Spatial Partitioning of Predation Risk in a Multiple Predator‐Multiple Prey System

ABSTRACT Minimizing risk of predation from multiple predators can be difficult, particularly when the risk effects of one predator species may influence vulnerability to a second predator species. We decomposed spatial risk of predation in a 2‐predator, 2‐prey system into relative risk of encounter...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Journal of Wildlife Management
Main Authors: ATWOOD, TODD C., GESE, ERIC M., KUNKEL, KYRAN E.
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2009
Subjects:
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.2193/2008-325
https://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrary/tdm/v1/articles/10.2193%2F2008-325
id crwiley:10.2193/2008-325
record_format openpolar
spelling crwiley:10.2193/2008-325 2024-09-15T18:01:20+00:00 Spatial Partitioning of Predation Risk in a Multiple Predator‐Multiple Prey System ATWOOD, TODD C. GESE, ERIC M. KUNKEL, KYRAN E. 2009 http://dx.doi.org/10.2193/2008-325 https://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrary/tdm/v1/articles/10.2193%2F2008-325 en eng Wiley http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor The Journal of Wildlife Management volume 73, issue 6, page 876-884 ISSN 0022-541X 1937-2817 journal-article 2009 crwiley https://doi.org/10.2193/2008-325 2024-08-09T04:26:52Z ABSTRACT Minimizing risk of predation from multiple predators can be difficult, particularly when the risk effects of one predator species may influence vulnerability to a second predator species. We decomposed spatial risk of predation in a 2‐predator, 2‐prey system into relative risk of encounter and, given an encounter, conditional relative risk of being killed. Then, we generated spatially explicit functions of total risk of predation for each prey species (elk [ Cervus elaphus ] and mule deer [ Odocoileus hemionus ]) by combining risks of encounter and kill. For both mule deer and elk, topographic and vegetation type effects, along with resource selection by their primary predator (cougars [ Puma concolor ] and wolves [ Canis lupus ], respectively), strongly influenced risk of encounter. Following an encounter, topographic and vegetation type effects altered the risk of predation for both ungulates. For mule deer, risk of direct predation was largely a function of cougar resource selection. However, for elk, risk of direct predation was not only a function of wolf occurrence, but also of habitat attributes that increased elk vulnerability to predation following an encounter. Our analysis of stage‐based (i.e., encounter and kill) predation indicates that the risk effect of elk shifting to structurally complex habitat may ameliorate risk of direct predation by wolves but exacerbate risk of direct predation by cougars. Information on spatiotemporal patterns of predation will be become increasingly important as state agencies in the western United States face pressure to integrate predator and prey management. Article in Journal/Newspaper Canis lupus Wiley Online Library The Journal of Wildlife Management 73 6 876 884
institution Open Polar
collection Wiley Online Library
op_collection_id crwiley
language English
description ABSTRACT Minimizing risk of predation from multiple predators can be difficult, particularly when the risk effects of one predator species may influence vulnerability to a second predator species. We decomposed spatial risk of predation in a 2‐predator, 2‐prey system into relative risk of encounter and, given an encounter, conditional relative risk of being killed. Then, we generated spatially explicit functions of total risk of predation for each prey species (elk [ Cervus elaphus ] and mule deer [ Odocoileus hemionus ]) by combining risks of encounter and kill. For both mule deer and elk, topographic and vegetation type effects, along with resource selection by their primary predator (cougars [ Puma concolor ] and wolves [ Canis lupus ], respectively), strongly influenced risk of encounter. Following an encounter, topographic and vegetation type effects altered the risk of predation for both ungulates. For mule deer, risk of direct predation was largely a function of cougar resource selection. However, for elk, risk of direct predation was not only a function of wolf occurrence, but also of habitat attributes that increased elk vulnerability to predation following an encounter. Our analysis of stage‐based (i.e., encounter and kill) predation indicates that the risk effect of elk shifting to structurally complex habitat may ameliorate risk of direct predation by wolves but exacerbate risk of direct predation by cougars. Information on spatiotemporal patterns of predation will be become increasingly important as state agencies in the western United States face pressure to integrate predator and prey management.
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
author ATWOOD, TODD C.
GESE, ERIC M.
KUNKEL, KYRAN E.
spellingShingle ATWOOD, TODD C.
GESE, ERIC M.
KUNKEL, KYRAN E.
Spatial Partitioning of Predation Risk in a Multiple Predator‐Multiple Prey System
author_facet ATWOOD, TODD C.
GESE, ERIC M.
KUNKEL, KYRAN E.
author_sort ATWOOD, TODD C.
title Spatial Partitioning of Predation Risk in a Multiple Predator‐Multiple Prey System
title_short Spatial Partitioning of Predation Risk in a Multiple Predator‐Multiple Prey System
title_full Spatial Partitioning of Predation Risk in a Multiple Predator‐Multiple Prey System
title_fullStr Spatial Partitioning of Predation Risk in a Multiple Predator‐Multiple Prey System
title_full_unstemmed Spatial Partitioning of Predation Risk in a Multiple Predator‐Multiple Prey System
title_sort spatial partitioning of predation risk in a multiple predator‐multiple prey system
publisher Wiley
publishDate 2009
url http://dx.doi.org/10.2193/2008-325
https://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrary/tdm/v1/articles/10.2193%2F2008-325
genre Canis lupus
genre_facet Canis lupus
op_source The Journal of Wildlife Management
volume 73, issue 6, page 876-884
ISSN 0022-541X 1937-2817
op_rights http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor
op_doi https://doi.org/10.2193/2008-325
container_title The Journal of Wildlife Management
container_volume 73
container_issue 6
container_start_page 876
op_container_end_page 884
_version_ 1810438486715531264