2019
Gaynor, Kaitlyn M.; Brown, Joel S.; Middleton, Arthur D.; Power, Mary E.; Brashares, Justin S.
Landscapes of Fear: Spatial Patterns of Risk Perception and Response. Journal Article
In: Trends in Ecology & Evolution, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 355-368, 2019.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: anti-predator defenses, predator–prey interaction, risk effects
@article{Gaynor2019,
title = {Landscapes of Fear: Spatial Patterns of Risk Perception and Response.},
author = {Kaitlyn M. Gaynor and Joel S. Brown and Arthur D. Middleton and Mary E. Power and Justin S. Brashares},
doi = {10.1016/j.tree.2019.01.004},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-02-08},
journal = {Trends in Ecology & Evolution},
volume = {34},
number = {4},
pages = {355-368},
abstract = {Animals experience varying levels of predation risk as they navigate heterogeneous landscapes, and behavioral responses to perceived risk can structure ecosystems. The concept of the landscape of fear has recently become central to describing this spatial variation in risk, perception, and response. We present a framework linking the landscape of fear, defined as spatial variation in prey perception of risk, to the underlying physical landscape and predation risk, and to resulting patterns of prey distribution and antipredator behavior. By disambiguating the mechanisms through which prey perceive risk and incorporate fear into decision making, we can better quantify the nonlinear relationship between risk and response and evaluate the relative importance of the landscape of fear across taxa and ecosystems.},
keywords = {anti-predator defenses, predator–prey interaction, risk effects},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Animals experience varying levels of predation risk as they navigate heterogeneous landscapes, and behavioral responses to perceived risk can structure ecosystems. The concept of the landscape of fear has recently become central to describing this spatial variation in risk, perception, and response. We present a framework linking the landscape of fear, defined as spatial variation in prey perception of risk, to the underlying physical landscape and predation risk, and to resulting patterns of prey distribution and antipredator behavior. By disambiguating the mechanisms through which prey perceive risk and incorporate fear into decision making, we can better quantify the nonlinear relationship between risk and response and evaluate the relative importance of the landscape of fear across taxa and ecosystems.
1992
Power, M. E.; Marks, J. C.; Parker, Michael S.
Variation in the vulnerability of prey to different predators: Community-level consequences Journal Article
In: Ecology, vol. 73, no. 6, pp. 2218-2223, 1992.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: anti-predator defenses, attached algae, chironomidae, Cladophora, fish, food webs, omnivory, predatory invertebrates, river communities, strong interactors, trophic cascades
@article{Power1992,
title = {Variation in the vulnerability of prey to different predators: Community-level consequences},
author = {M. E. Power and J. C. Marks and Michael S. Parker},
url = {https://angelo.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/59/Power_1992_Eco3.pdf},
doi = {10.2307/1941469},
year = {1992},
date = {1992-12-00},
journal = {Ecology},
volume = {73},
number = {6},
pages = {2218-2223},
abstract = {Midge larvae (Diptera, Chironomidae) that weave filamentous algae into
retreats or tufts, are dominant primary consumers in a river food web. In a previous
study, densities of tuft-weaving midges increased in the presence of large fish. In the absence of large fish, midges decreased as densities of predatory invertebrates built up, and higher standing crops of algae were maintained. To examine the mechanisms underlying these dynamics, we compared the vulnerability of tuft-weaving midges (naked or in algal tufts) to fish and predatory invertebrates, in field and laboratory experiments. When midges were exposed for 1 h in the river to fish, 15 out of 15 midges in tufts survived, while 15 of 15 naked midges were consumed. Tufts afforded only partial protection to midges exposed to invertebrate predators, however. After 1 h, enhancement of survivorship by tufts was moderately significant for midges exposed to aeshnids, and insignificant for midges exposed to lestids and naucorids. We suggest that the vulnerability of tuft-weaving midges to invertebrate predators, and their relative invulnerability to fish, sets the stage for trophic cascades observed in this system. Fish, by consuming small predators, release midges, which graze down algae. The strong effects of fish as fourth-level consumers would not be predicted from their diets, in which algivorous mayflies dominate (>60% of the insect biomass found in each of the two most common fish species). Nevertheless, fish in this food web act as fourth-level, rather than third-level, consumers because of the differential vulnerability of one guild of primary consumers, which, when released from predation, can suppress plants.},
keywords = {anti-predator defenses, attached algae, chironomidae, Cladophora, fish, food webs, omnivory, predatory invertebrates, river communities, strong interactors, trophic cascades},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Midge larvae (Diptera, Chironomidae) that weave filamentous algae into
retreats or tufts, are dominant primary consumers in a river food web. In a previous
study, densities of tuft-weaving midges increased in the presence of large fish. In the absence of large fish, midges decreased as densities of predatory invertebrates built up, and higher standing crops of algae were maintained. To examine the mechanisms underlying these dynamics, we compared the vulnerability of tuft-weaving midges (naked or in algal tufts) to fish and predatory invertebrates, in field and laboratory experiments. When midges were exposed for 1 h in the river to fish, 15 out of 15 midges in tufts survived, while 15 of 15 naked midges were consumed. Tufts afforded only partial protection to midges exposed to invertebrate predators, however. After 1 h, enhancement of survivorship by tufts was moderately significant for midges exposed to aeshnids, and insignificant for midges exposed to lestids and naucorids. We suggest that the vulnerability of tuft-weaving midges to invertebrate predators, and their relative invulnerability to fish, sets the stage for trophic cascades observed in this system. Fish, by consuming small predators, release midges, which graze down algae. The strong effects of fish as fourth-level consumers would not be predicted from their diets, in which algivorous mayflies dominate (>60% of the insect biomass found in each of the two most common fish species). Nevertheless, fish in this food web act as fourth-level, rather than third-level, consumers because of the differential vulnerability of one guild of primary consumers, which, when released from predation, can suppress plants.
retreats or tufts, are dominant primary consumers in a river food web. In a previous
study, densities of tuft-weaving midges increased in the presence of large fish. In the absence of large fish, midges decreased as densities of predatory invertebrates built up, and higher standing crops of algae were maintained. To examine the mechanisms underlying these dynamics, we compared the vulnerability of tuft-weaving midges (naked or in algal tufts) to fish and predatory invertebrates, in field and laboratory experiments. When midges were exposed for 1 h in the river to fish, 15 out of 15 midges in tufts survived, while 15 of 15 naked midges were consumed. Tufts afforded only partial protection to midges exposed to invertebrate predators, however. After 1 h, enhancement of survivorship by tufts was moderately significant for midges exposed to aeshnids, and insignificant for midges exposed to lestids and naucorids. We suggest that the vulnerability of tuft-weaving midges to invertebrate predators, and their relative invulnerability to fish, sets the stage for trophic cascades observed in this system. Fish, by consuming small predators, release midges, which graze down algae. The strong effects of fish as fourth-level consumers would not be predicted from their diets, in which algivorous mayflies dominate (>60% of the insect biomass found in each of the two most common fish species). Nevertheless, fish in this food web act as fourth-level, rather than third-level, consumers because of the differential vulnerability of one guild of primary consumers, which, when released from predation, can suppress plants.