Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorCreel, Scott
dc.contributor.authorWinnie, John A. Jr.
dc.contributor.authorChristianson, David A.
dc.date.accessioned2015-02-12T22:23:20Z
dc.date.available2015-02-12T22:23:20Z
dc.date.issued2013-11
dc.identifier.citationCreel S, Winnie JA, Christianson D. 2013 Underestimating the frequency, strength and cost of anti-predator responses with data from GPS collars: an example with wolves and elk. Ecology and Evolution 3: 5189-5200.en_US
dc.identifier.issn2045-7758
dc.identifier.urihttps://scholarworks.montana.edu/xmlui/handle/1/8845
dc.description.abstractField 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 len_US
dc.subjectEcologyen_US
dc.subjectAnimal behavioren_US
dc.titleUnderestimating the frequency, strength and cost of anti-predator responses with data from GPS collars: an example with wolves and elk.en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
mus.citation.extentfirstpage5189en_US
mus.citation.extentlastpage5200en_US
mus.citation.issue16en_US
mus.citation.journaltitleEcology and Evolutionen_US
mus.citation.volume3en_US
mus.identifier.categoryLife Sciences & Earth Sciencesen_US
mus.identifier.doi10.1002/ece3.896en_US
mus.relation.collegeCollege of Letters & Scienceen_US
mus.relation.collegeCollege of Letters & Science
mus.relation.departmentEcology.en_US
mus.relation.universityMontana State University - Bozemanen_US
mus.contributor.orcidCreel, Scott|0000-0003-3170-6113en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


MSU uses DSpace software, copyright © 2002-2017  Duraspace. For library collections that are not accessible, we are committed to providing reasonable accommodations and timely access to users with disabilities. For assistance, please submit an accessibility request for library material.