Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Lay Summary
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (22)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Orrock, J. L.
Right arrow Articles by Brinkerhoff, R. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Orrock, J. L.
Right arrow Articles by Brinkerhoff, R. J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Behavioral Ecology Vol. 15 No. 3: 433-437
Behavioral Ecology vol. 15 no. 3 © International Society for Behavioral Ecology 2004; all rights reserved

Rodent foraging is affected by indirect, but not by direct, cues of predation risk

John L. Orrocka, Brent J. Danielsona and R. Jory Brinkerhoffb

a Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Interdepartmental Graduate Program, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA, and b Department of Zoology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA

Address correspondence to J. L. Orrock. E-mail: jorrock{at}iastate.edu.

We used foraging trays to determine whether oldfield mice, Peromyscus polionotus, altered foraging in response to direct cues of predation risk (urine of native and nonnative predators) and indirect cues of predation risk (foraging microhabitat, precipitation, and moon illumination). The proportion of seeds remaining in each tray (a measure of the giving-up density [GUD]) was used to measure risk perceived by mice. Mice did not alter their GUD when presented with cues of native predators (bobcats, Lynx rufus, and red foxes, Vulpes vulpes), recently introduced predators (coyotes, Canis latrans), nonnative predators (ocelots, Leopardus pardalis), a native herbivore (white-tailed deer, Odocoileus virginianus), or a water control. Rather, GUD was related to microhabitat: rodents removed more seeds from foraging trays sheltered beneath vegetative cover compared with exposed trays outside of cover. Rodents also removed more seeds during nights with precipitation and when moon illumination was low. Our results suggest that P. polionotus used indirect cues rather than direct cues to assess risk of vertebrate predation. Indirect cues may be more reliable than are direct scent cues for estimating risk from multiple vertebrate predators that present the most risk in open environments.

Key words: foraging, giving-up densities, Peromyscus polionotus, predator recognition, prey behavior, risk assessment, Savannah River Site.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Behav EcolHome page
P. C. Griffin, S. C. Griffin, C. Waroquiers, and L. S. Mills
Mortality by moonlight: predation risk and the snowshoe hare
Behav. Ecol., September 1, 2005; 16(5): 938 - 944.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.