Cargando…

Underestimating the frequency, strength and cost of antipredator responses with data from GPS collars: an example with wolves and elk

Field studies that rely on fixes from GPS-collared predators to identify encounters with prey will often underestimate the frequency and strength of antipredator responses. These underestimation biases have several mechanistic causes. (1) Step bias: The distance between successive GPS fixes can be l...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Creel, Scott, Winnie, John A, Christianson, David
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3892328/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24455148
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.896
_version_ 1782299505969856512
author Creel, Scott
Winnie, John A
Christianson, David
author_facet Creel, Scott
Winnie, John A
Christianson, David
author_sort Creel, Scott
collection PubMed
description Field studies that rely on fixes from GPS-collared predators to identify encounters with prey will often underestimate the frequency and strength of antipredator responses. These underestimation biases have several mechanistic causes. (1) Step bias: The distance between successive GPS fixes can be large, and encounters that occur during these intervals go undetected. This bias will generally be strongest for cursorial hunters that can rapidly cover large distances (e.g., wolves and African wild dogs) and when the interval between GPS fixes is long relative to the duration of a hunt. Step bias is amplified as the path travelled between successive GPS fixes deviates from a straight line. (2) Scatter bias: Only a small fraction of the predators in a population typically carry GPS collars, and prey encounters with uncollared predators go undetected unless a collared group-mate is present. This bias will generally be stronger for fission–fusion hunters (e.g., spotted hyenas, wolves, and lions) than for highly cohesive hunters (e.g., African wild dogs), particularly when their group sizes are large. Step bias and scatter bias both cause underestimation of the frequency of antipredator responses. (3) Strength bias: Observations of prey in the absence of GPS fix from a collared predator will generally include a mixture of cases in which predators were truly absent and cases in which predators were present but not detected, which causes underestimation of the strength of antipredator responses. We quantified these biases with data from wolves and African wild dogs and found that fixes from GPS collars at 3-h intervals underestimated the frequency and strength of antipredator responses by a factor >10. We reexamined the results of a recent study of the nonconsumptive effects of wolves on elk in light of these results and confirmed that predation risk has strong effects on elk dynamics by reducing the pregnancy rate.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3892328
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Blackwell Publishing Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38923282014-01-21 Underestimating the frequency, strength and cost of antipredator responses with data from GPS collars: an example with wolves and elk Creel, Scott Winnie, John A Christianson, David Ecol Evol Original Research Field studies that rely on fixes from GPS-collared predators to identify encounters with prey will often underestimate the frequency and strength of antipredator responses. These underestimation biases have several mechanistic causes. (1) Step bias: The distance between successive GPS fixes can be large, and encounters that occur during these intervals go undetected. This bias will generally be strongest for cursorial hunters that can rapidly cover large distances (e.g., wolves and African wild dogs) and when the interval between GPS fixes is long relative to the duration of a hunt. Step bias is amplified as the path travelled between successive GPS fixes deviates from a straight line. (2) Scatter bias: Only a small fraction of the predators in a population typically carry GPS collars, and prey encounters with uncollared predators go undetected unless a collared group-mate is present. This bias will generally be stronger for fission–fusion hunters (e.g., spotted hyenas, wolves, and lions) than for highly cohesive hunters (e.g., African wild dogs), particularly when their group sizes are large. Step bias and scatter bias both cause underestimation of the frequency of antipredator responses. (3) Strength bias: Observations of prey in the absence of GPS fix from a collared predator will generally include a mixture of cases in which predators were truly absent and cases in which predators were present but not detected, which causes underestimation of the strength of antipredator responses. We quantified these biases with data from wolves and African wild dogs and found that fixes from GPS collars at 3-h intervals underestimated the frequency and strength of antipredator responses by a factor >10. We reexamined the results of a recent study of the nonconsumptive effects of wolves on elk in light of these results and confirmed that predation risk has strong effects on elk dynamics by reducing the pregnancy rate. Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2013-12 2013-11-26 /pmc/articles/PMC3892328/ /pubmed/24455148 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.896 Text en © 2013 Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ Re-use of this article is permitted in accordance with the Creative Commons Deed, Attribution 2.5, which does not permit commercial exploitation.
spellingShingle Original Research
Creel, Scott
Winnie, John A
Christianson, David
Underestimating the frequency, strength and cost of antipredator responses with data from GPS collars: an example with wolves and elk
title Underestimating the frequency, strength and cost of antipredator responses with data from GPS collars: an example with wolves and elk
title_full Underestimating the frequency, strength and cost of antipredator responses with data from GPS collars: an example with wolves and elk
title_fullStr Underestimating the frequency, strength and cost of antipredator responses with data from GPS collars: an example with wolves and elk
title_full_unstemmed Underestimating the frequency, strength and cost of antipredator responses with data from GPS collars: an example with wolves and elk
title_short Underestimating the frequency, strength and cost of antipredator responses with data from GPS collars: an example with wolves and elk
title_sort underestimating the frequency, strength and cost of antipredator responses with data from gps collars: an example with wolves and elk
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3892328/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24455148
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.896
work_keys_str_mv AT creelscott underestimatingthefrequencystrengthandcostofantipredatorresponseswithdatafromgpscollarsanexamplewithwolvesandelk
AT winniejohna underestimatingthefrequencystrengthandcostofantipredatorresponseswithdatafromgpscollarsanexamplewithwolvesandelk
AT christiansondavid underestimatingthefrequencystrengthandcostofantipredatorresponseswithdatafromgpscollarsanexamplewithwolvesandelk