Abstract
Due to the strong individual cost of being predated, potential prey species alter their behavior and physiology in response to predation risk. Such alterations may cause major indirect consequences on prey populations that are additive to the direct demographic effects caused by prey being killed. However, although earlier studies showed strong general effects of the presence of apex predators, recent data suggest that indirect effects may be highly context dependent and not consistently present. We combined behavioral data with data on endocrine stress and stable isotopes to assess landscape level effects of lion (Panthera leo) presence on two prey species in South Africa, impala (Aepyceros melampus) and blue wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus). We also evaluated if there was any seasonal variation in such effects. In addition, we provide results from a physiological validation for an enzyme-linked immunoassay (EIA) that can be used for non-invasive monitoring of glucocorticoid stress metabolite concentrations in impala from fecal pellets. We did not find any significant differences in vigilance behavior, fecal glucocorticoid metabolite concentrations, 13C values or isotope niche breadth between animals living with and without lions for either species. However, wildebeest living in a reserve with lions spent more time foraging compared to wildebeest in a lion-free environment, but only during the wet season. Values of fecal 15N suggest a shift in habitat use, with impala and wildebeest living with lions potentially feeding in less productive areas compared to animals living without lions. For both species, characteristics of the social groups appeared to be more important than individual characteristics for both foraging and vigilance behavior. Our results highlight that antipredator responses may be highly dynamic and scale-dependent. We urge for further studies that quantify at what temporal and spatial scales predation risk is causing indirect effects on prey populations.
Highlights
Predation has major impacts on ecosystem processes by influencing the dynamics of prey populations (Lima, 1998)
Despite strong claims of the ecological consequences of indirect predation effects (e.g., Preisser et al, 2005; Creel and Christianson, 2008), our observations did not suggest that impala and wildebeest living in the presence of lions foraged less or were more vigilant than impala and wildebeest living in a lion free environment
We interpret these results as support for recent suggestions that the consequences of predation risk may be highly context dependent or not necessarily present at the landscape level (e.g., Périquet et al, 2010; Middleton et al, 2013)
Summary
Predation has major impacts on ecosystem processes by influencing the dynamics of prey populations (Lima, 1998). Behavioral responses to predation risk are diverse, but may include shifts in habitat use (Creel et al, 2005), changes in movement patterns (Sih and McCarthy, 2002), adjustment of the relative time spent vigilant and foraging (Lima and Bednekoff, 1999; Abramsky et al, 2002), and social aggregation (Lima, 1995). It can trigger physiological stress responses (Clinchy et al, 2004), which may have negative effects on prey populations (Hawlena and Schmitz, 2010; Boonstra, 2013). Wolff and Van Horn (2003) found that female elk (Cervus elaphus) in Yellowstone National Park, a predator-rich environment, spent more time being vigilant and less time foraging than female elk in Rocky Mountain National Park, a predator-free system
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
