4.2 Article

The landscape of fear: habitat use by a predator (Canis latrans) and its main prey (Lepus californicus and Sylvilagus audubonii)

Journal

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ZOOLOGY
Volume 90, Issue 6, Pages 683-693

Publisher

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1139/Z2012-036

Keywords

coyote (Canis latrans); black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus); desert cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus audubonii); ecology; predation; desert

Categories

Funding

  1. CONACYT [179242]
  2. [CONACYT-2002-C01-41930/A-1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We evaluated the degree of mutual exclusivity of distributions of coyotes (Canis latrans Say, 1823) and their main prey (two lagomorph species: the black-tailed jackrabbit, Lepus californicus Gray, 1837, and the desert cottontail rabbit, Sylvilagus audubonii (Baird, 1858)) within the landscape by testing two models. The first assumes that prey seek high resource patches and, subsequently, predators seek prey within these patches, and predicts a high degree of overlap in patch use by both. The second model assumes that predator and prey balance not only food resources but reciprocal levels of predation risk and predation success in making decisions on whether or not to use a patch. This model predicts discordance in patch use between predator and prey. We used a combination of GPS-telemetry and camera-trapping data to assess habitat use patterns of predator and prey. Results from this study support the second model regarding spatial use of the landscape by a predator and its prey. Where the use of the landscape by predators and prey seem to be mediated by environmental constraints, both will adjust their predatory or antipredatory strategies based on these constraints. This results in a partial spatial separation of predator and prey across the landscape, providing patches of relative safety for prey but sufficient areas of overlap for predators to be successful.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available