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

Scott Creel, John A. Winnie, David A Christianson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

38 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)5189-5200
Number of pages12
JournalEcology and Evolution
Volume3
Issue number16
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2013

Fingerprint

elks
wolves
collars
GPS
predator
cost
Lycaon pictus
predators
group size
predation risk
pregnancy
Panthera leo
pregnancy rate
predation
dog
duration

Keywords

  • Antipredator behavior
  • Detection bias
  • Elk
  • GPS
  • Nonconsumptive effects
  • Risk effects
  • Wolf

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
  • Ecology
  • Nature and Landscape Conservation

Cite this

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 A.

In: Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 3, No. 16, 12.2013, p. 5189-5200.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{7938048baaae4fe394f745c6968e2e61,
title = "Underestimating the frequency, strength and cost of antipredator responses with data from GPS collars: An example with wolves and elk",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "Antipredator behavior, Detection bias, Elk, GPS, Nonconsumptive effects, Risk effects, Wolf",
author = "Scott Creel and Winnie, {John A.} and Christianson, {David A}",
year = "2013",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1002/ece3.896",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "3",
pages = "5189--5200",
journal = "Ecology and Evolution",
issn = "2045-7758",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",
number = "16",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Underestimating the frequency, strength and cost of antipredator responses with data from GPS collars

T2 - An example with wolves and elk

AU - Creel, Scott

AU - Winnie, John A.

AU - Christianson, David A

PY - 2013/12

Y1 - 2013/12

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Antipredator behavior

KW - Detection bias

KW - Elk

KW - GPS

KW - Nonconsumptive effects

KW - Risk effects

KW - Wolf

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84890886579&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84890886579&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/ece3.896

DO - 10.1002/ece3.896

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84890886579

VL - 3

SP - 5189

EP - 5200

JO - Ecology and Evolution

JF - Ecology and Evolution

SN - 2045-7758

IS - 16

ER -