trade-offs between sight lines and escape habitat determine spatial strategies of risk management by a keystone herbivore
title_fullStr Trade-offs between sight lines and escape habitat determine spatial strategies of risk management by a keystone herbivore
title_full_unstemmed Trade-offs between sight lines and escape habitat determine spatial strategies of risk management by a keystone herbivore
title_short Trade-offs between sight lines and escape habitat determine spatial strategies of risk management by a keystone herbivore
title_sort trade offs between sight lines and escape habitat determine spatial strategies of risk management by a keystone herbivore
topic foraging
giving-up density
habitat
keystone herbivore
predation risk
risk management
spatial scale
snowshoe hare
url http://www.facetsjournal.com/doi/10.1139/facets-2016-0062
work_keys_str_mv AT douglaswmorris tradeoffsbetweensightlinesandescapehabitatdeterminespatialstrategiesofriskmanagementbyakeystoneherbivore
AT sundararajvijayan tradeoffsbetweensightlinesandescapehabitatdeterminespatialstrategiesofriskmanagementbyakeystoneherbivore