Literature DB >> 25234371

Diagnosing predation risk effects on demography: can measuring physiology provide the means?

Liana Y Zanette1, Michael Clinchy, Justin P Suraci.   

Abstract

Predators kill prey thereby affecting prey survival and, in the traditional top-down view of predator limitation, that is their sole effect. Bottom-up food limitation alters the physiological condition of individuals affecting both fecundity and survival. Predators of course also scare prey inducing anti-predator defences that may carry physiological costs powerful enough to reduce prey fecundity and survival. Here, we consider whether measuring physiology can be used as a tool to unambiguously diagnose predation risk effects. We begin by providing a review of recent papers reporting physiological effects of predation risk. We then present a conceptual framework describing the pathways by which predators and food can affect prey populations and give an overview of predation risk effects on demography in various taxa. Because scared prey typically eat less the principal challenge we see will be to identify measures that permit us to avoid mistaking predator-induced reductions in food intake for absolute food shortage. To construct an effective diagnostic toolkit we advocate collecting multiple physiological measures and utilizing multivariate statistical procedures. We recommend conducting two-factor predation risk × food manipulations to identify those physiological effects least likely to be mistaken for responses to bottom-up food limitation. We suggest there is a critical need to develop a diagnostic tool that can be used when it is infeasible to experimentally test for predation risk effects on demography, as may often be the case in wildlife conservation, since failing to consider predation risk effects may cause the total impact of predators to be dramatically underestimated.

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25234371     DOI: 10.1007/s00442-014-3057-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oecologia        ISSN: 0029-8549            Impact factor:   3.225


  60 in total

1.  Predation risk induces changes in nest-site selection and clutch size in the Siberian jay.

Authors:  Sönke Eggers; Michael Griesser; Magdalena Nystrand; Jan Ekman
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2006-03-22       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 2.  A consensus endocrine profile for chronically stressed wild animals does not exist.

Authors:  Molly J Dickens; L Michael Romero
Journal:  Gen Comp Endocrinol       Date:  2013-06-28       Impact factor: 2.822

3.  Balancing food and predator pressure induces chronic stress in songbirds.

Authors:  Michael Clinchy; Liana Zanette; Rudy Boonstra; John C Wingfield; James N M Smith
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2004-12-07       Impact factor: 5.349

4.  Combined food and predator effects on songbird nest survival and annual reproductive success: results from a bi-factorial experiment.

Authors:  Liana Zanette; Michael Clinchy; James N M Smith
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2006-01-20       Impact factor: 3.225

5.  Hormonal response of nestlings to predator calls.

Authors:  J D Ibáñez-Álamo; O Chastel; M Soler
Journal:  Gen Comp Endocrinol       Date:  2011-02-03       Impact factor: 2.822

6.  Female sticklebacks transfer information via eggs: effects of maternal experience with predators on offspring.

Authors:  Eric R Giesing; Cory D Suski; Richard E Warner; Alison M Bell
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2010-11-10       Impact factor: 5.349

7.  Non-consumptive effects of larval Salamandra on crustacean prey: can eggs detect predators?

Authors:  Leon Blaustein
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 3.225

8.  Maternal steroids in egg yolk as a pathway to translate predation risk to offspring: experiments with great tits.

Authors:  Michael Coslovsky; Ton Groothuis; Bonnie de Vries; Heinz Richner
Journal:  Gen Comp Endocrinol       Date:  2012-02-02       Impact factor: 2.822

9.  Behavioral and respiratory responses to stressors in multiple populations of three-spined sticklebacks that differ in predation pressure.

Authors:  Alison M Bell; Lindsay Henderson; Felicity A Huntingford
Journal:  J Comp Physiol B       Date:  2009-08-25       Impact factor: 2.200

10.  Mass-dependent predation risk and lethal dolphin-porpoise interactions.

Authors:  R MacLeod; C D MacLeod; J A Learmonth; P D Jepson; R J Reid; R Deaville; G J Pierce
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2007-10-22       Impact factor: 5.349

View more
  9 in total

1.  Short- and long-term behavioural, physiological and stoichiometric responses to predation risk indicate chronic stress and compensatory mechanisms.

Authors:  Marie Van Dievel; Lizanne Janssens; Robby Stoks
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2015-09-18       Impact factor: 3.225

2.  Ecophysiological effects of predation risk; an integration across disciplines.

Authors:  Michael J Sheriff; Jennifer S Thaler
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2014-10-15       Impact factor: 3.225

3.  Loss of an apex predator in the wild induces physiological and behavioural changes in prey.

Authors:  Neil Hammerschlag; Chris Fallows; Michael Meÿer; Simon Mduduzi Seakamela; Samantha Orndorff; Steve Kirkman; Deon Kotze; Scott Creel
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2022-01-26       Impact factor: 3.703

4.  Scared to evolve? Non-consumptive effects drive rapid adaptive evolution in a natural prey population.

Authors:  Chao Zhang; Eyerusalem Goitom; Kristien Brans; Luc De Meester; Robby Stoks
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2022-05-04       Impact factor: 5.530

5.  Experimental evidence for the adaptive response of aquatic invertebrates to chronic predation risk.

Authors:  Łukasz Jermacz; Anna Nowakowska; Hanna Kletkiewicz; Jarosław Kobak
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2020-01-09       Impact factor: 3.225

6.  Influence of multiple predators decreases body condition and fecundity of European hares.

Authors:  Martijn J A Weterings; Sanne Losekoot; Henry J Kuipers; Herbert H T Prins; Frank van Langevelde; Sipke E van Wieren
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2022-01-11       Impact factor: 2.912

7.  Top predators negate the effect of mesopredators on prey physiology.

Authors:  Maria M Palacios; Shaun S Killen; Lauren E Nadler; James R White; Mark I McCormick
Journal:  J Anim Ecol       Date:  2016-04-25       Impact factor: 5.091

8.  Foraging, feeding, and physiological stress responses of wild wood mice to increased illumination and common genet cues.

Authors:  Álvaro Navarro-Castilla; Isabel Barja; Mario Díaz
Journal:  Curr Zool       Date:  2017-08-02       Impact factor: 2.624

9.  Continuity of chronic predation risk determines changes in prey physiology.

Authors:  Łukasz Jermacz; Hanna Kletkiewicz; Anna Nowakowska; Anna Dzierżyńska-Białończyk; Maciej Klimiuk; Jarosław Kobak
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-04-24       Impact factor: 4.379

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.