Habitat‐dependent foraging in a classic predator–prey system: a fable from snowshoe hares

Abstract

Current research contrasting prey habitat use has documented, with virtual unanimity, habitat differences in predation risk. Relatively few studies have considered, either in theory or in practice, simultaneous patterns in prey density. Linear predator–prey models predict that prey habitat preferences should switch toward the safer habitat with increasing prey and predator densities. The density‐dependent preference can be revealed by regression of prey density in safe habitat versus that in the riskier one (the isodar). But at this scale, the predation risk can be revealed only with simultaneous estimates of the number of predators, or with their experimental removal. Theories of optimal foraging demonstrate that we can measure predation risk by giving‐up densities of resource in foraging patches. The foraging theory cannot yet predict the expected pattern as predator and prey populations covary. Both problems are solved by measuring isodars and giving‐up densities in the same predator–prey system. I applied the two approaches to the classic predator–prey dynamics of snowshoe hares in northwestern Ontario, Canada. Hares occupied regenerating cutovers and adjacent mature‐forest habitat equally, and in a manner consistent with density‐dependent habitat selection. Independent measures of predation risk based on experimental, as well as natural, giving‐up densities agreed generally with the equal preference between habitats revealed by the isodar. There was no apparent difference in predation risk between habitats despite obvious differences in physical structure. Complementary studies contrasting a pair of habitats with more extreme differences confirmed that hares do alter their giving‐up densities when one habitat is clearly superior to another. The results are thereby consistent with theories of adaptive behaviour. But the results also demonstrate, when evaluating differences in habitat, that it is crucial to let the organisms we study define their own habitat preference.