4.5 Article

Elk decision-making rules are simplified in the presence of wolves

期刊

BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY AND SOCIOBIOLOGY
卷 61, 期 2, 页码 277-289

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00265-006-0258-1

关键词

antipredator behavior; predation; risk; habitat use; threat; elk; Cervus elaphus; wolf; Canis lupus; decision-making

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The risk of predation drives many behavioral responses in prey. However, few studies have directly tested whether predation risk alters the way other variables influence prey behavior. Here we use information theory (Akaike's Information Criterion, AICc) in a novel way to test the hypothesis that the decision-making rules governing elk behavior are simplified by the presence of wolves. With elk habitat use as the dependent variable, we test whether the number of independent variables (i.e., the size of the models) that best predict this behavior differ when wolves are present vs absent. Thus, we use AICc scores simply to determine the number of variables to which elk respond when making decisions. We measured habitat use using 2,288 locations from GPS collars on 14 elk, over two winters (14 elk winters), in the Gallatin Canyon portion of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. We found that the use of three major habitat components (grass, conifer, sage) was sensitive to many variables on days that wolves were locally absent, with the best models (Delta AlCc <= 2) averaging 7.4 parameters. In contrast, habitat use was sensitive to few variables on days when wolves were present: the best models averaged only 2.5 parameters. Because fewer variables affect elk behavior in the presence of wolves, we conclude that elk use simpler decision-making rules in the presence of wolves. This simplification of decision-making rules implies that predation risk imposes selection pressures that do not allow prey to respond to other pressures in ways that they otherwise would. If the affected processes are important, then this indirect effect of predation is likely to be important.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据