Antipredator responses of koomal (Trichosurus vulpecula hypoleucus) against introduced and native predators |
| |
Authors: | Jennyffer Cruz Duncan R. Sutherland Dean P. Anderson Alistair S. Glen Paul J. de Tores Luke K.-P. Leung |
| |
Affiliation: | 1. School of Agriculture and Food Sciences, University of Queensland, Gatton, QLD, 4343, Australia 2. Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre, University of Canberra, Kirinari St, Bruce, ACT, 2617, Australia 3. Department of Environment and Conservation, Dwellingup Research Centre, Banksiadale Rd, Dwellingup, WA, 6213, Australia 4. Landcare Research, PO Box 40, Lincoln, 7640, New Zealand 5. Research Department, Phillip Island Nature Parks, PO Box 97, Cowes, 3922, Australia
|
| |
Abstract: | Antipredator behavior studies generally assess prey responses to single predator species although most real systems contain multiple species. In multi-predator environments prey ideally use antipredator responses that are effective against all predator species, although responses may only be effective against one predator and counterproductive for another. Multi-predator systems may also include introduced predators that the prey did not co-evolve with, so the prey may either fail to recognize their threat (level 1 naiveté), use ineffective responses (level 2 naiveté) or succumb to their superior hunting ability (level 3 naiveté). We analyzed microhabitat selection of an Australian marsupial (koomal, Trichosurus vulpecula hypoleucus) when faced with spatiotemporal differences in the activity/density levels of one native (chuditch, Dasyurus geoffroii) and two introduced predators (red fox, Vulpes vulpes; feral cat, Felis catus). From this, we inferred whether koomal recognized introduced predators as a threat, and whether they minimized predation risk by either staying close to trees and/or using open or dense microhabitats. Koomal remained close to escape trees regardless of the predator species present, or activity/density levels, suggesting koomal employ this behavior as a first line of defense. Koomal shifted to dense cover only under high risk scenarios (i.e., with multiple predator species present at high densities). When predation risk was low, koomal used open microhabitats, which likely provided benefits not associated with predator avoidance. Koomal did not exhibit level 1 naiveté, although further studies are required to determine if they exhibit higher levels of naiveté (2–3) against foxes and cats. |
| |
Keywords: | |
本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录! |
|