Jean-Louis Martin, Simon Chamaillé-Jammes, Anne Salomon, Devana Veronica Gomez Pourroy, Mathilde Schlaeflin, Soizic Le Saout, Annick Lucas, Ilham Bentaleb, Simon Chollet, Jake Pattison, Soline Martin-Blangy , Anthony J. GastonPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"
<p>The “ecology of fear” posits that predation risk shapes the behaviour of large herbivores, their foraging patterns, their habitat selection and their consequent effect on forest ecology. To test some of these predictions we used the extensive empirical and experimental data on vegetation cover and composition, and on deer anti-predator behaviour, collected at study sites with different histories of hunting and natural predation in the Haida Gwaii archipelago and in nearby areas of coastal British Columbia (Canada). Because these deer also forage in the intertidal, an habitat hypothetically more exposed to risk, we also analysed how risk affected intertidal foraging by measuring the proportion of marine versus terrestrial stable isotopes in deer bone collagen.</p>
<p>In absence of risk, deer had a strong negative effect on understory vegetation cover and plant composition. In these populations deer had a remarkable tolerance to human presence (short flight initiation and travel distances when disturbed), a willingness to consume foreign bait or to investigate baited traps, and a propensity to be active at daytime.</p>
<p>Where deer faced long term hunting and natural predators, understories were denser and more diverse and resembled those of forests never exposed to deer. Severe deer culling in sites initially without risk dramatically increased the cover of understory vegetation, although different in composition from the one in forests with long-term presence of predators and hunting, or that never had deer. Deer born after culling exhibited longer flight initiation distances and travel distances when fleeing, a reluctance to consume foreign bait or to investigate baited traps, and increased night-time foraging.</p>
<p>The translocation of unwary deer from a population without risk to the island where culls had partially restored the vegetation, showed that their unwary behaviour was not significantly modified in the presence of abundant and higher quality forage. This contrasted with the wary behaviour observed in the local deer born after the culls.</p>
<p>Finally, deer in populations exposed to risk from hunters and/or predators were less likely to forage in the intertidal, although this trend might be, to some extent, affected by resources in the understory.</p>
<p>We interpreted our results as evidence that risk is key in shaping, and potentially selecting for, lasting behavioural contrasts between deer populations, contrasts intimately connected to deer effects on plant cover and diversity, ecological networks, and ecosystem complexity.</p>
herbivore habitat effects, ecology of fear, behaviour and predation risk, anti-predator behaviour, behavioural change, fear and habitat selection
Behaviour & Ethology, Biodiversity, Community ecology, Ecosystem functioning, Food webs, Foraging, Habitat selection, Herbivory, Population ecology
Michael Gillingham michael@unbc.ca, Anne Loison anne.loison@univ-savoie.fr, Jean-Pierre Tremblay Jean-Pierre.Tremblay@bio.ulaval.ca, Steeve Côté Steeve.Cote@bio.ulaval.ca, Chris Darimont darimont@ucsc.edu, Steeve Côté suggested: David Waller, Chris T. Darimont suggested: Justine Smith, Chris T. Darimont suggested: Liana Zanette, Chris T. Darimont suggested: Justin Suraci, Jean-Pierre Tremblay suggested: emilie champagne emilie.champagne@mrnf.gouv.qc.ca, Michael Gillingham suggested: Steeve Cote steeve.cote@bio.ulaval.ca, Michael Clinchy suggested: Michael Cherry Michael.Cherry@tamuk.edu, Michael Clinchy suggested: Dries Kuijper dkuijper@ibs.bialowieza.pl, Colby Henderson suggested: Garrett Street, Erik R. Olson suggested: Tim Van Deelen trvandeelen@wisc.edu
e.g. John Doe john@doe.com
No need for them to be recommenders of PCIEcology. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct
