Population- and individual-level prey selection by a solitary predator as determined with two estimates of prey availability
Abstract
Prey selection is exhibited by predator populations that kill a prey species disproportionate to its availability, or alternatively, individual predators that select prey disproportionate to the mean selection exhibited by their populations. Prey selection is a simple calculation when one can determine prey availability; however, measuring prey availability is challenging. We compared population- and individual-level prey selection as determined with two measures of prey availability for five ungulate species killed by pumas (Puma concolor (L., 1771)) in the Southern Yellowstone Ecosystem, USA: (1) annual prey counts and (2) total prey killed by marked pumas. We also tested whether individual pumas in the population exhibited a narrower dietary niche breadth compared with their population as a whole. The two methods yielded different estimates of prey availability and highlighted the need to consciously match prey availability estimates with appropriate ecological questions. Prey counts may have overestimated elk (Cervus canadensis (Erxleben, 1777)) abundance and underestimated deer abundance, whereas predation data may have better captured the influence of prey size on puma-specific prey vulnerability and availability. Prey counts were the more appropriate metric for analyzing population-level prey selection or differences in interspecific foraging, whereas total prey killed was the more appropriate metric for intraspecific comparisons.
Résumé
La sélection de proies se manifeste chez des populations de prédateurs qui tuent des proies d’une espèce donnée en nombre démesuré par rapport à la disponibilité de ces proies ou des prédateurs individuels qui sélectionnent des proies de manière démesurée par rapport à la sélection moyenne présentée par leurs populations. Si la sélection de proies se calcule facilement quand la disponibilité des proies peut être déterminée, cette dernière peut être difficile à mesurer. Nous avons comparé la sélection de proies au niveau individuel et de la population telle que déterminée par deux méthodes de mesure de la disponibilité des proies pour cinq espèces d’ongulés tués par les couguars (Puma concolor (L., 1771)) dans l’écosystème du sud de Yellowstone (États-Unis), à savoir (1) des décomptes annuels des proies et (2) le nombre total de proies tuées par des couguars marqués. Nous avons également vérifié si des couguars individuels dans la population présentaient une niche alimentaire plus étroite que l’ensemble de leur population. Les deux méthodes donnent des estimations différentes de la disponibilité des proies et soulignent la nécessité de jumeler sciemment les estimations de la disponibilité des proies aux questions écologiques pertinentes. Les décomptes de proies pourraient avoir surestimé l’abondance des wapitis (Cervus canadensis (Erxleben, 1777)) et sous-estimé l’abondance des cerfs, alors que les données de prédation pourraient mieux rendre compte de l’influence de la taille des proies sur la vulnérabilité et la disponibilité de ces dernières associées au couguar. Les décomptes de proies constituaient la mesure la plus adéquate pour l’analyse de la sélection de proies à l’échelle de la population ou les variations de l’approvisionnement entre espèces, alors que le nombre total de proies tuées était la meilleure mesure pour des comparaisons au sein d’une même espèce. [Traduit par la Rédaction]
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
Araújo M.S., Bolnick D.I., and Layman C.A. 2011. The ecological causes of individual specialization. Ecol. Lett. 14: 948–958.
Atwood T.C., Gese E.M., and Kunkel K.E. 2007. Comparative patterns of predation by cougars and recolonizing wolves in Montana’s Madison Range. J. Wildl. Manage. 71: 1098–1106.
Backwell P.R.Y., O’Hara P.D., and Christy J.H. 1998. Prey availability and selective foraging in shorebirds. Anim. Behav. 55: 1659–1667.
Bolnick D.I., Svanbäck R., Fordyce J.A., Yang L.H., Davis J.M., Hulsey C.D., and Forister M.L. 2003. The ecology of individuals: incidence and implications of individual specialization. Am. Nat. 161: 1–28.
Bolnick D.I., Amarasekare P., Araújo M., Bürger R., Levine J., Novak M., Rudolf V., Schreiber S., Urban M., and Vasseur D. 2011. Why intraspecific trait variation matters in community ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26: 183–192.
Boyles J.G. and Storm J.J. 2007. The perils of picky eating: dietary breadth is related to extinction risk in insectivorous bats. PLoS ONE, 2: e672.
Byers C.R., Steinhorst R.K., and Krausman P.R. 1984. Clarification of a technique for analysis of utilization–availability data. J. Wildl. Manage. 48: 1050–1053.
Cantor M., Pires M.M., Longo G.O., Guimarães P.R., and Setz E.Z.F. 2013. Individual variation in resource use by opossums leading to nested fruit consumption. Oikos, 122: 1085–1093.
Carbone C., Mace G.M., Roberts S.C., and Macdonald D.W. 1999. Energetic constraints on the diet of terrestrial carnivores. Nature, 402: 286–288.
Caughley, G. 1977. Analysis of vertebrate populations. Wiley-Interscience, New York.
Cavalcanti S.M. and Gese E.M. 2010. Kill rates and predation patterns of jaguars (Panthera onca) in the southern Pantanal, Brazil. J. Mammal. 91: 722–736.
Chao A. 1987. Estimating the population size for capture–recapture data with unequal catchability. Biometrics, 43: 783–791.
DiRienzo N., Pruitt J.N., and Hedrick A.V. 2013. The combined behavioural tendencies of predator and prey mediate the outcome of their interaction. Anim. Behav. 86: 317–322.
Elbroch L.M. and Wittmer H. 2013. The effects of puma prey selection and specialization on less abundant prey in Patagonia. J. Mammal. 94: 259–268.
Elbroch L.M., Lendrum P.E., Newby J., Quigley H., and Craighead D. 2013. Seasonal foraging ecology of non-migratory cougars in a system with migrating prey. PLoS ONE, 8: e83375.
Festa-Bianchet M., Coulson T., Gaillard J.-M., Hogg J.T., and Pelletier F. 2006. Stochastic predation events and population persistence in bighorn sheep. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 273: 1537–1543.
Gómez-Ortiz Y. and Monroy-Vilchis O. 2013. Feeding ecology of puma Puma concolor in Mexican montane forests with comments about jaguar Panthera onca. Wildl. Biol. 9: 179–187.
Greene C.H. 1986. Patterns of prey selection: implications of predator foraging tactics. Am. Nat. 128: 824–839.
Griffen B.D. 2014. Linking individual diet variation and fecundity in an omnivorous marine consumer. Oecologia, 174: 121–130.
Harihar A., Pandav B., and Goyal S.P. 2011. Responses of leopard Panthera pardus to the recovery of a tiger Panthera tigris population. J. Anim. Ecol. 48: 806–814.
Hayward M.W. 2011. Scarcity in the prey community yields anti-predator benefits. Acta Oecol. 37: 314–320.
Hayward M.W. and Kerley G.I.H. 2005. Prey preferences of the lion (Panthera leo). J. Zool. (Lond.), 267: 309–322.
Holt R.D. and Lawton J.H. 1994. The ecological consequences of shared natural enemies. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 25: 495–520.
Hurlbert S.H. 1978. The measurement of niche overlap and some relatives. Ecology, 59: 67–77.
Husseman J.S., Murray D.L., Power G., Mack C., Wenger C.R., and Quigley H. 2003. Assessing differential prey selection patterns between two sympatric large carnivores. Oikos, 101: 591–601.
Ivlev, V.S. 1961. Experimental ecology of the feeding of fishes. Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn.
Knopff, K.H., and Boyce, M.S. 2007. Prey specialization by individual cougar in multi-prey systems. In Transactions of the Seventy-Second North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, Portland, Ore., 20–24 March 2007. Wildlife Management Institute, Gardners, Pa. pp. 194–210.
Krebs, C.J. 2014. Ecological methodology, 3rd ed. Benjamin Cummings, London.
Levins, R. 1968. Evolution in changing environments. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.
Merrill E., Sand H., Zimmermann B., McPhee H., Webb N., Hebblewhite M., Wabakken P., and Frair J.L. 2010. Building a mechanistic understanding of predation with GPS-based movement data. Proc. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 365: 2279–2288.
Modlmeier A.P., Keiser C.N., Watters J.V., Sih A., and Pruitt J.N. 2014. The keystone individual concept: an ecological and evolutionary overview. Anim. Behav. 89: 53–62.
Molinari-Jobin A., Molinari P., Loison A., Gaillard J.-M., and Brestenmoser V. 2004. Life cycle period and activity of prey influence their susceptibility to predators. Ecography, 27: 323–329.
Nilsen E.B., Gaillard J.-M., Andersen R., Odden J., Delorme D., van Laere G., and Linnell J.D.C. 2009. A slow life in hell or a fast life in heaven: demographic analyses of contrasting roe deer populations. J. Anim. Ecol. 78: 585–594.
Owen-Smith N. 2008. Changing vulnerability to predation related to season and sex in an African ungulate assemblage. Oikos, 117: 602–610.
Peebles K.A., Wielgus R.B., Maletzke B.T., and Swanson M.E. 2013. Effects of remedial sport hunting on cougar complaints and livestock depredations. PLoS ONE, 8: e79713.
Peterson, R.O., and Ciucci, P. 2003. The wolf as a carnivore. In Wolves: behaviour, ecology and conservation. Edited by L.D. Mech and L. Boitani. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill. pp. 104–130.
Pettorelli N., Coulson T., Durant S.M., and Gaillard J.M. 2011. Predation, individual variability and vertebrate population dynamics. Oecologia, 167: 305–314.
Pettorelli N., Hilborn A., Duncan C., and Durant S.M. 2015. Individual variability: the missing component to our understanding of predator–prey interactions. Adv. Ecol. Res. 52: 19–44.
Quigley, K. 2000. Immobilization and biological sampling protocols. Hornocker Wildlife Institute/Wildlife Conservation Society, Moscow, Ida.
Rominger, E.M. 2007. Culling mountain lions to protect ungulate populations—some lives are more sacred than others. In Transactions of the Seventy-Second North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, Portland, Ore., 20–24 March 2007. Wildlife Management Institute, Gardners, Pa. pp. 186–193.
Ross P.I. and Jalkotzy M. 1996. Cougar predation on moose in southwestern Alberta. Alces, 32: 1–8.
Ross P.I., Jalkotzy M.G., and Festa-Bianchet M. 1997. Cougar predation on bighorn sheep in southwestern Alberta during winter. Can. J. Zool. 75(5): 771–775.
Sih A., Cote J., Evans M., Fogarty S., and Pruitt J. 2012. Ecological implications of behavioural syndromes. Ecol. Lett. 15: 278–289.
Sikes R.S., Gannon W.L., and the Animal Care and Use Committee of the American Society of Mammalogists. 2011. Guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists for the use of wild mammals in research. J. Mammal. 92: 235–253.
Smith B.L. 2007. Migratory behavior of hunted elk. Northwest Sci. 81: 251–264.
Sweitzer R.A., Jenkins S.H., and Berger J. 1997. Near-extinction of porcupines by mountain lions and consequences of ecosystem change in the Great Basin Desert. Conserv. Biol. 11: 1407–1417.
Tinker M.T., Guimarães P.R. Jr., Novak M., Marquitti F.M.D., Bodkin J.L., Staedler M., Bentall G., and Estes J.A. 2012. Structure and mechanism of diet specialisation: testing models of individual variation in resource use with sea otters. Ecol. Lett. 15: 475–483.
Wittmer H.U., Hasenbank M., Elbroch L., and Marshall A.J. 2014. Incorporating preferential prey selection and stochastic predation into population viability analysis for rare prey species. Biol. Conserv. 172: 8–14.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Canadian Journal of Zoology
Volume 94 • Number 4 • April 2016
Pages: 275 - 282
History
Received: 30 April 2015
Accepted: 4 February 2016
Published online: 8 February 2016
Copyright
© 2016.
Key Words
Mots-clés
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Other Metrics
Citations
Cite As
L. Mark Elbroch, Patrick E. Lendrum, Hugh Robinson, and Howard B. Quigley. Population- and individual-level prey selection by a solitary predator as determined with two estimates of prey availability. Canadian Journal of Zoology.
94(4): 275-282. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjz-2015-0092
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
Cited by
1. Habitat selection of jaguars in a seasonally flooded landscape
2. Reintroduced wolves and hunting limit the abundance of a subordinate apex predator in a multi-use landscape
3. Diet Overlap Between Livestock and Wild Herbivores in the Greater Himalaya
4. Sex‐specific dietary specialization in a terrestrial apex predator, the leopard, revealed by stable isotope analysis
5. Multiple anthropogenic interventions drive puma survival following wolf recovery in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
6. Stage‐dependent puma predation on dangerous prey
7. Human–carnivore competition for antlered ungulates: do pumas select for bulls and bucks?
8. Is individual prey selection driven by chance or choice? A case study in cougars (Puma concolor)
View Options
Get Access
Login options
Check if you access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.