Search

Predator hunting strategies, such as stalking versus coursing behaviors, are hypothesized to influence antipredator behaviors of prey and can describe the movement behaviors of predators themselves. Predators and prey may alter their movement in relation to predator hunting modes, yet few studies have evaluated how these strategies influence movement behaviors of free‐ranging animals in a multiple‐predator, multiple‐prey system. We fit hidden Markov models (HMM) with movement data derived from >400 GPS‐collared ungulates and large predators in eastern Washington, USA. We used these models to test our hypotheses that stalking (cougars [Puma concolor]) and coursing (gray wolves [Canis lupus]) predators would exhibit different broad‐scale movement behaviors consistent with their respective hunting strategies in areas that increased the likelihood of encountering or capturing ungulate prey (e.g., habitats selected by deer [Odocoileus spp.]). Similarly, we expected that broadscale movement behaviors of prey would change in response to background levels of predation risk associated with each predator's hunting strategy. We found that predators and ungulate prey adjusted their broadscale movements in response to one another's long‐term patterns of habitat selection but not based on differences in predator‐hunting strategies. Predators changed their movement behaviors based on the type of prey, whereas ungulates generally reduced movement in areas associated with large predators, regardless of the predator's hunting strategy. Both predator and prey movements varied in response to landscape features but not necessarily based on habitat that would facilitate specific hunting behaviors. Our results suggest that predators and prey adjust their movements at broad temporal scales in relation to long‐term patterns of risk and resource distributions, potentially influencing their encounter rates with one another at finer spatiotemporal scales. Habitat features further influenced changes in movement, resulting in a complex combination of movement behaviors in multiple‐predator, multiple‐prey systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nonbreeding helpers can greatly improve the survival of young and the reproductive fitness of breeders in many cooperatively breeding species. Breeder turnover, in turn, can have profound effects on dispersal decisions made by helpers. Despite its importance in explaining group size and predicting the population demography of cooperative breeders, our current understanding of how individual traits influence animal behavior after disruptions to social structure is incomplete particularly for terrestrial mammals. We used 12 yr of genetic sampling and group pedigrees of gray wolves (Canis lupus) in Idaho, USA, to ask questions about how breeder turnover affected the apparent decisions by mature helpers (≥2-yr-old) to stay or leave a group over a 1-yr time interval. We found that helpers showed plasticity in their responses to breeder turnover. Most notably, helpers varied by sex and appeared to base dispersal decisions on the sex of the breeder that was lost as well. Male and female helpers stayed in a group slightly more often when there was breeder turnover of the same sex, although males that stayed were often recent adoptees in the group. Males, however, appeared to remain in a group less often when there was breeding female turnover likely because such vacancies were typically filled by related females from the males' natal group (i.e. inbreeding avoidance). We show that helpers exploit instability in the breeding pair to secure future breeding opportunities for themselves. The confluence of breeder turnover, helper sex, and dispersal and breeding strategies merge to influence group composition in gray wolves. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Large terrestrial mammals increasingly rely on human‐modified landscapes as anthropogenic footprints expand. Land management activities such as timber harvest, agriculture, and roads can influence prey population dynamics by altering forage resources and predation risk via changes in habitat, but these effects are not well understood in regions with diverse and changing predator guilds. In northeastern Washington state, USA, white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) are vulnerable to multiple carnivores, including recently returned gray wolves (Canis lupus), within a highly human‐modified landscape. To understand the factors governing predator–prey dynamics in a human context, we radio‐collared 280 white‐tailed deer, 33 bobcats (Lynx rufus), 50 cougars (Puma concolor), 28 coyotes (C. latrans), and 14 wolves between 2016 and 2021. We first estimated deer vital rates and used a stage‐structured matrix model to estimate their population growth rate. During the study, we observed a stable to declining deer population (lambda = 0.97, 95% confidence interval: 0.88, 1.05), with 74% of Monte Carlo simulations indicating population decrease and 26% of simulations indicating population increase. We then fit Cox proportional hazard models to evaluate how predator exposure, use of human‐modified landscapes, and winter severity influenced deer survival and used these relationships to evaluate impacts on overall population growth. We found that the population growth rate was dually influenced by a negative direct effect of apex predators and a positive effect of timber harvest and agricultural areas. Cougars had a stronger effect on deer population dynamics than wolves, and mesopredators had little influence on the deer population growth rate. Areas of recent timber harvest had 55% more forage biomass than older forests, but horizontal visibility did not differ, suggesting that timber harvest did not influence predation risk. Although proximity to roads did not affect the overall population growth rate, vehicle collisions caused a substantial proportion of deer mortalities, and reducing these collisions could be a win–win for deer and humans. The influence of apex predators and forage indicates a dual limitation by top‐down and bottom‐up factors in this highly human‐modified system, suggesting that a reduction in apex predators would intensify density‐dependent regulation of the deer population owing to limited forage availability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Estimating habitat and spatial associations for wildlife is common across ecological studies and it is well known that individual traits can drive population dynamics and vice versa. Thus, it is commonly assumed that individual‐ and population‐level data should represent the same underlying processes, but few studies have directly compared contemporaneous data representing these different perspectives. We evaluated the circumstances under which data collected from Lagrangian (individual‐level) and Eulerian (population‐level) perspectives could yield comparable inference to understand how scalable information is from the individual to the population. We used Global Positioning System (GPS) collar (Lagrangian) and camera trap (Eulerian) data for seven species collected simultaneously in eastern Washington (2018–2020) to compare inferences made from different survey perspectives. We fit the respective data streams to resource selection functions (RSFs) and occupancy models and compared estimated habitat‐ and space‐use patterns for each species. Although previous studies have considered whether individual‐ and population‐level data generated comparable information, ours is the first to make this comparison for multiple species simultaneously and to specifically ask whether inferences from the two perspectives differed depending on the focal species. We found general agreement between the predicted spatial distributions for most paired analyses, although specific habitat relationships differed. We hypothesize the discrepancies arose due to differences in statistical power associated with camera and GPS‐collar sampling, as well as spatial mismatches in the data. Our research suggests data collected from individual‐based sampling methods can capture coarse population‐wide patterns for a diversity of species, but results differ when interpreting specific wildlife‐habitat relationships. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]