干旱区生态环境知识资源中心

Cues for detecting and responding to perceived predation risk may be indirect, i.e., correlated with the probability of encountering a predator, or direct, i.e., produced by or related to the actual presence of a predator. Research shows, independently, both types of cues can influence anti-predator and foraging behaviours in prey species. However, since animals naturally encounter indirect and direct cues simultaneously, we were interested in quantifying their cumulative effect. Our aim was to evaluate food intake and behaviours (patch use, feeding (rate and time), vigilance) of a nocturnal mammalian herbivore to indirect (open vs. covered microhabitats; illumination) and direct (fox/owl odours) predator cues. We ran a preference trial with four paired treatments using a covered Safe food patch and an open Risk food patch, with one of four combinations of indirect and direct predator cues. Predation risk had a significant effect on both intake and behaviour (including feeding time, rate, and vigilance), but these effects differed depending on cues. No two combinations of cues produced exactly the same effects, illustrating the complexity of interactions that occur between cues. Covered patches were always perceived as less risky than open patches, but unexpectedly, open patches were perceived as riskier when dark rather than light. The strongest suite of (negative) responses to risk was associated with combined indirect and direct cues. These results highlight the importance of considering jointly, intake from a patch, intake rate, and behaviours, such as the proportion of time spent vigilant, when quantifying predation risk, rather than intake alone.