Is Density-Dependent Resource Harvest A Reliable Habitat Indicator for Conservation and Management?

References

• Altendorf, K. B., Landré, J. W., López Gonazález, C. A., Brown, J. S. 2001. Assessing effects of predation risk on foraging behavior of mule deer. J. Mammal. 82: 430-439.
   Google Scholar
• Amano, T., Ushiyama, K., Fujita, G., Higuchi, H. 2006. Foraging patch selection and departure by non-omniscent foragers: a field example in white-fronted geese. Ethology 112: 544-553.
   Google Scholar
• Bowers, M. A., Jefferson, J. L., Kuebler, M. G. 1993. Variation in giving-up densities of foraging chipmunks (Tamias striatus) and squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis). Oikos 66: 229-236.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, J. S. 1988. Patch use as an indicator of habitat preference, predation risk, and competition. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 22: 37-47.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, J. S. 1989. Desert rodent community structure: a test of four mechanisms of coexistence. Ecol. Monogr. 20: 1-20.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, J. S. 1992. Patch use under predation risk. I. Models and predictions. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 29: 301-309.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, J. S., Mitchell, W. A. 1989. Diet selection on depletable resources. Oikos 54: 33-43.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, J. S., Alkon, P. A. 1990. Testing values of crested porcupine habitats by experimental food patches. Oecologia 83: 512-518.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, J. S., Kotler, B. P. 2004. Hazardous duty pay and the foraging cost of predation. Ecol. Lett. 7: 999-1014.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, J. S., Morgan, R. A., Dow, B. D. 1992a. Patch use under predation risk. II. A test with fox squirrels, Sciurus niger.Ann. Zool. Fenn. 29: 311-318.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, J. S., Arel, Y., Abramsky, Z., Kotler, B. P. 1992b. Patch use by gerbils (Gerbillus allenbyi) in sandy and rocky habitats. J. Mammal. 73: 821-829.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, J. S., Kotler, B. P., Mitchell, W. A. 1997. Competition between birds and mammals: a comparison of giving-up densities between crested larks and gerbils. Evol. Ecol. 11: 757-771.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, J. S., Laundré, J. W., Gurung, M. 1999. The ecology of fear: optimal foraging, game theory and trophic interactions. J. Mammal. 80: 385-399.
   Google Scholar
• Davidson, D. L., Morris, D. W. 2001. Density-dependent foraging effort of deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus). Funct. Ecol. 15: 575-583.
   Google Scholar
• Druce, D. J., Brown, J. S., Castley, J. G., Kerley, G. I. H., Kotler, B. P., Slotow, R., Knight, M. H. 2006. Scale-dependent foraging costs: habitat use by rock hyraxes (Procavia capensis) determined using giving-up densities. Oikos 115: 513-525.
   Google Scholar
• Gill, J. A., Sutherland, W. J., Norris, K. 2001. Depletion models can predict shorebird distribution at different spatial scales. Proc. R. Soc. London B. 268: 369-376.
   Google Scholar
• Hochman, V., Kotler, B. P. 2006a. Patch use, apprehension, and vigilance behavior of Nubian Ibex under perceived risk of predation. Behav. Ecol. 18: 368-374.
   Google Scholar
• Hochman, V., Kotler, B. P. 2006b. Effects of food quality, diet preference and water on patch use by Nubian ibex. Oikos 112: 547-554.
   Google Scholar
• Houston, A. I., McNarara, J. M. 1999. Models of adaptive behaviour. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Hughes, J. J., Ward, D. 1993. Predation risk and distance to cover affect foraging behavior in Namib desert gerbils. Anim. Behav. 46: 1243-1245.
   Google Scholar
• Iwasa, Y. M., Higashi, M., Yamamura, N. 1981. Prey distribution as a factor determining the choice of optimal foraging strategy. Am. Nat. 117: 710-723.
   Google Scholar
• Jacob, J., Brown, J. S. 2000. Microhabitat use, giving-up densities and temporal activity as short-and long-term anti-predator behaviors in common voles. Oikos 91: 131-138.
   Google Scholar
• Kohlmann, S. G., Risenhoover, K. L. 1998. Effects of resource distribution, patch spacing, and preharvest information on foraging decisions of northern bobwhites. Behav. Ecol. 9: 177-186.
   Google Scholar
• Korb, J., Linsenmair, K. E. 2002. Evaluation of predation risk in the collectively foraging termite Macrotermes bellicosus.Insectes Soc. 49: 264-269.
   Google Scholar
• Kotler, B. P. 1997. Patch use by gerbils in a risky environment: manipulating food and safety to test four models. Oikos 78: 274-282.
   Google Scholar
• Kotler, B. P., Blaustein, L. 1995. Titrating food and safety in a heterogeneous environment: when are the risky and safe patches of equal value? Oikos 74: 251-258.
   Google Scholar
• Kotler, B. P., Gross, J. E., Mitchell, W. A. 1994. Applying patch use to assess aspects of foraging behavior in Nubian ibex. J. Wildl. Manage. 58: 299-307.
   Google Scholar
• Kotler, B. P., Dickman, D. R., Brown, J. S. 1998. The effects of water on patch use by two Simpson Desert granivores (Corvus coronoides and Pseudomys hermannsburgensis). Aust. Ecol. 23: 574-578.
   Google Scholar
• Kotler, B. P., Brown, J. S., Knight, M. H. 1999. Habitat and patch use by hyraxes: there's no place like home? Ecol. Lett. 2: 82-88.
   Google Scholar
• Kotler, B. P., Brown, J. S., Bouskila, A., Mukherjee, S., Goldberg, T. 2004. Foraging games between gerbils and their predators: seasonal changes in schedules of activity and apprehension. Isr. J. Zool. 50: 255-271.
   Google Scholar
• Lima, S. L. 1998. Nonlethal effects in the ecology of predator-prey interactions: what are the ecological effects of anti-predator decision making? Bioscience 48: 25-34.
   Google Scholar
• Mohr, K., Vibe-Petersen, S., Jeppesen, L. L., Bildsøe, M., Leirs, H. 2003. Foraging of multimammate mice, Mastomys natalensis, under different predation pressure: cover, patch-dependent decisions and density-dependent GUDs. Oikos 100: 459-468.
   Google Scholar
• Morris, D. W. 1988. Habitat-dependent population regulation and community structure. Evol. Ecol. 2: 253-269.
   Google Scholar
• Morris, D. W. 1989. Habitat-dependent estimates of competitive interaction. Oikos 55: 111-120.
   Google Scholar
• Morris, D. W. 1994. Habitat matching: alternatives and implications to populations and communities. Evol. Ecol. 8: 387-406.
   Google Scholar
• Morris, D. W. 1997. Optimally foraging deer mice in prairie mosaics: a test of habitat theory and absence of landscape effects. Oikos 80: 31-42.
   Google Scholar
• Morris, D. W. 1999. Has the ghost of competition passed? Evol. Ecol. Res. 1:3-20.
   Google Scholar
• Morris, D. W. 2001. Learning from the games animals play: using behavior to assess spatial structure and stochasticity in natural populations. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 38: 37-53.
   Google Scholar
• Morris, D. W. 2003. How can we apply theories of habitat selection to wildlife conservation and management? Wildl. Res. 30: 303-319.
   Google Scholar
• Morris, D. W. 2005a. On the roles of time, space, and habitat in a boreal small-mammal assemblage: predictably stochastic assembly. Oikos 109: 223-238.
   Google Scholar
• Morris, D. W. 2005b. Habitat-dependent foraging in a classic predator-prey system: a fable from snowshoe hares. Oikos 109: 239-254.
   Google Scholar
• Morris, D. W., Davidson, D. L. 2000. Optimally foraging mice match patch use with habitat differences in fitness. Ecology 81: 2061-2066.
   Google Scholar
• Morris, D. W., Mukherjee, S. 2007. Can we measure carrying capacity with foraging behavior? Ecology 88: 597-604.
   Google Scholar
• Oatway, M. L., Morris, D. W. 2007. Do animals select habitat at small or large scales? An experiment with meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus). Can. J. Zool. 85: 479-487.
   Google Scholar
• Orrock, J. L., Danielson, B. J. 2005. Patch shape, connectivity, and foraging by oldfield mice (Peromyscus polionotus). J. Mammal. 86: 569-575.
   Google Scholar
• Ovadia, O., Ziv, Y., Abramsky, Z., Pinshow, B., Kotler, B. P. 2001. Harvest rates and foraging strategies in Negev Desert gerbils. Behav. Ecol. 12: 219-226.
   Google Scholar
• Percival, S. M., Sutherland, W. J., Evans, P. R. 1998. Intertidal habitat loss and wildfowl numbers: applications of a spatial depletion model. J. Appl. Biol. 35: 57-63.
   Google Scholar
• Persson, A., Stenberg, M. 2006. Linking patch-use behavior, resource density, and growth expectations in fish. Ecology 87: 1953-1959.
   Google Scholar
• Pusenius, J., Schmidt, K. A. 2002. The effects of habitat manipulation on population distribution and foraging behavior in meadow voles. Oikos 98: 251-262.
   Google Scholar
• Rieucau, G., Vickery, W. L., Laquerre, B. 2007. An innovative use of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) foraging behaviour in impact studies. Can. J. Zool. 85: 839-846.
   Google Scholar
• Sánchez, F. 2006. Harvest rates and patch-use strategy of Egyptian fruit bats in artificial food patches. J. Mammal. 87: 1140-1144.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, K. A. 2000. Interactions between food chemistry and predation risk in fox squirrels. Ecology 81: 2077-2085.
   Google Scholar
• Shochat, E., Lerman, S. B., Katti, M., Lewis, D. B. 2004. Linking optimal foraging behavior to bird community structure in an urban-desert landscape: field experiments with artificial food patches. Am. Nat. 164: 232-243.
   Google Scholar
• Stenberg, M., Persson, A. 2006. Patch use behavior in benthic fish depends on their long-term growth prospects. Oikos 112: 332-341.
   Google Scholar
• Sutherland, W. J., Anderson, C. W. 1993. Predicting the distribution of individuals and the consequences of habitat loss: the role of prey depletion. J. Theor. Biol. 160: 223-230.
   Google Scholar
• Valone, T. J., Brown J. S. 1989. Measuring patch assessment abilities of desert granivores. Ecology 70: 1800-1810.
   Google Scholar
• van Gils, J. A., Edelaar, P., Escudero, G., Piersma, T. 2004. Carrying capacity models should not use fixed prey density thresholds: a plea for using more tools of behavioural ecology. Oikos 104: 197-204.
   Google Scholar