Patch use as an indicator of habitat preference, predation risk, and competition

By Joel s. Brown. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 2004

1,164 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/644888c2fc8d729bf19e25ec0c6a774f628eeefc

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

WOLVES INFLUENCE ELK MOVEMENTS: BEHAVIOR SHAPES A TROPHIC CASCADE IN YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK (2005, background): “Predators can have a significant influence on the use of resources by their prey (Brown 1988, 1999, Lima and Dill 1990), because prey species not only need to find high-quality food patches, but also need to minimize the risks of becoming food themselves.”
Risk vs. reward: how predators and prey respond to aging olfactory cues (2013, methodology): “Experiment 1: Prey responses to fresh and aged predator cues We used the giving-up density method (GUD; Brown 1988) to examine the responses of free-ranging bush rats to predator odor treatments of differing ages during the Austral spring at Kuringai Chase National Park, 20 km north of Sydney,…”
Rodent foraging is affected by indirect, but not by direct, cues of predation risk (2004, methodology): “As a foraging rodent depletes the seeds, diminishing returns are realized (Brown, 1988; Morris and Davidson, 2000).”
Evolutionary Game Theory and Adaptive Dynamics of Continuous Traits (2007, background): “Although not explicit, they considered the ESS (given Equations 10 and 11 below) to be both resistant to invasion and convergent stable (Brown & Vincent 1987b; Vincent & Brown 1984, 1988; Vincent et al. 1996).”
Meta-analysis of foraging and predation risk trade-offs in terrestrial systems (2006, background): “Because measuring energyreturn rates offoragersis both difficult and time-intensive, Brown (1988) recommends the use of a correlate of energy return rate, namely, the givingup-density (GUD), which is the resource density remaining after an animal has utilized a given patch.”
Scale dependency and functional response in moose habitat selection (2009, background): “…in Stephens and Krebs 1986) suggests that the value in terms of fitness gain of a resource is to some extent a function of its availability (Charnov 1976), whereas the availability of resources within a habitat type influences the time spent by an individual in that habitat type (Brown 1988).”
Habitat heterogeneity and mammalian predator–prey interactions (2012, background): “The so-called giving-up density, ‘the density of resources within a patch at which an individual ceases foraging’ (Brown 1988) separates the effects of resource availability and perceived predation risk on prey space use (Andruskiw et al. 2008, Searle et al. 2008) and can be combined with…”
Antipredator strategies of house finches: are urban habitats safe spots from predators even when humans are around? (2009, background): “abundance of predators or human disturbance), animals may increase scanning, leave foraging patches earlier, and increase their use of refuge patches (Brown 1988; Pickett et al. 2005).”
Living in a landscape of fear: the impact of predation, resource availability and habitat structure on primate range use (2014, neutral): “Spatial variation in perceived predation risk has often been conceptualized as a ‘landscape of fear’ (Brown & Kotler, 2004; Brown, Laundre, & Gurung, 1999; Laundré, Hernandez, & Altendorf, 2001), with approaches such as giving-up densities quantifying the trade-offs animals make between nutrient acq”
Should I stay or should I go? Patch departure decisions by herbivores at multiple scales (2005, methodology): “Giving up densities (GUDs, Brown 1988) have been used to assess if animals tend to leave all patches at the same quitting level of intake rate, as predicted by the MVT. Kotler et al. (1994) found that Nubian ibex (Capra nubiana) tended to equalize final food densities when foraging in patches of alf”
Comparative ecology of desert small mammals: a selective review of the past 30 years (2011, background): “That both competition and predation alter activity and habitat selection by small mammals is not a novel observation (Abramsky et al. 1998; Brown 1988; Kotler et al. 1988), and an either–or paradigm emphasizing the importance and role of only 1 of these factors is no longer productive.”
Hazardous duty pay and the foraging cost of predation (2004, background): “The ratio of the fitness consequences of being killed by a predator with the fitness consequences of energy gain provides the MRS of energy for safety ( Brown 1988, 1992 ).”
Risk management in optimal foragers: the effect of sightlines and predator type on patch use, time allocation, and vigilance in gerbils (2011, background): “Such factors will also infl uence patch use and lead to higher quitting harvest rates and giving-up densities (GUDs, the amount of food left in resource patches following exploitation; Brown 1988, 1999; Table 1).”
Predation risk and habitat selection of Australian house mice , Mus domesticus, during an incipient plague: desperate behaviour due to food depletion (2002, background): “Brown (1988, 1992), building on MacArthur and Pianka (1966), developed a ‘‘giving-up density’’ (GUD) approach for the study of feeding behaviour, predation risk, and habitat selection.”
How can we apply theories of habitat selection to wildlife conservation and management (2003, result): “Our results, using the givingup-densities of seeds left in otherwise identical sand-filled foraging patches ( Brown 1988, 1992 ), confirmed both”