Behavioral Indicators of Predator space use: Studying Species Interactions through the behavior of Predators

References

• Abramsky, Z., Rosenzwei, M. L., Belmaker, J., Bar, A. 2004. The impact of long-term continuous risk of predation on two species of gerbils. Can. J. Zool. 82: 464-474.
   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 4 mechanism of coexistence. Ecol. Monogr. 59: 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, Alkon, P. U. 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., Laundré, J. W., Gurung, M. 1999. The ecology of fear: optimal foraging, game theory, and trophic interactions. J. Mammal. 80: 385-399.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, R. W., Hubbard, D. L., Sloan, R. J. 1975. Patterns of gypsy moth occurrence within a sparse and numerically stable population. Environ. Entomol. 4: 535-542.
   Google Scholar
• Chaloupka, M., Limpus, C. 2001. Trends in the abundance of sea turtles resident in southern Great Barrier Reef waters Biol. Conserv. 102: 235-249.
   Google Scholar
• Charnov, E. L. 1976. Optimal foraging: the marginal value theorem. Theor. Pop. Biol. 9: 129-136.
   Google Scholar
• Connors, M. J. 2005. Quantifying spatial and temporal heterogeneity in predator activity and risk to prey. Ph.D. thesis, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Illinois. 81 pp.
   Google Scholar
• Connors, M. J., Schauber, E. M., Forbes, A., Jones, C. G., Goodwin, B. J., Ostfeld, R. S. 2005. Use of track plates to quantify predation risk at small spatial scales. J. Mammal. 86: 991-996.
   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
• Durrant, S. M. 1998. Competition refuges and coexistence: an example from Serengeti carnivores. J. Anim. Ecol. 67: 370-386.
   Google Scholar
• Elkinton, J. S., Healy, W. M., Buonaccorsi, J. P., Boettner, G. H., Hazzard, A M., Smith, H. R., Liebhold, A. M. 1996. Interactions among gypsy moths, white-footed mice, and acorns. Ecology 77: 2332-2342.
   Google Scholar
• Falls, J. B., Falls, E. A., Fryxell, J. M. 2007. Fluctuations of deer mice in Ontario in relation to seed crops. Ecol. Monogr. 77: 19-32.
   Google Scholar
• Haskell, D. G. 1999. The effect of predation on begging-call evolution in nestling wood Warblers. Anim. Behav. 57: 893-901.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, C. 2003. Safety in numbers for secondary prey populations: an experimental test using egg predation by small mammals in New Zealand. Oikos 102: 57-66.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, C. G., Ostfeld, R. S., Richard, M. P., Schauber, E. M., Wolff, J. O. 1998. Chain reactions linking acorns to gypsy moth outbreaks and Lyme disease risk. Science 279: 1023-1026.
   Google Scholar
• Kotler, B. P., Brown, J. S. 1999. Mechanisms of coexistence of optimal foragers as determinants of local abundances and distributions of desert granivores. J. Mammal. 80: 361-374.
   Google Scholar
• Kotler, B. P., Brown, J. S., Hasson, O. 1991. Factors affecting gerbil foraging behavior and rates of owl predation. Ecology 72: 2249-2260.
   Google Scholar
• Mandelik, Y., Jones, M., Dayan, T. 2003. Structurally complex habitat and sensory adaptations mediate the behavioural responses of a desert rodent to an indirect cue for increased predation risk. Evol. Ecol. Res. 5: 501-515.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, T. E. 1992. Breeding productivity considerations: what are the appropriate habitat features for management? In: Hagan, J. M. III, Johnson, D. W., eds. Ecology and conservation of Neotropical migrant landbirds. Smithson. Inst. Press, Washington, DC., pp. 455-473.
   Google Scholar
• Mayfield, H. F. 1975. Suggestions for calculating nest success. Wilson Bull. 87: 456-466.
   Google Scholar
• McCracken, K. E., Witham, J. W., Hunter, M. L. Jr. 1999. Relationships between seed fall of three tree species and Peromyscus leucopus and Clethrionomys gapperi during 10 years in an oak-pine forest. J. Mammal. 80: 1288-1296.
   Google Scholar
• Mech, L. D. 1977. Wolf-pack buffer zones as prey reservoirs. Science 198: 320-321.
   Google Scholar
• Morris, D. W., Mukherjee, S. 2007a. Can we measure carrying capacity with foraging behavior? Ecology 88: 597-604.
   Google Scholar
• Morris, D. W., Mukherjee, S. 2007b. Is density-dependent resource harvest a reliable habitat indicator for conservation and management? Isr. J. Ecol. Evol. 53: 371-387, this volume.
   Google Scholar
• Ostfeld, R. S., Jones, C. G., Wolff, J. O. 1996. Of mice and mast. Bioscience 46: 323-330.
   Google Scholar
• Pojar, T. M., Bowden, D. C. 2004. Neonatal mule deer fawn survival in west-central Colorado. J. Wildl. Manag. 68: 550-560.
   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
• Schauber, E. M. 2000. Models of mast seeding and its ecological effects on gypsy moth populations and Lyme disease risk. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
   Google Scholar
• Schauber, E. M., Jones, C. G. 2006. Comparative predation on naturally occurring and deployed gypsy moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) pupae. Environ. Entomol. 35: 293-296.
   Google Scholar
• Schauber, E. M., Goodwin, B. J., Jones, C. G., Ostfeld, R. S. 2007. Spatial selection and inheritance: applying evolutionary concepts to population dynamics in heterogeneous space. Ecology 88: 1112-1118.
   Google Scholar
• Schauber, E. M., Connors, M. J., Goodwin, B. J., Jones, C. G., Ostfeld, R. S. 2008. Quantifying a dynamic risk landscape: heterogeneous predator activity and implications for prey persistence. Ecology. In press.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, K. A. 2004. Incidental predation, enemy-free space, and the coexistence of incidental prey. Oikos 106: 335-343.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, K. A. 2006. Non-additivity among multiple cues of predation risk: a behaviorally driven trophic cascade between owls and songbirds. Oikos 113: 82-90.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, K. A., Brown, J. S. 1996. Patch assessment in fox squirrels: the role of resource density, patch size, and patch boundaries. Am. Nat. 147: 360-380.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, K. A., Whelan, C. J. 1999. Nest predation on woodland songbirds: when is nest predation density dependent? Oikos 87: 65-74.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, K. A., Ostfeld, R. S. 2003. Mice in space: space use predicts the interaction between mice and songbirds. Ecology 84: 3276-3283.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, K. A., Ostfeld, R. S. 2008. Numerical and behavioral effects within a pulse-driven system: consequences for shared prey. Ecology 89: 635-646.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, K. A., Goheen, J. R., Naumann, R. 2001. Incidental nest predation in songbirds: using behavioral indicators to determine ecological processes and scales. Ecology 82: 2937-2947.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, K. A., Ostfeld, R. S., Smyth, K. N. 2006. Spatial heterogeneity in predator activity, nest survivorship, and nest-site selection in two forest thrushes. Oecologia 148: 22-29.
   Google Scholar
• Sergio, F., Marchesi, L., Pedrini, P. 2003. Spatial refugia and the coexistence of a diurnal raptor with its intraguild predator. J. Anim. Ecol. 72: 232-245.
   Google Scholar
• Sih, A. 1998. Game theory and predator-prey reponse races. In: Dugatkin, L. A., Reeve, H. K., eds. Game theory and animal behavior. Oxford university Press, Oxford, pp. 221-238.
   Google Scholar
• Stephens, D. W., Krebs, J. R. 1986. Foraging theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 247 pp.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, R. J., Pekins, P. J. 1991. Territorial boundary avoidance as a stabilizing factor in wolf—deer interactions. Theor. Popul. Biol. 39: 115-128.
   Google Scholar
• Vickery, P. D., Hunter, M. L., Wells, J. F. 1992. Evidence of incidental nest predation and its effect on nests of threatened grassland birds. Oikos 63: 281-288.
   Google Scholar
• Vigallon, S. M., Marzluff, J. M. 2005. Is nest predation by Steller's Jays (Cyanocitta stelleri) incidental or the result of a specialized search strategy? Auk 122: 36-49.
   Google Scholar
• Vreeland, J. K., Diefenbach, D. R., Wallingford, B. D. 2004. Survival rates, mortality causes, and habitats of Pennsylvania white-tailed deer fawns. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 32: 542-553.
   Google Scholar
• White, K. A. J., Murray, J. D., Lewis, M. A. 1996. Wold-deer interactions: a mathematical model. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 263: 299-305.
   Google Scholar
• Wolff, J. O. 1996. Population fluctuations of mast-eating rodents are correlated with production of acorns. J. Mammal. 77: 850-856.
   Google Scholar
• Yanes, M., Suarez, F. 1996. Incidental nest predation and lark conservation in an Iberian semiarid shrubsteppe. Conserv. Biol. 10: 881-887.
   Google Scholar