Anthropogenic influences on primate antipredator behavior and implications for research and conservation

Predation risk affects prey species' behavior, even in the absence of a direct threat, but human-induced environmental change may disturb ecologically significant predator-prey interactions. Here, we propose various ways in which knowledge of antipredator tactics, behavioral risk effects, and primate-predator interactions could assist in identifying human-caused disruption to natural systems. Using behavior to evaluate primate responses to the ongoing environmental change should be a potentially effective way to make species conservation more predictive by identifying issues before a more dramatic population declines. A key challenge here is that studies of predation on primates often use data collected via direct observations of habituated animals and human presence can deter carnivores and influence subjects' perception of risk. Hence, we also review various indirect data collection methods to evaluate their effectiveness in identifying where environmental change threatens wild species, while also minimizing observer bias.

Identifying preferred habitats of samango monkeys (Cercopithecus (nictitans) mitis erythrarchus) through patch use

To examine habitat preferences of two groups of samango monkeys (Cercopithecus (nictitans) mitis erythrarchus) in the Soutpansberg, South Africa, we used experimental food patches in fragments of tall forest and in bordering secondary growth short forest. Additionally, to test for the impacts of group cohesion and movement on habitat use, we tested for the interaction of space and time in our analyses of foraging intensity in the experimental food patches placed throughout the home ranges of the two groups. We expected the monkeys to harvest the most from patches in tall forest habitats and the least from patches in short forest. Further, because the monkeys move through their habitats in groups, we expected to see group cohesion effects illustrated by daily spatial variation in the monkeys’ use of widespread foraging grids. In the forest height experiments, the two groups differed in their foraging responses, with 8% greater foraging overall for one group. However, forest height did not significantly impact foraging in either group, meaning that, given feeding opportunities, samango monkeys are able to utilise secondary growth forest. For one group, missed opportunity costs of staying with the group appeared through the statistical interaction of day with foraging location (the monkeys did not always spread out to take advantage of all available food patches). In several subsequent experiments in widespread grids, significant daily spatial variation in foraging occurred, pointing to spatial cohesion during group movement as likely being an important predictor of habitat use. For an individual social forager, staying with the group may be more important than habitat type in driving habitat selection.

Assessing habitat quality of farm-dwelling house sparrows in different agricultural landscapes

Having historically been abundant throughout Europe, the house sparrow (Passer domesticus) has in recent decades suffered severe population declines in many urban and rural areas. The decline in rural environments is believed to be caused by agricultural intensification, which has resulted in landscape simplification. We used giving-up densities (GUDs) of house sparrows feeding in artificial food patches placed in farmlands of southern Sweden to determine habitat quality during the breeding season at two different spatial scales: the landscape and the patch scale. At the landscape scale, GUDs were lower on farms in homogeneous landscapes dominated by crop production compared to more heterogeneous landscapes with mixed farming or animal husbandry. At the patch level, feeding patches with a higher predation risk (caused by fitting a wall to the patch to obstruct vigilance) had higher GUDs. In addition, GUDs were positively related to population size, which strongly implies that GUDs reflect habitat quality. However, the increase followed different patterns in homogeneous and heterogeneous landscapes, indicating differing population limiting mechanisms in these two environments. We found no effect of the interaction between patch type and landscape type, suggesting that predation risk was similar in both landscape types. Thus, our study suggests that simplified landscapes constitute a poorer feeding environment for house sparrows during breeding, that the population-regulating mechanisms in the landscapes differ, but that predation risk is the same across the landscape types.

Foraging Response to Risks of Predation and Competition in Artificial Pools

Although ecologists have learned much about the influence of competitors and perceived risk of predation on foraging in terrestrial systems by measuring giving-up density (GUD, the amount of food left behind in a resource patch following exploitation), GUDs have rarely been used in aquatic environments. Here we use foraging activity (proportion foraging) and GUDs to assess the effects that two periphyton consumers and potential competitors, green toad (Bufo viridis) tadpoles and mosquito (Culiseta longiareolata) larvae, have on each other. We also examine the effects of perceived risk of predation imposed by a dragonfly nymph (Anax imperator). To do so, we conducted an artificial pool experiment and developed a food patch appropriate for measuring GUDs for periphyton grazers. MoreCulisetaindividuals foraged in rich food patches than in poor patches.Bufoshowed a similar tendency. FewerBufoforaged in both patch types in the presence of cagedAnax. Culisetashowed a similar tendency. However, in the rich patches, onlyBuforeduced foraging activity when the caged predator was present. BothBufoandCulisetadepleted food patches through exploitation, resulting in lower GUDs. Both competitors together resulted in lower GUDs than did food depletion of each species alone. However, the presence of cagedAnaxhad little or no effects on GUDs. Overall, bothBufoandCulisetarespond to food and safety. They are able to direct foraging effort to richer patches and devote more time to those patches, and they respond to predation risk by choosing whether or not to exploit resource patches.

A guide to central place effects in foraging

We develop a general patch-use model of central place foraging, which subsumes and extends several previous models. The model produces a catalog of central place effects predicting how distance from a central place influences the costs and benefits of foraging, load-size, quitting harvest rates, and giving-up densities. In the model, we separate between costs that are load-size dependent, i.e. a direct effect of the size of the load, and load-size independent effects, such as correlations between distance and patch qualities. We also distinguish between predictions of between- and within-environment comparisons. Foraging costs, giving-up densities and quitting harvest rates should almost always increase with distance with these effects amplified by increases in metabolic costs, predation risk and load-costs. With respect to load-size: when comparing foraging in patches within an environment, we should often expect smaller loads to be taken from distant patches (negative distance-load correlation). However, when comparing between environments, there should be a positive correlation between average distance and load-size.