Avoiding the subject: the implications of avoidance behaviour for detecting predators. Fancourt, B. A. 2016. ![Avoiding the subject: the implications of avoidance behaviour for detecting predators [link]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "link")
Paper doi abstract bibtex Estimating predator abundance can be challenging. Many predators are inherently difficult to detect due to their low population densities, large home ranges and cryptic behaviour. Detection rates derived from camera traps, spotlight surveys and track counts in sand plots are often used as indices of abundance. However, many factors can influence a species' detection rate and the extent to which it might reflect the species' actual abundance. I investigated the relationships between detections, abundance and activity of two sympatric predators, the Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) and the feral cat (Felis catus). I used camera traps to detect devils and feral cats across eastern Tasmania in southern Australia, where devil populations have progressively and variably declined since 1996 following the spread of the fatal devil facial tumour disease. Devil and cat detections on individual cameras were negatively correlated; however, this was unrelated to abundance. While cats and devils were detected at nearly all of the same sites, cats appeared to avoid devils over short distances, suggesting that negative relationships in detections at the camera scale may reflect fine-scale behavioural avoidance rather than suppression of abundance. These findings highlight the importance of understanding avoidance behaviour when designing surveys to detect predators and when using indices to infer interactions or numerical relationships among sympatric predators. These findings also provide a cautionary tale that highlights the need to consider alternative hypotheses to explain observed patterns, as the implications for species conservation and management outcomes could vary dramatically.
@Report{Fancourt2016,
author = {Fancourt, Bronwyn A.},
title = {Avoiding the subject: the implications of avoidance behaviour for detecting predators},
year = {2016},
pages = {1--12},
doi = {10.1007/s00265-016-2162-7},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00265-016-2162-7},
abstract = {Estimating predator abundance can be challenging. Many predators are
inherently difficult to detect due to their low population densities,
large home ranges and cryptic behaviour. Detection rates derived
from camera traps, spotlight surveys and track counts in sand plots
are often used as indices of abundance. However, many factors can
influence a species' detection rate and the extent to which it might
reflect the species' actual abundance. I investigated the relationships
between detections, abundance and activity of two sympatric predators,
the Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) and the feral cat (Felis
catus). I used camera traps to detect devils and feral cats across
eastern Tasmania in southern Australia, where devil populations have
progressively and variably declined since 1996 following the spread
of the fatal devil facial tumour disease. Devil and cat detections
on individual cameras were negatively correlated; however, this was
unrelated to abundance. While cats and devils were detected at nearly
all of the same sites, cats appeared to avoid devils over short distances,
suggesting that negative relationships in detections at the camera
scale may reflect fine-scale behavioural avoidance rather than suppression
of abundance. These findings highlight the importance of understanding
avoidance behaviour when designing surveys to detect predators and
when using indices to infer interactions or numerical relationships
among sympatric predators. These findings also provide a cautionary
tale that highlights the need to consider alternative hypotheses
to explain observed patterns, as the implications for species conservation
and management outcomes could vary dramatically.},
file = {:Fancourt2016.pdf:PDF},
issn = {1432-0762},
journal = {Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology},
owner = {Tiago Marques},
timestamp = {2016.06.20},
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"s48BCYnkpYAJdo6ta","bibbaseid":"fancourt-avoidingthesubjecttheimplicationsofavoidancebehaviourfordetectingpredators-2016","authorIDs":[],"author_short":["Fancourt, B. A."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"report","type":"report","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Fancourt"],"firstnames":["Bronwyn","A."],"suffixes":[]}],"title":"Avoiding the subject: the implications of avoidance behaviour for detecting predators","year":"2016","pages":"1–12","doi":"10.1007/s00265-016-2162-7","url":"http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00265-016-2162-7","abstract":"Estimating predator abundance can be challenging. Many predators are inherently difficult to detect due to their low population densities, large home ranges and cryptic behaviour. Detection rates derived from camera traps, spotlight surveys and track counts in sand plots are often used as indices of abundance. However, many factors can influence a species' detection rate and the extent to which it might reflect the species' actual abundance. I investigated the relationships between detections, abundance and activity of two sympatric predators, the Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) and the feral cat (Felis catus). I used camera traps to detect devils and feral cats across eastern Tasmania in southern Australia, where devil populations have progressively and variably declined since 1996 following the spread of the fatal devil facial tumour disease. Devil and cat detections on individual cameras were negatively correlated; however, this was unrelated to abundance. While cats and devils were detected at nearly all of the same sites, cats appeared to avoid devils over short distances, suggesting that negative relationships in detections at the camera scale may reflect fine-scale behavioural avoidance rather than suppression of abundance. These findings highlight the importance of understanding avoidance behaviour when designing surveys to detect predators and when using indices to infer interactions or numerical relationships among sympatric predators. These findings also provide a cautionary tale that highlights the need to consider alternative hypotheses to explain observed patterns, as the implications for species conservation and management outcomes could vary dramatically.","file":":Fancourt2016.pdf:PDF","issn":"1432-0762","journal":"Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology","owner":"Tiago Marques","timestamp":"2016.06.20","bibtex":"@Report{Fancourt2016,\r\n author = {Fancourt, Bronwyn A.},\r\n title = {Avoiding the subject: the implications of avoidance behaviour for detecting predators},\r\n year = {2016},\r\n pages = {1--12},\r\n doi = {10.1007/s00265-016-2162-7},\r\n url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00265-016-2162-7},\r\n abstract = {Estimating predator abundance can be challenging. Many predators are\r\n\tinherently difficult to detect due to their low population densities,\r\n\tlarge home ranges and cryptic behaviour. Detection rates derived\r\n\tfrom camera traps, spotlight surveys and track counts in sand plots\r\n\tare often used as indices of abundance. However, many factors can\r\n\tinfluence a species' detection rate and the extent to which it might\r\n\treflect the species' actual abundance. I investigated the relationships\r\n\tbetween detections, abundance and activity of two sympatric predators,\r\n\tthe Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) and the feral cat (Felis\r\n\tcatus). I used camera traps to detect devils and feral cats across\r\n\teastern Tasmania in southern Australia, where devil populations have\r\n\tprogressively and variably declined since 1996 following the spread\r\n\tof the fatal devil facial tumour disease. Devil and cat detections\r\n\ton individual cameras were negatively correlated; however, this was\r\n\tunrelated to abundance. While cats and devils were detected at nearly\r\n\tall of the same sites, cats appeared to avoid devils over short distances,\r\n\tsuggesting that negative relationships in detections at the camera\r\n\tscale may reflect fine-scale behavioural avoidance rather than suppression\r\n\tof abundance. These findings highlight the importance of understanding\r\n\tavoidance behaviour when designing surveys to detect predators and\r\n\twhen using indices to infer interactions or numerical relationships\r\n\tamong sympatric predators. These findings also provide a cautionary\r\n\ttale that highlights the need to consider alternative hypotheses\r\n\tto explain observed patterns, as the implications for species conservation\r\n\tand management outcomes could vary dramatically.},\r\n file = {:Fancourt2016.pdf:PDF},\r\n issn = {1432-0762},\r\n journal = {Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology},\r\n owner = {Tiago Marques},\r\n timestamp = {2016.06.20},\r\n}\r\n\r\n","author_short":["Fancourt, B. A."],"key":"Fancourt2016","id":"Fancourt2016","bibbaseid":"fancourt-avoidingthesubjecttheimplicationsofavoidancebehaviourfordetectingpredators-2016","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00265-016-2162-7"},"downloads":0,"html":""},"bibtype":"report","biburl":"http://distancelive.xyz/MainBibFile.bib","creationDate":"2020-06-16T14:23:33.474Z","downloads":0,"keywords":[],"search_terms":["avoiding","subject","implications","avoidance","behaviour","detecting","predators","fancourt"],"title":"Avoiding the subject: the implications of avoidance behaviour for detecting predators","year":2016,"dataSources":["RjvoQBP8rG4o3b4Wi"]}